By Neil Foster of Progressive Polling

Seven in ten voters would take some form of action if their pension contributions were to increase while promising lower returns.

The findings from Survation in a public opinion poll commissioned by Unite shows that of those taking action 40% would opt for lawful industrial action, 5% would opt for legal action and 46% would want to leave the scheme outright.

The importance of pensions is also illustrated by several poll findings.

Survation show that 60% believe a pension is the most important benefit an employer can offer. This is considerably well ahead of flexible working (12%), health insurance (8%) and a bonus (7%).

A YouGov survey (pdf) from November 15th revealed 36% viewed pensions to be the “most important issue facing you or your family right now”, second only to the economy.

Given the importance of pensions to people, the issue of trust becomes increasingly critical in forming settled opinions. Survation’s poll lays bare the lack of public confidence and trust in the government.

A staggering 99% of voters don’t ‘fully trust’ ministers on pension affordability. In fact the government is one of the least trusted bodies to provide accurate information on the topic at all.

In stark contrast trade unions topped the opinion poll as the public’s most trusted source of accurate information at 33% – three and a half times more trusted than ministers (9%). Also behind unions in terms of trust on accuracy over pension affordability are think tanks (19%), newspapers and TV (13%) and business leaders (13%).

This suggests the government will struggle to convince the wider electorate of its central argument and justification of pension changes.

That trade unions are so much trusted on this topic shouldn’t be an entire surprise to poll watchers. Ipsos Mori’s ‘Veracity Index’ (pdf) has seen unions consistently outpoll governments in trustworthiness since the survey began in 1983.

Trade unions have also been seen as more ‘truthful’ than business leaders for 11 consecutive years and have outpolled journalists since 1993.

Add the fact the second most trusted profession of all is teachers (81%) and that this profession has overwhelmingly backed industrial action, then unions have a real opportunity to establish facts and tackle myths.

For example today’s Survation poll shows how vulnerable the government is when people are presented with the information.

For example fewer than 1 in 12 (8%) would describe a £6,000 a year average public sector pension as ‘gold-plated’ – a claim that has repeatedly made by Conservative-aligned newspapers and politicians. Instead nearly 3 in 4 (74%) believe the government’s pension proposals to reduce pensions would increase pensioner poverty in years to come.

The findings also show a huge dissatisfaction that those in well-paid positions are being asked to contribute too little to economic recovery, while those with the least are being made to contribute too much.

Eighty six per cent of the public believe chief executives of organisations are not “making enough personal sacrifices to help the economy during the downturn”. There is a clear mismatch when compared to those likely to take some form of action on November 30th – just 17% believe teachers and refuse collectors should make further sacrifices with just 9% thinking the same for nurses.

The coalition government should be wincing at the news energy minister Charles Hendry has recently bought a 20-bedroom castle outside of his constituency. This poll conducted prior to this news shows 78% believe cabinet ministers have not made sufficient sacrifices.

In conclusion, trade unionists and campaigners should take some heart from the fact they are much more trusted than the media and politicians dare admit. In the coming days the more frontline workers who are able to take on the government’s myths with objective facts the better.

There is a hardening mood across the country that the ‘little guy’ is already picking up too much of the bill for a crisis caused by others. There are worries the future people plan for and expect now looks increasingly bleak.

If the unions can successfully tap into this mood and highlight the unfairness of proposals and present alternatives, then they have an opportunity to win wider public support.

See also:

• More evidence Gideon’s savage attack on public sector pensions will hit women hardest – Nigel Stanley, November 21st 2011

• Hutton repeats his big fat lie on public sector pensions – Alex Hern, November 4th 2011

• Hutton should read his pensions report again before leaping to Cameron’s rescue – Michael Burke, September 16th 2011

• Don’t buy the right-wing spin: Public sector pension costs set to fall – Daniel Elton, September 15th 2011

• Danny Alexander repeats the ‘big lie’ that pension reform needed to stop spiralling costs – Daniel Elton, July 28th 2011

Public support for the government’s spending cuts has slumped in the past year, according to the latest Harris poll (pdf) for the Financial Times (£). The poll shows that while 69 per cent of the public thought spending cuts were necessary in the last week of June last year (pdf, p13), that support had fallen to 55 per cent at the same time this year (pdf, p13).

