Convervative MP Harriett Baldwin, elected as part of David Cameron’s hand-picked “A-list” to represent West Worcestershire, has called for “a discussion” on whether out of work people with four children should get any child benefit or child tax credits if they have a fifth child.

Speaking on Radio Five this morning (00:05 to 00:15), Baldwin said:

“Does it really make sense if you’ve already got four children and have never been in work to take on the responsibility of bringing another child into the world?

“A lot of people would think long and hard about “can we afford to have another kid”, and I think it is worth thinking long and hard about implementing this approach they have in the States.

“The discussion point that I’ve put out there is that once you’ve had four kids – and i think that four kids is a huge responsibility for anybody – you’re going to think long and hard about ‘can I afford to have an additional mouth to feed?‘”

Doubtless, Baldwin will use her language of “discussion” and “talking points” to argue that she is only asking questions, but she still states as fact things which are nothing but.

For instance, she wrote on Conservative Home:

“Twenty two US states used the “family cap” to rule that any family on state welfare is not eligible for any additional support for children conceived while on state benefits.

“If those who are in a workless household were told that they would not receive additional benefits for any new babies until such time as the household has a wage-earner, work incentives would be stronger.”

In fact, as the Cornell Law Review states:

Social science research indicates that welfare recipients do not base their child-bearing decisions on receipt of welfare benefits, thus rendering questionable the effectiveness of family caps in deterring welfare recipients from having more children.

Baldwin also accepted on Radio Five that it was an “important question” as to whether such measures would harm children.

Again, if she’d researched these “questions” a bit before publicly asking them, she’d have found the answers.

Cornell Law Review, again, confirms:

By reducing the benefits families receive to satisfy basic necessities, family caps are also likely to exacerbate the many mental and physical health problems that children in poverty are already at increased risk of developing.

Baldwin does not want to “ask questions”, or “have a discussion”. She wants to punish children for the decisions of their parents.

Also today, the Times confirmed what we reported on two weeks ago: that Osborne will not increase benefit payments in line with September’sinflation of 5.2%.

What will he spend the money on? Fuel duty:

The Times has learnt that key ministers, including Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, have agreed that 5.7 million people claiming benefits for the unemployed will each lose hundreds of pounds a year.

The savings are likely to go towards the Government’s ambition to scrap the planned 3p-a-litre rise in petrol in January, which would cost £1.5 billion. George Osborne, the Chancellor, is anxious to keep to his deficit reduction plan and is said to be putting further pressure on Mr Duncan Smith’s £200 billion welfare budget.

Like an anti-Robin Hood, this government seems intent on taking from the poor to give to the rich.

See also:

• How poor children will get poorer on Cameron’s watch – Dr Sam Royston, October 11th 2011

• Misleading to claim welfare reform will cut child poverty levels – Nicola Smith, February 22nd 2011

• Housing benefit changes even more unfair than child benefit cuts – Pete Challis, October 11th 2010

• Ten policy headaches for the government on child benefit – Sunder Katwala, October 5th 2010

• Child benefit cuts will result in a worse deal for the poor – Richard Exell, May 14th 2010

The majority of the Conservative rebels in last night’s European Union referendum vote in the Commons – more than three fifths – were newly elected MPs, spelling troubled times ahead for David Cameron.

In all, a third of the class of 2010 rebelled.

The new MPs voting against the three-line whip were:

Stuart Andrew (Pudsey)
Steve Baker (Wycombe)
Andrew Bingham (High Peak)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East)
Andrew Bridgen (Leicestershire North West)
Steve Brine (Winchester)
Fiona Bruce (Congleton)
Dan Byles (Warwickshire North)
Tracey Crouch (Chatham & Aylesford)
Nick de Bois (Enfield North)
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport)
Richard Drax (Dorset South)
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble)
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park)
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry)
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley)
Marcus Jones (Nuneaton)
Chris Kelly (Dudley South)
Andrea Leadsom (Northamptonshire South)
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford)
Karen Lumley (Redditch)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley)
Karl McCartney (Lincoln)
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage)
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley)
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot)
James Morris (Halesowen & Rowley Regis)
Stephen Mosley (Chester, City of)
Sheryll Murray (Cornwall South East)
Caroline Nokes (Romsey & Southampton North)
David Nuttall (Bury North)
Matthew Offord (Hendon)
Neil Parish (Tiverton & Honiton)
Priti Patel (Witham)
Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole)
Mark Reckless (Rochester & Strood)
Jacob Rees-Mogg (Somerset North East)
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury)
Henry Smith (Crawley)
John Stevenson (Carlisle)
Bob Stewart (Beckenham)
Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
Julian Sturdy (York Outer)
Justin Tomlinson (Swindon North)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes)
Robin Walker (Worcester)
Heather Wheeler (Derbyshire South)
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley)
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)

