The Guardian is most put out. Those in government have a discretionary pot of money to allocate and they’re using that discretion to send the money to those who voted for them:

Some of the wealthiest parts of England, including areas represented by government ministers, have so far been allocated 10 times more money per capita than the poorest under Boris Johnson’s “levelling up” agenda, Guardian analysis has found.

Quite why this should be a surprise to anyone entirely floors us.

It’s possible to take the 30,000 foot view here and insist that this is merely democracy happening. During the Blair years (or The Brown Terror, to taste) there was a significant reallocation of the proceeds of the uniform business rate. Richer, Tory voting areas ended up sending lots of that revenue off to poorer, Labour voting areas. Then came election time, those who promised to reverse this were elected and reverse it they did. Much of the more recent whining about cuts in council grants is a result of this process - the reversal of that subsidy across areas.

In that 30,000 foot view this is also what is supposed to happen. Folk get elected, do something, the electorate observes and considers and votes in the other lot to reverse it. Well, it is the people who are supposed to decide, right?

It’s also possible to take a more cynical view - although we prefer the marker “realistic” here. How does anyone think politics works? Votes are bought by promising nice things paid for with other peoples’ money. So, those who win elections will use other peoples’ money to reward their voters.

Shrug.

As to what we do about it, less government is the only possible answer. The incentives here are such that anyone who gains the power to benefit those who elect them to power will do so. That simply is how the game will be played whatever else anyone says about it. So, the only way to stop the bribery is to stop the ability to bribe.

If there never are discretionary pots to allocate, reallocations from voting block to voting block, then the voters cannot be bribed by those promises and revenue streams, can they?

Or, as is obviously true, and also so often true, minarchy is the solution to this problem.