Will Labour really lose support from voters if it goes ‘soft’ on Welfare?

December 13, 2012 7:13 am

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Every time the Conservatives say something about cutting welfare, familiar arguments play out across the Labour party. The left flank says, “Labour could turn Osborne’s cynical ploy into an opportunity to transform the debate on the issues of welfare, poverty, fairness in our society.”

The right of the Labour party is more fearful of this so-called ‘trap’ and continually warn that cutting benefits is popular with many of the people Labour seeks to represent, and would lose them votes.

We know where the party should stand in principle but the politics matters. My issue is more that assumptions about how welfare affects voting is driven more by instinct than actual data.

Where is the evidence it has worked in the past?

You couldn’t accuse the last Labour government of being soft on people on welfare benefits. Phil Woolas was trotted out repeatedly to deliver the harsh language on “scroungers” and “fraudsters” who ripped off the system. Labour even unveiled billboard ads calling on people to report benefit fraudsters.

And yet in 2010 most voters still thought Labour was ‘soft’ on welfare recipients. Almost every study shows Labour simply reinforced the ‘undeserving poor’ narrative – thereby cementing Tory advantage on the issue.

To put it simply: if being hard on welfare is electorally popular, where were the benefits for New Labour in 2010? And how far is the leadership willing to go to neutralise their ‘disadvantage’?

Obama faced a similar challenge very recently. Republicans attacked him for opposing ‘right to work’ legislation. Romney even cut a very dishonest ad attacking him for being soft on welfare. The electoral impact was nearly zero: Obama still won comfortably, and the voters he lost were disappointed about the state of the economy, not welfare.

What about the voters you lose?

In the latest YouGov polling, a majority of Labour voters (55%) said benefits should have been ‘increased in line with inflation or more’. Only 17% were happy with Osborne’s policy and only 16% of Labour supporters wanted a freeze in benefits.

Some within the party counter by saying: Ahh, but we don’t just want support from Labour voters. Perhaps, but politics is usually a zero sum game: you move in one direction you can gain votes while simultaneously losing them from another.

Many in the Labour right assume that moving right-wards still keeps left-wing voters on side because they have nowhere else to go. But 2010 blew a hole in that theory: left-wing voters abandoned Labour and moved to the Libdems (many have moved back but don’t assume they’ll stay).

The key question is: given that a majority of Labour voters think Osborne’s 1% rise was harsh – why would imitating Osborne gain Labour more votes than losing them?

Welfare isn’t even that central to people’s voting behaviour

Even if you’re behind on issue – is it important enough for them to vote Tory?

According to Ipsos-Mori, only 9% of voters think pensions and social security is a key issue for Britain. It ranks below: the economy, unemployment, the NHS, immigration, crime, inflation and education.

To emphasise the point, more people care about poverty and inequality as a top issue than social security.

Let me summarise this

The percentage of voters who pay attention to Westminster policy debates is small as it is.

Of that group, most who think Labour is soft on welfare are Tories and wouldn’t vote for Labour anyway. Labour could bend over backwards to reach out to them but then it will lose other voters.

Of the even smaller percentage who are paying attention and may consider voting Labour, welfare isn’t even a key issue.

So where is the actual evidence that it loses votes for the Labour party? If your only argument is that a percentage of voters consider this to be important in a poll, then Labour would win in a landslide simply by promising to raise taxes (which is far more popular). That’s not a very sophisticated argument.

  • Gabrielle

    That’s a very persuasive argument, particularly where you say that
    … most who think Labour is soft on welfare are Tories and wouldn’t vote for Labour anyway. Labour could bend over backwards to reach out to them but then it will lose other voters.

    Perhaps it would be more fruitful for Labour to counter Tory attacks about welfare by pointing out the hypocrisy of the Tories – how they create unemployment and then blame the victims. Unemployment has always been a favourite ploy of the Tories – it pushes down wages for those in work and weakens the unions, plus it provides the opportunity for ‘divide and rule’ – ie getting the working poor to bitterly resent the unemployed poor, and even worse, those who are unable to work because of disability and/or sickness (closing Remploy factories didn’t help).

    Of course, popular papers like the Sun and Mail are on message to peddle this mendacious propaganda. The whole scenario is morally bankrupt.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Its not a matter of ‘going soft’ but doing what is right. No system in the world is infallible. I have absolutely no problem with clamping down on those who are swindling the system – though lets get this in perspective in terms of the amounts we are talking about. Tax evaders and avoiders need much more aggressive treatment!
    What is wrong is punishing everyone because of the actions of a few – and that is what is being proposed now. Because some do wrong, all must suffer and be labelled alongside the wrongdoers.
    We do need to be saying very clearly that most unemployed people and people on benefits are not ‘scroungers’ and that we will not pursue policies which indiscriminately target all claimants and make their lives even harder.

    • http://twitter.com/LouieWoodall Louie Woodall

      Agree- but only difficulty with that argument is that it harms the stricter regulation of bankers and increased taxation of the rich- saying “we’re being punished for the actions of the few” is the get out of jail card for banksters everywhere

  • AlanGiles

    “Phil Woolas was trotted out repeatedly to deliver the harsh language on “scroungers” and “fraudsters”

    Well, he was an expert… :-)

    But Mike has said what needs to be said in this thread

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000623749669 Giles Bradshaw

    What puts me off is reading the debates about whether the Labour party should decide it’s policies on what it believes is best for the country or what it thinks will get it the most votes.

  • Pingback: Silly reasons to say polls show Labour is weak on the economy | Liberal Conspiracy()

  • Pingback: Here’s why the government is still obsessed by immigration | Liberal Conspiracy()

  • Pingback: Liberal Conspiracy: Here’s why the government is still obsessed by immigration | moonblogsfromsyb()

Latest

  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →
  • News Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Berger asks Twitter to do more to stop use of racist words

    Luciana Berger, Shadow Minister for Public Health, has called on Twitter to do more the stop racist terms being used on the site. Berger has herself faced a large amount of anti-semitic abuse on the site, and in October Garron Helm  was jailed for sending her a torrent of anti-semitic messages. Berger told the Telegraph (£): “At the height of the abuse, the police said I was the subject of 2,500 hate messages in the space of three days using […]

    Read more →