In total, there were 81 Tory rebels, 19 Labour, one Lib Dem, eight DUP, one Independent Unionist and one Green; full list here.

We will have more on the EU referendum vote later today on Left Foot Forward.

See also:

• Five reasons why Commons Euro vote is not Cameron’s Clause IV moment – Daniel Elton, October 24th 2011

• Tories may care deeply about Europe, but no one else does – Daniel Elton, October 21st 2011

• While the Tories squabble over EU membership what’s the future for the euro? – Ben Fox, October 21st 2011

• Look Left – Tory obsession with Europe goes on. And on. And on – Shamik Das, October 2nd 2011

• Huhne attacks “Tea Party Tories” – who on Earth does he mean?! – Alex Hern, September 20th 2011

Obviously much of the focus today is rightly on the government’s efforts to fulfil one of its key obligations: the maintenance of law and order. However, it is worth noting the IFS report on the shape of future state spending and its implications for our society.

The short version is that we will be spending far more on services for old people. As the IFS says:

 ”[ Health, long term care and social security]  accounted for a third of all spending in 1978–79. They now account for half of spending… This dramatic increase in the share of health and social welfare  spending has been made possible by substantial reductions in the proportion of spending going to defence, housing, and support for business and industry…”

“Going forward, spending on health, pensions and long term care is set to rise fast. Just these elements of spending, excluding all the welfare benefits paid to non-pensioners, will reach half of all public spending over the next 50 years unless there is significant reform or unless total spending is significantly increased.”

They add:

“One consequence is that by 2014–15 spending on the NHS alone will account for nearly 30% of all public service spending.”

This is particularly pertinent for the Conservatives, due to their dependence on the ‘grey vote’:

Thus it should come as no surprise that, for example, spending in the NHS – mainly used by the old - is ringfenced by the coalition, but education is not, or that pensioners’ free bus passes are protected but Education Maintenance Allowances are not.

Not only are the Conservatives tied in electorally to big-spending departments whose budgets are only set to grow, but their policy-apparatus is as well.

Right-leaning think tanks such as Policy Exchange and Reform are often funded by those organisations that tender for public sector contracts.

Reform – where  David Cameron launched the open public services white paper – for example, has received sponsorship from General Healthcare Group, GE and KPMG, who all have an interest in public sector healthcare contracts, and other public sector tenderers such as G4S.

That may explain why Reform have a track record if backing co-payment – where services are paid for by users and subsidised by the taxpayer.

Unless the Conservatives can ‘rebalance’ their electoral appeal, or garner their policies from elsewhere, it is hard to see how they are not committed to ever increasing expenditures on services and payments aimed at older people in future.

There are reports this morning that the Conservative party used private investigators, like the infamous phone hacking PI Glen Mulcaire, to delve into the personal lives of their own supporters.

The Mirror reveals:

They used a private investigation firm to delve into the personal lives of those sounded out for the “I have never voted Conservative before but…” campaign. At least three people were later rejected.

One was reportedly turned down because he had had an affair and another because of links to a ­controversial political movement.

The Tories claim the checks were legally done by a “reputable” firm and “with the full ­knowledge and consent of the person involved”. But one of them told the Mirror she was “astonished” that the party “knew everything” about her.

This latest story comes amidst the re-emergence onto the front pages of the News International phone hacking scandal, following the news yesterday that Sara Payne, mother of murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne, may have had her phone hacked.

The phone in question was given to her by the News of the World, further ratcheting up the pressure on disgraced former-NotW editor Rebekah Brooks, who had wormed her way into Sara’s life and told her she was her friend, even getting her to write a glowing article about the rag in the final edition of the tabloid.

Elsewhere, the culture, media and sport select committee are meeting this morning to decide on whether to recall James Murdoch after his evidence to the committee was disputed, in particular his “I knew noooooothing” charade about the £700,000 and £1 million hush money payoffs to phone hack victims Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford.

