The high taxes is because only 40% of the uk population is actually working and we need to pay for an ageing population (tory voters)
High welfare- many people are on nhs waiting lists so can't work. High rents mean more people are pushed into having to claim housing benefit or they will become homeless (more homeless people or people living in hotel rooms or other homeless shelters which costs more than just paying the rent in the first place). Our individualistic way of nuclear family living relies on a strong economy with adequately paid jobs for the bottom 20%; this hasn't been the case for the past 14 years hence men don't have the confidence to marry and instead engage in short term relationships with women, scupper once the women get pregnant and the women have to shoulder the burden of raising the child and also have to rely on help from the state. Women also don't want to marry men with no economic prospects (and are less likely to stay married or partnered up if there is economic instability and strife) but in 80% of cases, if there is a child (and a low paid single mum), welfare would be needed. Most graduate middle class couples are married (even if they are quite old when they do it) and often stay married, this also distorts the housing market cos the small supply of houses get bought up by such couples while working class women who are more likely to be single with children cannot compete on the housing market and are forced into precarious private rental if they can't get social housing/have to rely on housing benefit and childcare support from the state.
High immigration- care workers paid badly so need to recruit from overseas. Many people also sick so the people who used to work as careworkers go into other jobs which pay better since there is less competition. Higher education our second largest industry after finance and very important engine of growth for the regions- more international students. Also NHS staff are badly paid and attrition is high, morale low so need to recruit for overseas. Ageing population exacerbates it all.
Its not a left vs right debate anymore, it is about economics and our broken system. We are past the point of revamping it, so we need to paper over the cracks which results in high taxes and high immigration. Changing it would mean revamping our entire societal structure aka family playing a much larger role which i am not even sure conservatives are in favour of, let alone the left.
i am from Singapore where there are no unemployment benefits, state pensions or free healthcare but people survive. the family plays a much bigger role and people save 20% of their income every month for housing (they buy their own due to 89% home ownership so no need for housing benefit and live with family until their flat is built), healthcare (mandatory insurance and only 60-90% subsidy) and retirement (no state pension). Childcare often done by the elderly. Much lower rate of divorce generally. Totally different family structure and a level of social engineering that would make most tories wince (even if they like the very low taxes- average of 8% for most singaporeans and no welfare). Ethnic quotas in social housing, majority of people living in social housing (that they buy), lots of intrusive laws on what you can and cannot do. However, i would argue that the intrusiveness (as well as being a financial centre city state) is what is required to keep the taxes low. If you have good behaviour, you do not need to use welfare to paper over the cracks aka if people are incentivized to keep healthy, be peaceful and considerate and form strong family structures, then you spend less money in the long run trying to police antisocial behavior or making up for some idiot's inability to be a responsible father.
I am not saying the singaporean model is able to be replicated, i am just explaining the costs and benefits of each model and how the fantasy of the libertarian model is not compatible with our current society.
'Singapore is a lesson in what can be done when this mental trap is avoided. If the mark of a thinking person is a having a weird mix of beliefs, the island has had a few among its policymakers. This is a high-income nation where most people live in public housing. It is a private-sector paradise where civil servants can earn a fortune. It has an acute sense of independence from the west but uses English as the main language of instruction. Conservatives in Britain and America have tended to regard the island as proof of concept: look what stern laws and low taxes can do. (It was under President Reagan that LKY addressed the US Congress.) But the government involves itself in matters of identity to an extent that would make the same people flinch. The Singaporean “method” has been to come at each question afresh. The result is a lack of pattern: a libertarian nanny state. '