A poll to calm the coalition's nerves

Poll shows 83 per cent support child benefit decision - Labour must be clearer in its defence of the

A new YouGov poll showing that 83 per cent of the public support the coalition's decision to abolish child benefit for higher rate taxpayers will calm some jangled nerves in the Tory Party. The survey at least confirms, as progressives have long argued, that the majority of voters support tax increases on higher-earners.

But for those, like me, who believe that universal child benefit is an essential pillar of the welfare state, it's still a dispiriting poll. Yvette Cooper, who increasingly looks like a good bet for shadow chancellor, has done a good job of linking the move to the coalition's other anti-family measures (the abolition of baby bonds, the three-year freeze in child benefit, the abolition of the health in maternity grant, the withdrawal of child tax credits from higher-earners) but Labour must mount a much clearer, principled defence of a universal welfare state.

Yet dig below the headline findings and there is some evidence of public discontent. Asked if a couple on £30,000 each should receive child benefit when one earner on £44,000 doesn't, 46 per cent say no and 41 per cent say the anomaly is "not ideal but acceptable".

Poll

Latest poll (YouGov/Sun) Conservatives 13 seats short of a majority

Elsewhere, there's more good news for the Tories, who seem to have enjoyed a conference poll bounce. The YouGov daily tracker puts them up two points to 43 per cent, with Labour unchanged on 39 per cent and the Lib Dems down one to 11 per cent. But, with the spending review now just two weeks away, this may be one of the last polls the Tories can take encouragement from.

New Statesman Poll of Polls

Poll

Hung parliament, Labour 15 seats short.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496