Social and Political Attitudes of People on Low Incomes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social and political attitudes of people on low incomes Authors: Allison Dunatchik, Malen Davies, Julia Griggs, Fatima Husain, Curtis Jessop, Nancy Kelley, Hannah Morgan, Nilufer Rahim, Eleanor Taylor, Martin Wood Date: 30.08.2016 Prepared for: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Politics 3 Welfare and Worklessness 4 Key Concerns and Front of Mind Issues 5 Feeling in Control 6 Taking Action 7 Conclusions Appendix A Method Appendix B Panel sample profile Appendix C Case study sample profile Appendix D Variables included in the cross sectional analysis Executive Summary People living on low incomes have historically been excluded from politics and policy debates, even when the question at hand is how poverty can be reduced or its impacts mitigated.1 The aim of this research was to explore how people on low incomes perceive politics, understand how far they feel they can control or influence the impact of politics and policy on their lives, and provide a platform for them to speak out on the issues that most concern them. This report draws on three complementary projects: secondary analysis of Understanding Society and NatCen’s British Social Attitudes survey uncovering the social and political attitudes of people on low incomes, findings from a new high quality random web probability panel, and a deep dive case study with people living on low incomes in an Outer London borough. Politics Despite experiencing significant and persistent inequalities in living conditions and life-chances2, people living on low incomes have social and political attitudes that are broadly similar to their higher income peers. Over time, as attitudes change, the pattern of that change is also similar, suggesting that the same factors are influencing both groups. There are, however, some key differences in the political and social attitudes of people living on lower incomes. People on low incomes are significantly less likely to describe themselves as interested in politics. In 2015, only 25% of people in the low income group said they had ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of interest in politics, compared to 40% of people in the higher income group. However, the percentage of people on low income who are interested in politics is rising slowly but steadily: from 20% in 2000 to 25% last year. People living on low incomes also appear to have less trust in their political representatives. The most recent data shows that 61% of the lower income group don’t trust politicians to tell the truth (compared to 50% of the higher income group). Political party affiliation remains closely coupled to income, with people on low incomes less likely to support the Conservative Party, more likely to support the Labour Party, and more likely to not identify with any party than their higher income peers. Results also suggest that people on lower incomes are less likely to see voting as a civic norm or duty, a finding that reflects data on voting in general elections, where turnout is consistently lower among people from lower socio- economic classes. The UK and Europe Over the last decade and a half, attitudes to membership of the European Union have been relatively stable. Although no difference was found in 2015, in 7 years between 2001 and 2015, people on lower incomes were significantly more likely to believe that Britain should leave the EU, more likely to be undecided and less likely to believe that Britain should remain in the EU, but reduce its powers. 1 Elitist Britain? Report of the Commission on Social Mobility and Child Poverty, London 2014. 2 See for instance McInnes et al (2015) Monitoring of Poverty and Social Exclusion 2015, JRF, York and Wickham et al (2016) Poverty and Child Health in the UK: using evidence for action, Disease in Childhood. Figure 1 Proportion of respondents who say ‘Britain should leave the EU’ by income group Interestingly, people on low incomes are also less happy with the way in which England is governed. While the most recent data showed no difference in views about the best way for England to be governed, time series analysis suggests lower income groups have both a higher level of dissatisfaction with the current system, and a slightly higher level of support for establishing an English parliament (22% compared with 20%). Welfare and Worklessness As with attitudes to politics and the political sphere, there are similarities in the pattern of attitudes to welfare and worklessness across lower and higher income groups, which show a long term decline in support for the welfare state, and high levels of concern about income inequality. However, of the 14 questions asked, 11 were significantly related to a household’s income level, and just 4 showed no significant difference. This said, people on low incomes are more likely to see spending on benefits as a priority for government (11% compared to 4% among higher income groups), and to support increased public spending even when it requires increased taxation (45% compared to 37%). In the area of unemployment and benefits for working age adults, people on low incomes are consistently more sympathetic to unemployed people. They are significantly more likely to think that unemployment benefits are too low, empathise with jobseekers and oppose requiring people to take minimum wage jobs while they search for something better (only 50% support agreed that someone should ‘definitely’ take a minimum wage job, as opposed to 62% of the higher income group). They are also more likely to see welfare cuts as damaging (65% compared to 42%) and to oppose the benefit cap (31% compared to 22%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, 71% of people on low incomes feel that it is ‘mainly the government that is responsible for supporting people who become unemployed’ compared to only 56% of the higher income group. Overall, this paints a picture of attitudes to welfare and worklessness that are out of step with the long term direction of government policy which has increased transfers to pensioners at the expense of working age adults, and focused on labour market activation and conditionality. Key concerns and front of mind issues The single most important concern identified by panelists was health and disability, followed by personal finances, crime, migrants or immigration, and housing. Although the priorities were the same across lower and higher income groups, people on lower incomes were slightly more concerned about crime and housing than their higher income peers. Figure 2 Proportion selecting issues by whether or not living on low income In contrast to this picture, participants in the depth research were extremely concerned about immigration and its impact on public services. Participants were opposed to increased migration to the UK, and felt immigration was ‘out of control’. They believed that immigration had increased pressure on public services, making it harder for them and their family to access services or make choices about the kinds of services they wanted. Some participants believed that migrants had unlimited access to public services and more preferential treatment than UK citizens. Immigration was closely coupled in their minds with concerns about health, education and housing. Feeling in Control Overall, across both high and low income groups, people felt able to exercise some control over the issues they care most about. Figure 3 Level of control over issue Bases: All participants selecting issue, Providing or requiring care (204); Education (386); Personal finances (615); Work or finding employment (319); Migrants or immigration (517); Housing or your home (453); Health, including disability (853); Crime (423) Again, immigration stands out as the exception, with 71% of people on higher incomes and 76% of people on lower incomes saying they ‘can make no difference’ to the impact immigration has on their lives. This research was carried out in 2015, before the EU Referendum campaign had fully begun. For most issues of concern, where people on low incomes appeared to feel a much lower level of control, this was in fact being driven by demographic factors such as age, or health status. However, living on a low income was associated with feeling much less in control of housing, something that is unsurprising given the affordability problems that are endemic in the UK market. When asked about how far they felt they had overall control over their lives, those on higher incomes felt significantly more in control (even when age and other characteristics were taken into account). This also came across powerfully in the depth research. ‘I might have a nice council place, you can be given – there are nice council places. I might be put in a nice area but you just – it’s the unknown. It’s the – that it is out of your hands when they – when you’re given a council property that you are being told where you’ve got to go and that being out of your hands, you cant choose and that, that worries me, yeah’ For some of these participants, their family was the only thing they felt they could exercise real control and influence over. Conclusions This research set out to explore how people on low incomes perceive politics, and how much they feel they can influence the things they care most about. It is clear that people on low incomes have attitudes to politics and public policy that are broadly in line with the wider population, a finding that may be surprising given how entrenched inequality is in our society, and how much the impact of political decisions can vary for higher and lower income communities. Trust in politicians and the political system is low and falling, but interest in politics is rising slowly.