X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Ed Miliband vs the working class

14 December 2012

4:37 PM

14 December 2012

4:37 PM

Who’s on the side of the strivers? Is it George Osborne, who’s cutting benefits in real terms for the next three years, which he defends as ‘being fair to the person who leaves home every morning to go out to work and sees their neighbour still asleep, living a life on benefits’? Or is it Ed Balls, who’s opposing the move as Osborne ‘making striving working families pay the price for his economic failure’? Both men are convinced that their stance will help win the votes of low- and middle-income workers. At least one of them is wrong.

Isabel has explained the sources of Labour’s confidence. One is a YouGov poll released on Sunday, showing 42 per cent of ‘C2DEs’ (working class and lower) think benefits should rise at least in line with inflation. But then, 28 per cent of them think they should only rise by 1 per cent a year, and a further 15 per cent think they should be frozen altogether — a total of 43 per cent in favour of real-terms cuts. That’s not resounding support for Osborne’s policy, but it’s not a resounding rejection of it either. More convincing for Labour was an Ipsos MORI poll released yesterday, which (with a differently-worded question and different answer options) showed 69 per cent of the public and 73 per cent of C2DEs rejecting real-terms cuts.

But that Ipsos MORI poll also asked whether respondents felt that various groups ‘are being asked to do too much, too little, or about the right amount’ in response to the economic crisis. Just 28 per cent said ‘welfare claimants’ are suffering too much — including just 27 per cent of those C2DEs. Meanwhile, 34 per cent say they’re doing too little, including 32 per cent of C2DEs. But the most interesting responses are for the group ‘people like you’. Only 30 per cent say they’re being asked to do too much – 15 per cent say ‘too little’ and 52 per cent say ‘about the right amount’. Even the majority of C2DEs say they’re not shouldering too much of the burden.

[Alt-Text]


Labour’s main hope, as Isabel reported, is that those who lose out financially will vote for them in 2015. But YouGov found that just 36 per cent think the measures in the Autumn Statement will make them worse off — 6 per cent say they’ll benefit, while 44 per cent say they won’t make much difference. And even among the C2DEs, slightly more think they’ll be better off (4 per cent) or about the same (40 per cent) than think they’ll lose out (40 per cent).

The point is that the polling on this is not clear-cut. Ipsos MORI’s ’69 per cent against benefit cuts’ figure is worrying for Osborne, but Labour don’t have much evidence for their claim that working benefit recipients will turn on the Tories over this. And besides, we’re only in the early days of a debate that will doubtless rage all the way to 2015. Even if Labour start out with more people backing their stance than the Tories (which the Ipsos MORI poll suggests they do, but the YouGov poll doesn’t), they’re going to have a difficult job keeping it that way as the battle unfolds. Having signed up to the government’s policy of increasing public sector pay by just 1 per cent a year, it’ll be tough for Eds Miliband and Balls to argue that benefits should rise faster. Even now, as they point to Resolution Foundation figures showing that the majority of the hit fall on working households, the riposte is obvious: why should the welfare component of their income rise faster than the work component?

By contrast, the coalition’s position seems more easily defensible. Essentially, they just need to produce this graph from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, showing that by the time of the next election — even with the 1 per cent a year rise — benefits will have gone up by about 21 per cent since 2009, whereas earnings will only have risen by 16 per cent.

It is interesting that both YouGov and Ipsos MORI both asked whether benefits should rise by more or less than inflation. One wonders how different the results would have been if they had asked whether they should rise more quickly or more slowly than wages. That’s certainly how George Osborne will be trying to frame the debate.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close