Romney says 47% of US voters are "dependent" and will never vote for him

Secret video reveals Republican candidate describing 47% of voters as "victims" who will always vote for Obama.

If you're running for president of the United States, it's advisable not to dismiss 47% of the electorate as scroungers who will never vote for you, especially if you're a multi-millionaire who paid just 13.9% in tax in 2010. But that's exactly what Mitt Romney has done. Mother Jones has just released a secretely recorded video in which the Republican candidate is shown telling a private donor dinner that 47% of US voters are "dependent upon government" and will vote for Obama "no matter what".

Asked by one donor how he could win in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax ... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

It's compassionless conservatism in its purest form.

You might reasonably argue that those offended probably wouldn't vote for Romney anyway (one often hears this sort of rhetoric from the Tea Party) and, therefore, that the tactless Republican had a point. But it's likely that the video will alienate many of the floating voters he needs to win over if he's to catch Obama in the polls, while also motivating disillusioned Democrats to vote. Among those who pay no income tax, for instance, are millions of pensioners (the most likely group to vote), whom one assumes won't take kindly to being described as "victims" and dependents, as well as students and the disabled, none of whom can be described as scroungers. At a time of economic stagnation, it's also unwise to imply that the unemployed, many of whom will have paid tax in the past (often at a higher rate than Romney), simply chose not to work.

With some success, the Democrats have portrayed Romney as a candidate with little concern for anyone but the wealthy - now they have all the proof they require. Worse, the video suggests he is an insincere man who says one thing in public and another behind closed doors, a fatal impression for any politician to create.

Here's how the Obama campaign responded tonight:

It’s shocking that a candidate for President of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives. It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.

Update: Mother Jones has just released another secret Romney video, this time featuring a series of ill-advised comments from the "former presidential hopeful" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Asked by one donor how the "Palestinian problem" could be solved, Romney replied that the Palestinians had "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish". He added: "I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of US voters "believe that they are victims". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.