Is welfare 25 or 6 per cent of government spending? Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

People only think welfare should be cut because the coalition is misleading them

The public’s appetite for benefits cuts collapses when voters are offered a more accurate measure of “welfare”.

For more stories behind the numbers, explore May2015.com.

Should benefits be cut? The coalition has published tax transparency documents which suggest the government spends 25 per cent of taxpayer money on “welfare”.

When the public are told this, 4 in 10 voters they think benefits are too high. That is more than think them either about right or too low.

This could be used to endorse the Tories’ rumoured plans to cut welfare if re-elected, but the figures have been criticised as disingenuous by the Institute for Fiscal Studies – the authority on every attempt by governments to fudge numbers.

They suggest only 6 per cent of spending is on the “unemployed”. This is what we commonly think of as welfare. Indeed, when the public are presented with the IFS’ more detailed figures on “welfare” spending, public support for cutting benefits collapses.

When offered the IFS figures, the public are equally divided between whether benefits are too high, too low, or about right.

But how do people’s backgrounds shape their views? The most anti-benefits age group isn’t the young or the old, it’s those of ripe working age: the 25-39 year olds. Even when presented with the IFS data, nearly twice as many of these workers think benefits are too high rather than too low.

So do the richest – by 37 to 22 per cent, those classed as “ABC1” think benefits are too high. In contrast, C2DE voters go from thinking benefits are too high to too low when handed the government’s and then the IFS’ figures.

Finally, men and Tories are unstintingly anti-welfare. So richer Tory men of working age are the least likely to sympathise with those of benefits. That happens to all but fit the profile of the man behind the plans. George Osborne is now 43 and falls just outside the most anti-welfare age bracket, but is still white, wealthier and Tory.

Explore May2015.com.

May2015 is the New Statesman's new elections site. Explore it for data, interviews and ideas on the general election.

Show Hide image

Will Euroscepticism prove an unbeatable advantage in the Conservative leadership race?

Conservative members who are eager for Brexit are still searching for a heavyweight champion - and they could yet inherit the earth.

Put your money on Liam Fox? The former Defence Secretary has been given a boost by the news that ConservativeHome’s rolling survey of party members preferences for the next Conservative leader. Jeremy Wilson at BusinessInsider and James Millar at the Sunday Post have both tipped Fox for the top job.

Are they right? The expectation among Conservative MPs is that there will be several candidates from the Tory right: Dominic Raab, Priti Patel and potentially Owen Paterson could all be candidates, while Boris Johnson, in the words of one: “rides both horses – is he the candidate of the left, of the right, or both?”

MPs will whittle down the field of candidates to a top two, who will then be voted on by the membership.  (As Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 Committee, notes in his interview with my colleague George Eaton, Conservative MPs could choose to offer a wider field if they so desired, but would be unlikely to surrender more power to party activists.)

The extreme likelihood is that that contest will be between two candidates: George Osborne and not-George Osborne.  “We know that the Chancellor has a bye to the final,” one minister observes, “But once you’re in the final – well, then it’s anyone’s game.”

Could “not-George Osborne” be Liam Fox? Well, the difficulty, as one MP observes, is we don’t really know what the Conservative leadership election is about:

“We don’t even know what the questions are to which the candidates will attempt to present themselves as the answer. Usually, that question would be: who can win us the election? But now that Labour have Corbyn, that question is taken care of.”

So what’s the question that MPs will be asking? We simply don’t know – and it may be that they come to a very different conclusion to their members, just as in 2001, when Ken Clarke won among MPs – before being defeated in a landslide by Conservative activists.

Much depends not only on the outcome of the European referendum, but also on its conduct. If the contest is particularly bruising, it may be that MPs are looking for a candidate who will “heal and settle”, in the words of one. That would disadvantage Fox, who will likely be a combative presence in the European referendum, and could benefit Boris Johnson, who, as one MP put it, “rides both horses” and will be less intimately linked with the referendum and its outcome than Osborne.

But equally, it could be that Euroscepticism proves to be a less powerful card than we currently expect. Ignoring the not inconsiderable organisational hurdles that have to be cleared to beat Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and potentially any or all of the “next generation” of Sajid Javid, Nicky Morgan or Stephen Crabb, we simply don’t know what the reaction of Conservative members to the In-Out referendum will be.

Firstly, there’s a non-trivial possibility that Leave could still win, despite its difficulties at centre-forward. The incentive to “reward” an Outer will be smaller. But if Britain votes to Remain – and if that vote is seen by Conservative members as the result of “dirty tricks” by the Conservative leadership – it could be that many members, far from sticking around for another three to four years to vote in the election, simply decide to leave. The last time that Cameron went against the dearest instincts of many of his party grassroots, the result was victory for the Prime Minister – and an activist base that, as the result of defections to Ukip and cancelled membership fees, is more socially liberal and more sympathetic to Cameron than it was before. Don’t forget that, for all the worry about “entryism” in the Labour leadership, it was “exitism” – of Labour members who supported David Miliband and liked the New Labour years  - that shifted that party towards Jeremy Corbyn.

It could be that if – as Brady predicts in this week’s New Statesman – the final two is an Inner and an Outer, the Eurosceptic candidate finds that the members who might have backed them are simply no longer around.

It comes back to the biggest known unknown in the race to succeed Cameron: Conservative members. For the first time in British political history, a Prime Minister will be chosen, not by MPs with an electoral mandate of their own or by voters at a general election but by an entirelyself-selecting group: party members. And we simply don't know enough about what they feel - yet. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.