The results showed that 45 per cent of those polled in Britain thought that the government’s austerity measures were harming the chance of economic recovery. In the past year, the economy has stagnated; as chancellor George Osborne’s tough cuts programme has been felt in households across the country, the support for belt tightening seems to be in decline.

As Graph 1 below shows, the public are now less in favour of spending cuts as the primary means to tackle the deficit than a year ago, the proportion favouring an emphasis on cuts down from 71 per cent in 2010 (pdf, p1) to 61 per cent now (pdf, p1).

Graph 1:

Having polled samples in Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the United States, Britain’s public spending cuts have the least support; last year, public support was as strong as its European counterparts.

As Chris Giles writes in the FT (£):

Adding to pressure on David Cameron’s coalition government, the poll results suggest that the public has associated the stagnant economy in Britain since last autumn with the austerity drive and are increasingly wary about the effects.

The difficulties over cuts are likely to intensify later this month when economists expect official figures to show anaemic growth in the second quarter - or perhaps continued stagnation - as public spending was sharply curtailed in the new financial year starting in April.

While the poll does not demonstrate that George Osborne’s cuts will damage the recovery, it suggests the chancellor may need to rethink his political strategy, which relied on widespread public backing for spending reductions.

In the FT last week, economic commentator Samuel Brittan wrote (£) that indirect taxes such as VAT should be temporarily lowered to offset the effects of rising inflation – an economic policy that has had the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls MP, branded a “deficit denier” by the coalition.

Public opinion is firmly opposed to Rupert Murdoch’s proposed takeover of BSkyB, with voters finally waking up to the fact he has “too much influence” over UK politics. The issue will come to a head this Wednesday, with Ed Miliband calling a Commons debate and vote on the News Corp takeover – a vote he seems certain to win, with Lib Dems backing him and many Tories reluctant to vote against him.

A YouGov poll (pdf) for The Sunday Times revealed, in response to the following questions:

Should the News Corp takeover of BSkyB be allowed? Yes: 9%, No: 70%;

What grounds should the takeover decision be made on? Competition grounds alone: 24%, Should take account of phone hacking: 54%;

What do you think of the original police investigation? Adequate: 6%, Inadequate: 75%;

Is it acceptable to pay the police for information? Yes: 2%, No: 92%;

What do you think of press regulation? PCC should continue: 25%, Parliament should set up a formal regulatory authority: 61%;

When should a public inquiry start? ASAP: 48%, After police investigation concludes: 44%

Who should conduct the investigation into the News of the World? News International themsleves: 6%, Someone from outside the organisation: 90%.

Are tabloids fair and accurate in their reporting? Yes: 9%, No: 71%;

Are tabloids out of control? Yes: 78%, No 14%.

While YouGov’s poll for Avaaz (pdf) found, in response to the following:

What impact will the BSkyB takeover have on the media? It will increase diversity: 4%, It will decrease diversity: 49%;

What impact will the deal have on journalism: Increase journalistic standards: 3%, Decrease journalistic standards: 52%;

What do you think the government takes into account more? Public interest: 14%, Interests of media companies: 43%;

Are Murdoch and other News Corp execs “fit and proper” people to own British media? Yes: 11%, No: 67%;

How much influence does Murdoch have over British politics? Too much: 72%, Not enough: 2%

What do you think of David Cameron’s relationship to Murdoch and News Corporation? Too close: 51%, About right: 12%.

In his commentary, YouGov president Peter Kellner concludes:

“However you look at these results, the picture is bleak for News Corporation. Its executives have a vast challenge to restore public faith in their operations.”

We will have more on the fallout from the phone hacking scandal later today and throughout the week on Left Foot Forward.

The alleged resentment felt by some in England towards a Scotland they perceive as having a better deal than them – with free prescriptions, free care for the elderly and free university tuition fees - has long been running sore since the birth of devolution. Yet despite this, a new BBC/ComRes poll for yesterday’s Newsnight and World at One shows almost 50 per cent of people in England oppose Scottish independence.