This Thursday voters in the Scottish constituency of Inverclyde will go to the polls following the sad and untimely death of the former Scotland Office Minister, the respected Labour MP, David Cairns.

On paper, it should be an interesting and hotly fought contest between the SNP and Scottish Labour, being the first electoral battle for a parliamentary seat since the SNP stormed to victory in May’s elections to Holyrood – the first to do so as a single majority party.

In May, Labour only narrowly held the seat in the Scottish Parliament, with Duncan McNeil enjoying a majority of just 511. This compared with Cairns’s 14,416 majority in the 2010 General Election.

With both and Liberal Democrats and Conservatives all but resigned to defeat, the race is, as argued (£) by the FT’s Scotland Correspondent, Andrew Bolger, a two horse race, one in which the stakes for both Alex Salmond and Ed Miliband are high.

For Salmond, the race is simple, an opportunity for voters to send a message that the people want Holyrood, rather than Westminster, to enjoy the levers of economic power for Scotland.

Speaking last weekend at the party’s National Council in Inverclyde the first minister and SNP leader argued:

“Last month’s election saw Scotland take a step forward.

“On 30th June voters in Inverclyde can vote to keep Inverclyde moving forward, to add to the country’s momentum and to put pressure on the Tories to transfer the job creating powers areas like Inverclyde need to the SNP Government as soon as possible.”

Ed Miliband, on the other hand, has a delicate task to perform. Having seen his party lose seats at Holyroo – in part as a result of a strategy which went all guns blazing for the Conservatives before switching halfway through to concentrating on the SNP – how Labour handle the Inverclyde by-election will be keenly watched.

Having had such a loss to the nationalists, the temptation for Labour to avoid is to concentrate on the SNP – the context for this election remains different.

It is one in which the contest should focus on Westminster, where the issue will be who can best oppose a Conservative-led administration. Having seen its share of the vote increase in Scotland at the 2010 General election, the message for Labour is that it is they, rather than the SNP, that Scots turn to when the principle threat comes from Conservatives.

Hence Ed Miliband’s remarks on a recent visit to the constituency, in which he argued:

“I know many families and pensioners here in Inverclyde are hurting, and hurting in the face of risky and unfair Tory cuts. We need a plan B on the economy to help people right across the country. There is now no coherent plan for growth.

“David Cameron’s plan to cut spending too far and too fast is a reckless gamble with people’s jobs and livelihoods, and it is making things worse, not better.

“The next generation needs opportunities, chances and hope. Yet people here see VAT up, child benefit frozen, tax credits cut and bills going up…”

But perhaps the defining feature of the by election could be how it fails to inspire the electorate of Incerclyde.

As Hamish MacDonell, writing recently in the Caledonian Mercury explains:

“The political parties are trying hard to engage the public’s attention – but, after such a momentous Scottish election just a month ago, even they are finding it hard to generate any enthusiasm for the contest.”

He adds:

“However, despite all the signals emerging from the banks of the Clyde that this will be one of the dullest by-election campaigns of recent times, there remains a possibility that things may change.

“It can sometimes only take the intervention of one figure or a gaffe by the frontrunner to turn a soporific non-contest into the by-election of the decade.

“One has to hope, anyway.”

The question is, will Inverclyde prove a shock result, in much the same way that the SNP’s victory in the 2008 Glasgow East by-election led to what the Guardian dubbed a “massive blow to Gordon Brown’s leadership”; or will it be a Glasgow North East, a by-election won in 2009 by Labour’s Willie Bain , hailed across much of the Labour Party as a sign that they weren’t down and out.

Whilst a win would be welcome news, Labour should be wary of seeing victory as representative of what is happening across the rest of the UK, for the same reasons as those outlined on Left Foot Forward following Willie Bain’s victory.

And what of the candidates? Left Foot Forward surveyed the opinion of those from the main parties.

Labour

For Labour, its candidate, the leader of the local council, Iain McKenzie, it is crime and the economy that top the agenda on the campaign trail.

He told Left Foot Forward:

“As a local candidate in this election, I’ve got a clear action plan for Inverclyde. My top priority is to get Inverclyde working again, bringing new employers and quality jobs to the area.

