The coalition's woes with women

For the Liberal Democrats there is both extreme risk and a glimmer of opportunity.

If you want to see a fearful expression, talk to senior coalition members about shifting patterns of support among women voters. Call it a cold-sweat, or a premature onset of mid-term jitters -- they are distinctly, indisputably on edge. Which is odd, at least on the face of it, given that the Conservatives -- if not their Coalition partners -- are currently polling at broadly similar levels of support to the last election. So what explains this onset of nerves?

To help answer that question the Resolution Foundationasked Ipsos MORI to undertake a detailed analysis of voting intentions in the first half of 2011 compared to the 2010 general election result. The findings are striking - and they reveal one thing beyond doubt: when it comes to support amongst women, the Coalition does have reason to be anxious, even if some of the recent comment on this issue has been overblown.

Source: Ipsos MORI
Base: 10,211 GB adults aged 18+, 19 March-5 May 2010; 7,176 GB adults aged 18+, January-July 2011

Of course, it's important to tread very carefully when talking about the so-called women's vote (itself a meaningless phrase -- when do you ever hear politicians talking about the "men's vote"?). Sensible generalisations can rarely be made about half the electorate. Nor do the headline figures stand up the contention that a dramatic gender gap in electoral support has opened up. Most people, regardless of gender, care about the same issues -- jobs, inflation and living standards; crime; immigration and the NHS.

And the impact of age, class, occupation and geography often trumps that of sex in explaining differences.

But make no mistake, and despite all the caveats, some shifts are occurring. It's well established that at the last general election, women were on average more likely to vote for the Liberal Democrats than men (26 per cent v 22 per cent), as well as Labour (31 per cent v 28 per cent).

Less understood and more interesting are the staggering variations that exist underneath these headline figures. Women aged 25-34 were more likely to vote for Labour than the Conservatives (11-point lead) whereas C2 female voters (of all ages) were dramatically more likely to back the Conservatives than Labour (by a remarkable 17 points), fully reversing Labour's towering 18 point advantage among the same group in 1997.

Following the 2010 election, during the early and easy days of the Coalition, Tory support climbed among women, reaching a commanding 45 per cent in one poll at the end of 2010, hovering just below 40 per cent in others, compared to around 34 per cent of men. Since then the Tories' lead amongst women has fallen, dropping below that of men in many polls.

Perhaps more noteworthy is that overall levels of 'approval' for the Coalition have fallen to 25 per cent among women, 8 per cent lower than for men. Just 13 per cent of women feel that the Conservative Party is the party which is closest to women and best understands and reflects their views; plummeting to 7 per cent for the Lib Dems. When it comes to their personal ratings both Cameron and Clegg have a deficit of 6 per centamongst women compared to men. No wonder Downing Street strategists -- both Conservative and Lib Dem -- are jumpy.

Given that these headline findings about "women's attitudes" inevitably conceal more than they reveal it is vital to get a more granular account of changes in political support amongst different groups of women. To make a start at this we can break down levels of support in 2011 by age and social class compared to those in the 2010 election (admittedly still very broad and crude categories).

The results are intriguing. In terms of social class we see that both the Tories and Lib Dems have haemorrhaged support amongst C2 women (typically skilled manual workers), often key voters in swing seats. In contrast the Tories have actually gained support amongst female AB voters (professional and managerial), and seen their support hold steady amongst male C2s.

The Lib Dems have performed even worse amongst female ABs than other classes. They also show that the proportion of women aged 18-24 who support the Tories has declined from an already low 30 per cent at the General Election to just 18 per cent in 2011, while support among the same group for Liberal Democrats has collapsed from 34 per cent to just 8 per cent, meaning the coalition has succeeded in losing 38 per cent of its support among this group. To be clear, male voting intentions have also moved in the same direction but to a lesser extent.

 

Source: Ipsos MORI
Base: 10,211 GB adults aged 18+, 19 March-5 May 2010; 7,176 GB adults aged 18+, January-July 2011

There are plenty of potential explanations for these shifts -- though very little hard evidence as to which is most telling. Much of the media comment earlier in the year focused on some of the Coalition's unfortunate symbolic moments which have pierced the public consciousness -- from David Cameron's "Michael Winner moment" during PMQs to Ken Clarke's linguistic contortions over rape.

