Today, as the good people of Gorton and Denton head to the polls, we have published our 13th annual ‘State of the State’. The findings help provide context for why parties promising radical disruption may overturn a Labour majority of almost 13,500.
It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that satisfaction with public services is plummeting, nor that people are deeply pessimistic that services will improve. Indeed, the fact that trust in government is so low is unlikely to solicit much more than a ‘we know that’ shrug. But this toxic mix of dissatisfaction and distrust, coupled with a loss of faith that government can improve people’s lives, is underpinning the surge in support for political parties that are promising to upend the status quo.
The data is unequivocal. Every year, as part of ‘State of the State’, we poll almost 6,000 members of the public to understand their views and priorities for the state. This year, their top three priorities are the cost of living crisis (74%), the NHS (69%), and immigration and border security (53%) – the latter seeing a 10-point bump since 2023. Yet, 67% of people think the cost of living will get worse in the next few years, 54% think the NHS will get worse and 51% think immigration will worsen – and fewer than 15% think any of these will get better. That’s damning disillusionment.
It is perhaps unsurprising then that 38% think the UK should aim for lower taxes and/or borrowing even if that means lower spending, while just 24% think the opposite. The social contract has fractured. The public are very concerned about their personal finances, and despite the tax burden being high, they don’t think government is delivering for them – why would they want to pay more?
Changing the public’s view and rebuilding trust means changing that equation. It means delivering.
The other component of ‘State of the State’ is insights from public leaders themselves, based on more than 100 interviews. They too share the public’s frustration that delivery doesn’t always meet the government’s ambitions. Leaders identified skills shortages, delays to decision making, poor prioritisation, and weak lines of accountability as parts of the problem. But it was clear that officials understand the urgent need to speed up the pace of delivery, and indeed are energised to do so.
One part of the solution is devolution, which local leaders see as representing a big opportunity to spur delivery, both of public service reform and growth. As panellists from local and central government noted at a preview event for the report, it’s much easier to work across services and breakdown silos at a local level. Excitement about the devo direction of travel was, however, matched with a clear view that accountability must then shift from looking towards central government to looking to the local electorate.
Often presented as the solution to all ills, this year we wanted to better understand how both the public and the public services leaders see the potential of AI. There was a healthy dose of realism among both. The public see more risk than opportunity – among all age groups – but their concerns are focused on preserving the human element of services. Encouragingly for government, they are much less concerned about digital exclusion, or ethics or any risk to service quality. Ultimately, as long as people can speak to a person when they need to, and are confident that human oversight is in place, applying productivity boosting tech to back-end systems to speed up work flows, automate admin and intelligently support frontline services appears to fit with the public’s appetite for AI use.
Among public service leaders there was some frustration at the pace of deployment, with comments about relying on personal ChatGPT accounts and “a thousand flowers blooming” but a lack of clarity on the game-changing applications. One council chief exec talked of needing to “shift the dial” from exploiting “about 5-10% of what AI can do”. Legacy systems and inadequate leadership were identified as issues, but so too was the need to be more focused on scaling high-impact uses.
If devolution and the deployment of AI are two of the key routes to fixing the state, then rewiring Whitehall must underpin both. In interviews with senior officials there was a strong sense that talent is gridlocked, headcount too high and the employment offer outdated. A common refrain was “it’s the system” holding people back.
Whatever the result in Greater Manchester, public frustration with the state of the state is clear for all to see. The good news is that public service leaders see that, and we largely know the steps needed to change it. Government needs to show the courage to get on with it.
Charlotte Pickles is the director of the Re:State think tank