“I am also pushing hard for a tough crack down on crime. Taking on the drug dealers, more police patrols, and stricter penalties for violent and knife crime are key.

“I’ll work for a better future for young people, building on what I have already achieved as council leader getting new schools built for our kids.

“I’d be a strong voice against unfair Tory cuts at Westminster and I’m backing Labour’s calls for an emergency VAT cut to get the economy moving. Most of all I always do what’s best for Inverclyde, not what’s best for Westminster.”

Conservatives

In launching his campaign, the Conservative candidate, Cllr. David Wilson, gave what amounted to a policy-free statement, deciding instead to talk up his qualities as a candidate that would fight for his constituents.

He explained:

“It is a privilege to represent this area as Depute Provost on Inverclyde Council. It would be an honour to be its MP.

“My priority will always be to stand up for the people and to do everything in my power to take Inverclyde forward to an even brighter future.”

Liberal Democrats

For the Liberal Democrats, the mantra being used is one of change, arguing it is only they that offer an alternative to Labour and the SNP.

Dubbed a “rising star”, the party’s candidate, Sophie Bridger, commented:

“I am very proud to have been selected to stand as the candidate for the Scottish Liberal Democrats here in Inverclyde. I have the commitment, the drive and the expertise to be an effective MP for the area.

“For too long this area has been abandoned by Labour, and the SNP have been all talk but no action, cutting vital services and regeneration funding.

“It is time that Inverclyde had an MP who stood up for them – Liberal Democrats have real solutions and voters here can put their faith in the younger generation to fight for Inverclyde.”

SNP

The SNP, meanwhile, have Labour firmly in their sights, with their candidate, the former Glasgow MSP, Anne McLaughlin, explaining:

“This by-election is about who is best placed to protect local households and deliver jobs and investment to Inverclyde. People here know the SNP is working to make life better for local households with a council tax freeze, protection for local health services and more police on the beat.

“As Inverclyde’s MP, I will work hard for local communities on the issues that matter like soaring fuel and energy bills and the threat to the local coastguard service.

“Labour are out of power and out of touch.

“With a Labour candidate who is in coalition with the Tories and planning to hit local council workers with compulsory redundancies, it is only by sending an SNP representative to Westminster that Inverclyde can build on the progress of the last four years and win a more powerful voice for people across the constituency.”

Voters in Inverclyde will vote this Thursday; polls will be open between 7am and 10pm. For a full list of candidates see here.

NUS Scotland have launched a campaign calling for the founder of the Stagecoach company to have his knighthood withdrawn.

Over the weekend it was announced that Brian Souter, a high profile financial supporter of the SNP had been awarded the knighthood, as part of the Queen’s birthday honours, for services to transport.

However campaigners have voiced concerns at the move, arguing that Souter’s bank rolling of the Keep the Clause campaign, to repeal legislation in Scotland forbidding local authorities to “intentionally promote homosexuality”, (known as Section 2A in Scotland and section 28 across the rest of the UK), proves an intolerance that should not be rewarded in this way.

Speaking in 2000, Peter Tatchell said of Souter:

“Brian Souter’s support for Section 28 is the moral equivalent of the business-funded campaign to maintain racial segregation in the Deep South of the USA in the 1950s.”

Souter went on to organise a postal ballot of all those Scots registered to vote from 1999, which, on the basis of a return rate of 31.8%, produced results seeing 86.8% of respondents preferring to keep section 2A with 13.2% against its continuation.

While Souter dubbed it a “tremendous result”, the then communities minister, Wendy Alexander, said of the result:

“I think what is significant about today’s ballot is that two out of three voters rejected, or binned or simply ignored this glorified opinion poll.”

And writing in the Herald during the campaign on the poll, one mother said of Souter’s campaign:

“I am the mother of two young children, not yet at school age, and I am appalled by the advertising and publicity thrown in my face telling me to ”Keep the Clause”. I will be doing my best to bring my children up to be secure in the knowledge that whatever they choose to do, respectful of others, my husband and I will always love them and encourage them.

“If my children grow up and are gay nothing will change that. This is the start of a new millennium – show me the normal house now? Nuclear family? I don’t think so. Do the pro-Clause campaigners think they can buy their own agenda into the curriculum? I would prefer that their bigotry did not reach my children, but unfortunately I know that’s not possible. Having the cash to fund a campaign helps to disguise their narrow-minded, outdated agenda.

