The coalition shouldn't assume that there is no limit to public support for welfare cuts

With the government viewed as out of touch with families on low incomes, the mood could yet turn against austerity.

The government could be making a serious political blunder if it believes that talking tough on 'welfare' is enough for people to be persuaded that it’s "on the side of hardworking people". 

Hot on the heels of news from the latest British Social Attitudes survey that there has been a significant fall in the number of people who believe benefit payments are too high, the Child Poverty Action Group is today publishing YouGov polling showing that the vast majority of the public believe the government is out of touch with families on low incomes and middle incomes.

Despite some of the harshest political rhetoric for years, widely seen as aimed at pitting the hard-pressed ('strivers') against benefit claimants ('skivers'), nearly seven in ten (69%) people think the coalition government does not understand the concerns of people on low incomes. This view is strongly supported by voters of all the main parties in the 2010 election, raising important questions about the limits of public support for the coalition’s cuts to social security. 

Today, the Child Poverty Action Group is launching a campaign asking politicians – of all parties – to forget the stereotypes and remember that benefit claimants are 'People Like Us'.

As part of this, we’re inviting party leaders to watch a film we’re releasing of three ordinary people receiving benefits talking about their concerns. It cannot be right that debates on the reform of the social security system - a major public service after all - have become obse ssed with misleading stereotypes, which have crowded out the reality of who really claims benefits and why they need this support.

It’s only from listening to the experiences of ordinary people that we can have a sensible debate and policies that promote jobs, tackle low pay, promote affordable housing and childcare and help families with the added costs of children. Policies that people want and need.

One of the truths that is regularly obscured by the myths and stereotypes is that the vast majority of claimants have worked, and will work again. If politicians are genuine about getting on side with 'hardworking people' they should talk more about strengthening social security, or the security of family finances, and put a stop to beating up on social security claimants.

Demonstrators hold placards protest against the bedroom tax outside the High Court on 15 May 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Alison Garnham is chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496