It found:

• Forty eight per cent oppose the idea of Scotland becoming independent, with 36% in support and 15% undecided;

• In the event of independence, 51% say it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference to England, 19% say it would make England better off and 21% say it would make England worse off;

• Asked whether they felt England should be able to vote on independence, 45% said yes, 47% who said no. This comes just weeks after Scottish secretary Michael Moore suggested two referendums would be needed.

Responding to the poll, a spokesman for Scottish first minister Alex Salmond said the polling showed England was relaxed about the prospect of independence:

“We welcome this poll as it shows that the ordinary people of England are quite relaxed about Scotland becoming independent, which is a common sense view that stands in marked contrast to that of many of their political leaders, who remain obsessed with the union.

“The people of England also agree that it should be up to the people of Scotland to decide their own future.”

On the final point, however, chairman of ComRes Andrew Hawkins seemed to disagree, saying:

“That almost half of the English feel that they would like a say over Scotland’s future suggests that the Union should be England’s as well as Scotland’s to determine.”

For Scottish Labour, leader Iain Gray, whilst recognising the SNP’s mandate to hold a vote, said the Scottish government should now come clean with an exact date for a referendum and end the uncertainty which surrounds it.

Responding to the he said:

“People from across the country are proud to be part of a truly United Kingdom and understand that we are stronger together and weaker apart.

“Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Scots know that Scotland is big enough, rich enough in talent, and smart enough to make the most of all the opportunities that being part of a bigger social and economic unit, such as the United Kingdom, bring us. That’s our best chance to secure the best possible future for all Scots. This poll shows that people in England agree and I welcome that.

“Of course, the SNP have a mandate to hold a referendum on separation, but it is for the people of Scotland to decide. The SNP must come clean on the date, the question and the proposition so the people of Scotland can decide, instead of continuing to duck and dive on all these key issues.”

The poll comes as Anne McEvloy, Public Policy Editor at the Economist, used an edition of Radio 4’s Analysis programme to outline a new running joke across Scotland.

Writing for BBC News online ahead of her programme she explained:

“Scottish Nationalist politicians can, of course, claim that the public has experienced the SNP as a minority government at Holyrood, and has made a choice this year that the party can be trusted on managing the economy (or at least, prefers them to the alternatives).

“But it is possible that the light will change as a referendum nears – though the failure to put a date on it leads to some joking that it is a “neverendum”.”

She quotes finance secretary John Swinney’s making the case not for fully-fledged independence, but so called “devolution max”, arguing:

“If I think about when I joined the SNP in 1979, the definition of independence was very different to what it is today. [Today] we argue for Scottish independence within a social union with the rest of the United Kingdom because we have so many social contacts.

“What our politics are about is about political control – political, economic and financial control to ensure we can create a strong and a fair country.”

McElvoy concludes:

“The Nationalists will have one shot at a referendum for the foreseeable future and they will not want to put before the public a notion of Scottish autonomy which seems to risk more than it gains in economic certainty.”

Ahead of the vote on the second reading of the Pensions Bill in Parliament today, the latest YouGov/Sunday Times poll (pdf) has revealed the unions edging in front in the battle for public opinion – with an almost equal split on Danny Alexander’s reforms and a small majority against Lord Hutton’s proposals. This may help explain the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s rowing back on the rhetoric, in addition to reports the Treasury are reining him in.

Thirty eight per cent of those polled backed the government’s position – that pensions are currently too generous and need to be reformed – with 39% opposed to this line of thought. A quarter of those polled said public sector pensions don’t need reform, with 14% saying they are not generous enough.

On Hutton, who proposed public sector workers should contribute more to their pension, retire later and receive a lower pension, 43% oppose his plans against 38% in support. Those in the private sector support him 46%-33%, with public sector workers strongly against, by a margin of 66%-21%.