“Anyone who encourages an atmosphere where a child may feel threatened, isolated, or lonely should be condemned. I am all for healthy debate and differences of opinion; freedom of speech in a democratic society, equal rights for all. So let them campaign. But please don’t let them get away with it.

“As for the Clause – it’s not about promoting anything, but it’s about living together and not judging other people – a valuable lesson for young children in a fast-changing society.”

Asked on an edition of Question Time in May 2000 about weather wealthy individuals should be allowed to fund referendum in the way Souter had on section 2A, Souter responded:

“Guilty as charged. The Labour Party would not be able to function without the substantial contribution it gets from trade unions and from wealthy individuals. The Tory Party functions with the contributions that its members make to it. There’s absolutely no difference between that and what I’m doing here except I am not obtaining a knighthood in return for it – that’s the difference, there’s nothing coming back on the turn.”

The Liberal Democrat/Labour administration in Edinburgh at the time subsequently went on to repeal section 2A.

Having been given the knighthood Souter said he was not obtaining, the NUS in Scotland has launched a petition seeking to have his knighthood withdrawn, with the petition reading:

“Mr Souter ran a campaign of fear and misinformation which was deeply hurtful to the LGBT community in Scotland.

“The ‘Keep The Clause Campaign’ increased hatred towards an already victimised group and saw a corresponding increase in violence against LGBT people.

“We believe that it is wrong for such a person to be given such a high honour by Her Majesty The Queen and call on HM government to withdraw this award.”

The Scottish Sun has reported that Souter has refused to comment on the matter.

This afternoon the NHS Future Forum reported on its proposed changes to the government’s NHS reforms. The exact details will take some time to unpick, however it appears the changes will be substantial.

It’s safe to say the spinning has already begun. Tomorrow it will intensify. At every opportunity expect to hear Tory frontbenchers praising their leader for listening to the public and responding; however, David Cameron and his supporters will have a tough sell. The government’s actions smell like, walk like and talk like yet another u-turn.

This is by no means the government’s first emergency maneuver. We can all remember the forests fiasco, the free school milk problem and the controversial plans to halve prison sentences for guilty pleas. All of these were scrapped following public outcry and political pressure. It appears that Mr Cameron is moving from being a listening prime minister to a lost one.

The prime minister will have a tough time convincing people his imminent NHS u-turn was merely his government listening and responding. Mr Cameron and his party have pressed hard for these reforms and they continue to, even when it appears futile.

The government’s commitments to these plans have been long standing. A quick glance at the coalition’s Programme for Government shows that even when it was in its infancy this administration planned to:

“Develop Monitor into an economic regulator that will oversee aspects of access, competition and price-setting in the NHS.”

Although the finer details escaped most people’s attention early on, it did not take long for the opposition to heat up. The media flocked to watch the BMA pass a motion of no confidence in the government’s plans and watched as the Health secretary narrowly avoided the same fate.

What was the government’s response? They did not waver they powered on brushing the criticism aside, stating:

“The reality is over 5,000 GP practices, covering two thirds of the country, have already signed up and have started to implement plans to give patients better care.”

This ignored the fact that their hand was forced. Many of these GPs still opposed the government’s plans for the NHS.

It did not begin and end with that. When the prime minister launched the listening exercise just two months ago he stated in his concluding remarks:

“I believe passionately in the changes we have set out.”

These are hardly the words of a man stopping to listen and reflect.

Even as the “pause” comes to an end this week Mr Cameron’s party rank and file are starting to stamp their feet. The 1922 Committee has come out of the gates all guns blazing today, condemning the Future Forum’s suggestions before they had even heard them. Conservative MP Nick De Bois, who is acting as the committee’s spokesperson on the NHS reforms, continued to defend the reforms today, saying:

“It is critical to the future of the NHS that the main pillars of the reforms are kept in place because we are talking about the future of our health service here.”

Even when the government is at the gates of defeat they appear to keep on fighting.

As the prime minister puts the NHS reforms into reverse gear him and his supporters will wriggle and squirm while emphasizing their credentials as “listeners”.  However it will not have escaped most people’s attention that the Conservative Party has been vociferously fighting for these reforms.

They proposed them, they closed their ears to professional criticism, their leader is passionate about them and their backbenchers are still fighting for them.

