UK Director @Moreincommon_, Previously Director @TheNSN, @Ofstednews & DfE SpAd (he/him)
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
To test this further, we recently polled what proportion of Government spending people thought would be spent on different areas over the next few years. The average answer for spending on MPs pay was 8% of total spending.https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1431170783288647682 …
When asked about the total percentage of Government spending that would be spent on the transition to net zero the public put it at 10% of the total.pic.twitter.com/hQz0znsn4q
Clearly that’s far higher than even the most expensive estimates of the amount Government needs to spend to get to net zero, and challenges somewhat the narrative that people haven’t factored in the cost of climate change.
And that it might be better to be talking about transition costs in terms of percentage of spending rather than pledging ever more billions without the wider context.
Similarly maybe a help for campaigners on international aid, the public think a much larger proportion of Government spending goes on aid than actually does. The public put that aid spending at 6% of all Government spending.pic.twitter.com/neQSgCX8LI
Back to MPs pay, it’s clear then from these figures that there is a real disconnect between how much our parliamentarians are costing the taxpayer. Put another way people currently put spending on MPs pay at roughly half what we spend on the NHS.pic.twitter.com/SCkaS8TMpt
Is that a reflection of general lack of trust/sleaze, the way MPs pay is covered, perceptions of expenses, the fact the wage is so much higher than the average, that MPs are bad advocates for the amount of value for money they provide?
I would say the public have net zero about right on current policy, although general cost increases & burdens placed on individuals will mean they pay for much of it privately on current trajectory rather than it occurring via Government spending. We need abundant cheap energy.
The disparity for ‘Other’ is also interesting, suggesting the public in general doesn’t have a clear view of what govt actually does alongside the named categories.
How was the question asked, in terms of making sure participants' answers added up to 100%? Did it start with 8.3% (1/12) in each category and then participants increased or decreased the numbers accordingly?
This simply indicates when you ask someone who has no idea what the real answer is, they make up a number around 10%. Works for almost all of the responses here.
was 'Other' in the given options, or is that a wrapping up of a higher number of options they were given?
Other was given
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