Commenting on the finding’s, YouGov President Peter Kellner says the poll shows voters are “divided on the issue”, but with “the balance of opinion currently with the unions”, adding that the findings on pension reform “suggests that public opinion is not yet fixed”.

He concludes:

“This is a snapshot of public opinion in the early stages of what could be a lengthy struggle. Attitudes could change, as well as harden. But for the moment, the unions are narrowly ahead in the battle to woo voters.”

Earlier today, shadow pensions minister Rachel Reeves wrote of the Pensions Bill on Left Foot Forward:

“Government proposals would mean half a million women having to wait more than a year for their state pension, with 33,000 waiting exactly two years longer. We all know that life expectancy is increasing, and so the state pension age needs to rise.

“But it cannot be right for a particular group of women to have their pension age increased at a faster rate than anyone else’s and with such little notice – these changes kick in from 2016, just five years from now, giving much less notice than the ten years notice that Age UK, the Turner Report and the Pensions Policy Institute recommend…

“Petitions have been delivered to Downing Street, letters have landed on MPs’ doormats, and a lobby of women have come to Parliament. Today sees the first opportunity MPs have to show they’ve listened and are prepared to act. Today is the time for MPs from all parties to honour their commitments and vote down these unfair and unjust changes.”

Beyond the headlines of a four-point lead over Labour and apparent support for the Child Benefit changes, there was worrying news for the Conservative party from the latest Sun/YouGov poll this morning. Despite protestations from ministers that the Budget was ‘tough but fair’, the poll reveals that more people believe the government’s public spending cuts are being done unfairly (46 per cent) than fairly (33 per cent).

More than half of those polled (56 per cent) say the cuts are having an impact on their lives, with only a quarter saying they are having no impact, while 39 per cent say they will be bad for the economy, with 43 per cent saying they will be good for the economy. However, more than twice as many people blame Labour for the current spending cuts (44 per cent) than the coalition (20 per cent).

Sixty nine per cent of those polled say they are worried people like them “will suffer directly from cuts in spending on public services such as health, education and welfare”, 71 per cent are worried they “will not have enough money to live comfortably”, 63 per cent are worried they will lose their job or have difficulty finding work and 42 per cent are worried they will lose their home.

On Afghanistan, only eight per cent of those polled think British troops are winning the war with the Taleban, while 26 per cent think they are not winning yet, but victory is possible eventually and more than half (54 per cent) think they are not winning, and victory is not possible.

Finally, on the alternative vote (AV) referendum next May, 40 per cent favour keeping first-past-the-post (FPTP) with 35 per cent favouring AV and 18 per cent undecided. Among Conservative and Labour voters, there are majorities in favour of FPTP, by 55%:28% and 46:35% respectively, with Liberal Democrat voters overwhelmingly backing a switch to AV, by 77 per cent to 11 per cent.

Our guest writer is Philip Cowley, Professor of Parliamentary Government at the University of Nottingham, and co-author of The British General Election of 2010, published later this month

Several of my Labour-supporting friends have a spring in their step – level in the polls at last, as revealed by yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos-MORI poll. How rubbish this new coalition government must be. It took New Labour years to lose its poll lead after 1997.

At the risk of being a party pooper, the trouble is that the experience after 1997 is atypical. After losing in October 1951, Labour had pulled ahead by January 1952, but it didn’t stop the Conservatives enjoying 13 years in government. In 1970, after a June election, Labour were level by October; that didn’t stop Ted Heath polling more votes four years later, even if he didn’t secure enough seats to cling on.

And in 1979, following a May election, Labour had pulled ahead in the polls by the following month. No one needs reminding what that means: Labour led Mrs T’s cutting government within a month of the election and were out of power for the next 18 years.

At this point, one or two of my friends point out that this is an unfair comparison. Those were single party governments, this is a coalition government, we are not comparing like with like, etc etc. All true, and if someone can point me in the direction of polling data from the last British peace-time coalition government formed after a general election, I’ll gladly look at that instead. But you’ll struggle.

What’s happened in the polls is what you’d expect: Government Making Cuts is Unpopular Shocker. Its only significance will come if too many Labour people think it’s significant.