It is clear that the prime minister’s u-turn is not happening because he wants it to it is happening because it has to. Mr Cameron has no choice but to back track but he must not be allowed to distance himself from the truth - he supported these reforms as much as anyone else.

Largely unnoticed on this side of the pond, Canada has just been the subject of one of the most surprising election results the western world has seen for a while. The Tories finally broke through with 167 seats, 12 over the 155 required for an overall majority. The night truly belongs to them. Though an overall Tory majority is not the greatest surprise, given several years of minority rule and a weak opposition, the real shock has come from the left in Canada’s fourth general election in seven years.  

Jack Layton, the New Democratic Party (NDP) leader who is recovering from a broken hip and a recent skirmish with cancer, has taken them from fourth party in parliament with 37 seats through to being the official opposition with 102, only 65 behind the Tories.

On his way, he has all but wiped out the Bloc Quebecois, who lost 45 of their 49 seats to the NDP, and watched the Liberals, a party which has dominated Canadian politics for much of Canada’s history, lose over half their seats to collapse to just 34.

This is even more worrying when you consider that in 2000 they were in government with 172. Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, even lost his own seat.

Many in Canada will hail this result as a fundamental redrawing of the political landscape. The Tories (Conservative Party of Canada), now with an overall majority for the first time, will feel liberated after years of frustrating, minority government.

They will also feel somewhat vindicated by the Canadian public. Many labelled prime minister Stephen Harper as undemocratic and even “almost despotic” after twice in two years submitting requests, granted by the governor general, to shut down parliament. In doing so he likely avoided a no-confidence motion and a tricky investigation into Afghan detainees.

The Liberal collapse may be a watershed moment for the NDP. What will be more influential however is how Jack Layton proceeds from here. He may well reshape Canadian politics for decades. With a right-wing government, combative union backers and a parliamentary party made up of rookies he has many reasons to push left and hard.

Despite this, he should go for the centre ground. Canada often defines itself by its free healthcare and welfare programmes that contrast with their more prominent neighbours to the south. However, they remain a nation of liberal-minded centrists with a strong entrepreneurial streak. Layton should go for the middle ground whilst playing on left-of-centre themes that are also strong symbols of Canadian identity such as free healthcare.  

If he plays his cards right Jack Layton could establish the NDP as a real opposition and likely next government of a country with the world’s second largest oil reserves.  With a liberal resurgence looking unlikely, Layton getting it wrong could lead to the Tories being dominant for many years.

By Dr Robert Ford and Dr Matthew Goodwin; Ford is a research fellow in politics at the Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester – his research can be found here – and Goodwin is a lecturer at the University of Nottingham, whose forthcoming book, ‘The New British Fascism: Rise of the BNP’, is published on Thursday, May 5th

UKIP, a party once dismissed as being filled with “cranks and gadflies”, poses a real threat to the main parties at the forthcoming elections.

It was perhaps an acknowledgement of this challenge from a resurgent UKIP which encouraged David Cameron to make a controversial speech on immigration this week, in which he reached out to disgruntled Conservatives who might be thinking of flirting with Nigel Farage.

Though grassroots Tories have long voiced concern over immigration, they have seldom been tempted by a credible alternative. But after polling almost 1 million votes in the general election, recruiting the help of former Tory donors and finishing second in the Barnsley by-election, there is no question UKIP is on a roll. Labour progressives might find it all too easy to dismiss these events as a fortuitous bout of internecine warfare on the right. But as our recent study shows, supporters of UKIP are more than just grumpy old Tories. And there are good reasons why Labour should also be concerned by their rise.

We have examined citizens who voted UKIP at the 2009 European elections. The election of two BNP candidates stole much of the limelight that night, but UKIP far outperformed them: they beat Labour for second place, won more than 16% of the vote and elected more than a dozen MEPs. It was the strongest performance by UKIP at any election.

Drawing on a poll undertaken by YouGov, our study sheds light on the profile and attitudes of some 4,500 UKIP supporters. Respondents were asked who they planned to vote for in the next Westminster elections as well as the European Parliament (EP) elections; this meant we could distinguish voters who leant UKIP support for EP elections from those who expressed a commitment to UKIP in domestic elections as well.

This distinction proved crucial.

