The public don't support further welfare cuts

A new poll shows that 72 per cent of voters want welfare spending to be increased or frozen.

George Osborne has long assumed that you can't cut welfare spending too hard. The Chancellor reduced benefits by £18bn in the 2010 Spending Review and by another £3.7bn in last year's Autumn Statement after the Lib Dems vetoed his preferred figure of £10bn. The common belief among the Tories is that there is no area of spending the voters would rather see shrunk.

But a new ComRes/ITV News poll on the government's spending plans suggests this assumption is mistaken. It found that a majority of people either want welfare spending to be increased (43 per cent) or frozen (29 per cent), with just 27 per cent in favour of further cuts. Welfare is the fourth most popular area for government spending, with transport, defence, public sector pensions, local government and international development all viewed as more deserving of cuts. 

The most popular area for spending is the NHS, a vindication of Osborne's decision to protect the service from cuts. Just five per cent of voters believe health spending should be reduced and 71 per cent believe it should be increased. 

Ahead of this summer's Spending Review, which will set departmental spending limits for 2015-16, the poll should strengthen the cause of Danny Alexander and Iain Duncan Smith who have formed a united front against further welfare cuts. Those such as the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, who have argued that their departments should be protected, with the burden of cuts instead falling on welfare, will no longer be able to claim that they have the public on their side. 

George Osborne walks into Downing Street to attend a security meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden on February 5, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

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