Ed Miliband, appearing on the Today programme this morning, said that he was “increasingly confident” of victory in the Labour leadership contest. The momentum, he claimed, is with him. But his brother’s campaign fought back today telling Left Foot Forward they were “also increasingly confident”.

A ComRes poll for today’s Independent found David to be twice as popular as Ed among Labour-leaning voters. Over 1,500 people who have voted Labour at least once in the past 20 years were polled. Asked for their preferred candidate, 26 per cent nominated the older Miliband, 11% his brother Ed, 8% Diane Abbot, 7% Ed Balls, and 4% Andy Burnham. David Miliband demonstrated a similar lead when interviewees were asked for the most credible prime minister and leader of the opposition. The ComRes poll also found that 35 per cent of people who backed Labour in 2005 but switched to the Lib Dems this year chose David as the candidate most likely to win over wavering voters, while only 5 per cent opted for Ed.

Source: ComRes

A spokeswoman for Mili-D today told Left Foot Forward of the boost felt by their team at being “backed by the people who could vote Labour back into power.” Her attitude was defiant. She pointed out that David increased his first preference lead over Ed among party members in Sunday’s YouGov poll as well as increasing his lead among MPs and MEPs. In a direct response to Ed’s Today programme remarks she said the campaign was “also increasingly confident” of victory. She denied that Ed would dominate the trade union vote, claiming that many union members will not defer to their leaders, but use their vote for themselves.

Ed Miliband’s “allies”, according to the Independent, are determined to brush over the ComRes poll’s figures. They stressed that the poll simply demonstrated David’s higher public profile, and did not represent Labour members’ views.

In what may be interpreted as an indictment of the leadership campaign’s failure to reach out to the public beyond Labour Party members, 44 per cent of those polled did not have a preference when it came to the Labour leadership. This has not, however, hurt the party’s fortunes in general. A YouGov poll, published today, shows Labour have narrowed the gap with the Conservatives to the closest figure since October 2007. The Tories are on 40 per cent, Labour on 39%, and the Lib Dems on 12%

A new study by Ipsos-MORI for Universities UK reveals that 90 per cent of the British public think that “it was important for the Government to invest in UK universities”.

The University and College Union (UCU) said the poll reinforced the position that investment is the only way the UK will continue to operate as a global leader in higher education.

Last week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that Britain invests less money in universities than other OECD countries – just 1.3 per cent of GDP, compared to the average 1.5 per cent.

The research found that four-in-five people thought Government funding for Higher Education should “increase or stay the same”; 89 per cent agreed that universities contribute to advances in science, technology and healthcare. These findings come days after higher education minister, David Willetts, announced a cut in the funding to scientific research in the Government’s austerity drive.

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, said:

“We all benefit from higher education, whether we study at university or not, and I am pleased, although perhaps not surprised, that the public recognises this.

“We need to invest in our universities in order to secure the country’s future and that requires a proper debate on university funding.”

As Left Foot Forward reported last week, the number of graduates that Britain produces has slumped from third to 15th in the OECD in less than a decade. The same OECD report revealed that those with higher levels of education suffered less from the recession. Young people with low levels of education were hit the hardest; with unemployment rates rising by almost five percentage points between 2008 and 2009.

OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said:

“With the worldwide recession continuing to weigh on employment levels, education is an essential investment for responding to the changes in technology and demographics that are re-shaping labour markets.

Last winter, universities were warned that funding for institutions would be under the axe when Peter Mandelson, then businesses secretary, announced that ‘efficiency savings’ worth £398 million would be made during 2010-11.

The university funding review, conducted by Lord Browne, is expected to advise the Government to raise the amount in tuition-fees paid by students. But research published by the Social Market Foundation think tank showed that raising the cap to £7,000 could cost the Government up to £1.3 billion per year under current arrangements.

In another poll conducted by Populus this week, three in four voters said they disagree with the Coalition’s handling of the economy thus far. The Comprehensive Spending Review report on the 20 October will report how much funding is being cut from the research and education budgets. Without the backing of the public, the Government could have a turbulent ride in its austerity drive.