Why the young favour pensioner benefits over those for the unemployed

Focus groups reveal that young voters view older groups as more deserving. The sense of welfare as an insurance policy is being lost.

More than three-quarters of over 65s voted at the last election, compared with less than half of those aged 18–24. It is tempting to see this as the real reason behind the Prime Minister’s New Year pledge to protect pensions spending. Behind all the talk of "values" there is a fairly straightforward piece of electoral arithmetic.

In practice, however, this is more than simply pandering to the 'grey vote'. Demos/Ipsos-MORI research shows that those born between 1980 and 2000 are three times as likely to choose pensions than unemployment benefits as a priority for public spending. Young people may have borne the brunt of the downturn, with youth unemployment topping 1 million at times, but support for older generations remains strong. This is what Cameron is playing into when he says that people who have worked hard should have dignity and security in old age – and why George Osborne feels more comfortable targeting benefits for those under-25.

Those who worry that the young are getting a raw deal must engage with why public opinion tilts in this direction. Focus groups reveal that people want to protect pensioners not because they think they will benefit one day, or even that their own parents or grandparents will benefit now, but because they see older groups as more deserving. This is because of a combination of two things: the perception that the elderly are vulnerable, through no fault of their own, and that they have earned entitlements through contributions over time.

The contrast with attitudes to the unemployed is striking. Many see those out of work as more responsible for their own situation and less likely to have put into the system. Britain may have one of the stingiest systems of support for the unemployed in Europe, but that is because those in work fear they are subsidising those who are not. The sense of welfare as an insurance policy, that all those who are able to pay contribute to, is being lost.

Of course, self-interest is part of the story. Older groups put pensions top of their priority list, while younger groups think child benefit is more important. But what the 'grey vote' narrative misses is the extent to which different generations are willing to make sacrifices for one another. There may be more money to be saved in the pensions budget, but there are more votes in protecting it. 

People enter the Jobcentre Plus office in Bath, England. Photograph: Getty Images.

Duncan O’Leary is deputy director of Demos

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.