More recently the focus has switched to the way in which the deteriorating economic situation is impacting on many women, particularly those on low-to-middle incomes. Over the last quarter unemployment increased by 38,000, with 21,000 being women. Female unemployment had already risen by 76,900 over the last year - with the number of women out of work now 1.05 million, the highest since the spring of 1988 - and the forecasts are that female unemployment will continue to rise as women are disproportionately suffering due to their higher concentration in the public sector. Qualitative research suggests that women are more inclined to be pessimistic about the economy and feel they are more likely to lose out as a result of cuts. On top of this, particular groups of women -- such as those in their 50s -- are being faced with major shifts in their pension age that they weren't anticipating, causing real concern.

As Ben Page of Ipsos Morri says, "Women, and working class women in particular, are shifting away from the government, reflecting the fact that they are hardest hit by both the recession and cuts in public spending."

Given the wider economic context of falling wages and rising prices you might think it is a uniquely dumb moment to be making it more difficult for households to sustain two people in work by withdrawing childcare support. But that is what is happening.

As leading welfare expert Donald Hirsch has pointed out, April's cut in support from 80 per cent to 70 per cent of eligible childcare costs may not sound all that much to some people - including ministers. Not, that is, until you work out what it means for the many families with young children struggling on low wages who will be most affected. A couple with two young children paying out £200 a week in childcare will need to find an extra £20 a week to recoup this lost tax-credit income. That's £1,000 a year of post-tax income.

What does this imply for their pre-tax earnings? To recover the full £1,000 they'd have to earn an extra £3,700. Fat chance. Many women are likely to conclude that work simply doesn't pay.

Some straws in the wind suggest these changes may be starting to take their toll. A poll out last week reported that the high costs of childcare were leading high proportion of low-income parents to consider reducing their hours or give up work; whilst another recent report found the number of families getting income from a second salary has fallen from 36 per cent in May this year to 30 per cent in August. Median monthly net family income dropped by two percentage points over the same period - the main determinant being an 8 per cent drop in women's incomes while men's incomes rose.

And now the mistake on childcare policy looks set to be compounded. As was first flagged up in spring, and has been back in the news over the summer, there are further changes in the pipeline - as childcare support gets integrated within the universal credit, making employment even less worthwhile for many working mothers. (Note that when it comes to childcare it is low-earners who will bear the brunt of reduced support, the tax-relief going to higher-earners via childcare vouchers remains unscathed by the Coalition).

Stir into this cocktail the proposed abolition of Child Benefit for higher rate tax payers scheduled for 2013, the most aggrieved victims of which will be women in single-earner households living on just over £40,000. Their outrage will be given added piquancy if this coincides -- as is widely tipped -- with the abolition of the 50p tax rate, benefiting the richest 1 per cent of earners, the majority of whom are, of course, men.

Clearly all this gives Labour a lot to aim at -and there has been no-shortage of tactical attacks. Labour's polling position has strengthened, especially among C2 women. But they are yet to convert improved poll ratings based on protest into solid support, and still need to grapple with the deeper sociological and economic changes in UK society that will reshape the nature of the electoral coalition required to win in 2015.

For the Liberal Democrats there is both extreme risk and a glimmer of opportunity. The risk, of course, is that their shattered support among working women continues to act as an anchor on their overall levels of support as the party soaks up blame for unpopular decisions. The opportunity as they see it is to rebuild some of their bedrock support by differentiating themselves on issues thoughts to appeal to key groups of women. Senior Lib Dem strategists are seized of the need for this and see "our catastrophic loss of support amongst working women, especially C1s/C2s, as perhaps our biggest electoral challenge", more so even than the collapse amongst 18-24s who tend to vote less. "If we are not seen as a party of mainstream working women we are nowhere."

Expect senior Lib Dems to use their Conference to package their flagship policies on tax-allowances, part-time students, and shared parental leave to make this point. And don't be surprised to see them playing up what they see as the social conservatism of both main parties -- whether it be Nadine Dorries on the right, or the mis-firings of Blue Labour on the left, as evidence that they are more in tune with the mood of mainstream women.

The reality, though, is that in times like these, economics tends to dominate. As senior Lib Dems concede, the party has little chance of getting a hearing if the Coalition's agenda -- particularly on issues like childcare - is seen as another threat to living standards. Which explains why they view further proposed cuts to childcare with escalating levels of anxiety, and why Nick Clegg has inserted himself in key Whitehall discussions on the future of the childcare tax-credit.

Clegg will no doubt find that fights like these -- with spending implications - are the toughest. Unfortunately for him they are a key litmus test for his ability to improve the lives of low-to-middle income working mothers. Cuts to childcare support are hitting working women where it hurts at the worst possible moment. For their sake, as well as his own, this is a battle the Lib Dem leader needs to win.

Gavin Kelly is a former adviser to Downing Street and the Treasury. He tweets @GavinJKelly1.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.