Suchergebnisse

What is the effect of providing personally tailored budgetary information on public attitudes to tax and spending? We address this question with a survey experiment based on the annual tax summaries introduced by the UK tax authorities in 2014. By subtly manipulating the categories of state spending – in particular, the controversial category of 'welfare' – to invoke a sense of unfairness, we show how budget information in general and the United Kingdom's annual tax summaries in particular impact support for state spending. Though the stated aim of providing personalised tax receipts to income taxpayers is to enhance fiscal transparency, doing so may also damage support for state spending if the information provides a sense that existing redistribution is unfair. The article contributes to political science debates about public attitudes to tax and spending, the character and trade-offs of fiscal transparency, and the framing effects of welfare.

Recent accounts of British voting behaviour emphasise the importance of voters' valence judgements on deciding which party to support: significant numbers of voters do not rely on their membership of particular socio-economic groups or ideological preferences; instead, they rely on evaluations of government performance to determine their vote. Part of this evaluation comes from 'fast and frugal' heuristics such as their evaluations of party leaders and other senior politicians. Such heuristics have been shown to be influential in the United Kingdom's 2016 Brexit Referendum for example. We extend this research to show that the influence of leadership heuristics on individuals' chances of voting for Brexit varied depending on evaluations of leading politicians associated with the Remain and the Leave campaigns. Moreover, feelings toward the party leaders had a larger influence on the referendum votes of those holding middle-of-the-road views on Europe than on those who were themselves either strongly pro- or anti-EU.

Political scientists often debate how much information people have and deploy when making electoral decisions. Some scholars suggest that voters are aware of which party is likely to win in their local constituency at British general elections; however, this might not be the case in situations when there is substantial and spatially varying change in the relative fortunes of two or more parties between elections. That argument is evaluated here using as a case study the 2015 and 2017 general elections in Scotland: at the first, the SNP's vote share more than doubled, and it won 56 of the country's 59 seats, having won just six at the previous contest; at the second, its vote share fell by about a third, and it lost 21 of those 56 seats. Analysis of British Election Survey data collected before and during the campaigns preceding those elections shows that most respondents were aware of the SNP's surge in 2015 and expected their victory in every constituency. In 2017, most voters were aware which of the SNP's three competitors was the biggest threat in each constituency, and that awareness became clearer during the campaign; yet, voters – especially those who identified with the SNP and were contacted by it during the campaign – still (incorrectly) anticipated a local SNP victory.