“Strategic defectors” are voters who support UKIP at European elections but return to the Conservatives at general elections: they are older, financially comfortable, middle class men with Conservative sympathies, socially conservative Eurosceptics who are motivated principally by their desire to send a message to the Conservatives. They are driven principally by Euroscepticism (unsurprisingly) and, to a lesser extent, concerns about immigration.

The “core loyalists”, on the other hand, stick with UKIP at all elections and are a very different electorate. They are more working class, more economically insecure, and more likely to say they come from Labour-voting families. In all these respects, as our chart below shows, they are more similar to the BNP’s support base than the Conservatives’.

A similar pattern emerges when we look at their attitudes.

Core loyalists are intensely Eurosceptic, as we might expect, but they are also much more deeply disaffected with mainstream politics than the strategic defectors. Core loyalists regard all the main parties as the same and politicians as deeply corrupt. Anxiety over immigration also emerges as a more powerful motive for this group, although they are distinct from BNP voters on the issue of racism.

While we found many BNP supporters quite willing to endorse statements such as “black people are intellectually inferior”, UKIP core loyalists were much more reluctant – though they expressed higher levels of agreement with such statements than either mainstream Conservatives or strategic UKIP supporters.

UKIP in domestic elections, then, are the BNP minus the racism. UKIP has appropriated the BNP’s most potent campaign themes – opposition to immigration, demands for Muslim integration, attacks on the political class – but is free of fascist baggage. This is important: upwards of 80% of voters continue to reject the notion that Griffin’s BNP is a credible alternative.

Unlike Griffin’s appearance on Question Time, no one is likely to accuse Nigel Farage of Holocaust denial or Nazi sympathies; but then, nor is Farage likely to defend the Ku Klux Klan. He is regarded – and treated – as a legitimate part of the political class. This empowers UKIP with the potential to win over the large pool of voters who remain disaffected from the mainstream, and are fearful about immigration – but disgusted by the extremism of the BNP.

So why should Labour worry? Our study finds UKIP’s domestic support is drawn from the same pool of angry white working class voters as the BNP, but in 2009 UKIP was already three times as popular. Since then, the political environment has changed dramatically, and largely to UKIP’s benefit. Rising unemployment and economic stagnation, combined with the coalition’s cuts to public services, will enlarge the pool of angry, economically struggling voters.

Controversies over immigration will also continue. Most migration remains outside of the government’s control and settlement rates are unlikely to hit David Cameron’s target. Voters will notice if the ‘cap’ fails, are likely to interpret the growth of already-settled minority communities as new waves of immigration and, in short, will not be happy.

There are wider consequences, as our colleague Dr Lauren McLaren has shown. When voters hold negative ratings of immigration, they are also less likely to trust their political institutions.

The entrance of the Liberal Democrats into the coalition has also changed the dynamic, for it leaves UKIP alone as the only “protest party” with national presence for voters disgruntled with the coalition but also unimpressed with Labour. This gives UKIP an unprecedented opportunity to build a national presence. They have a large electorate of socially conservative, Eurosceptic, anti-elitist, anti-immigration voters virtually to themselves.

The BNP’s bankruptcy and infighting leaves no competition on the far right; the compromises of coalition limit the Conservatives’ ability to compete from the centre-right; and Labour’s divisions over immigration leave the centre left silent on an issue which is of major concern to voters.

How concerned should those on the centre left be? In a recent study, we estimated that perhaps 20% of the British electorate are available to be mobilised by a radical right party. The Searchlight Trust recently came to the same conclusion, noting how Britain lacks a successful radical right party:

“…not because British people are more moderate but simply because these views have not found a political articulation.”

A sustained breakthrough for UKIP would have serious consequences. The emergence of powerful radical right movements in countries like Denmark, the Netherlands and France has pushed the debate over immigration, identity and integration firmly to the right. France has implemented a burqa ban; the Dutch government relies for its majority on a party whose leader compares the Koran to Mein Kampf; and the entrance of the Danish People’s Party into a governing coalition led to the passage of draconian immigration laws.

UKIP still has weaknesses, particularly in the strength of its activist base and local organisation, but it is operating in the most favourable environment it has ever seen and if it breaks through there is widespread support for its brand of politics. Those on the centre left who are cheered by the collapse of the BNP could soon find themselves facing a much more potent and respected radical right competitor. They need to develop an effective response. And now.