Skip to main content
search
Category

Anvar Sarygulov

Anvar Sarygulov: Fixing the future: the attitudes of young adults

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write

The Conservatives have a problem with young voters. In the 2017 election, only 27% of adults aged 18-34 voted for the Conservatives, in comparison to 62% of the 18-24 age bracket, and 56% of the 25-34 age bracket that voted for Labour. Yet, it is important to note that while the Conservative Party’s lack of appeal to younger adults has taken the appearance of an immutable law of physics, in 1983 the Conservatives were able to win over 41% of such voters.

Political divisions by age reflect growing social divisions – on attitudes and experiences – by age. It has been argued that today’s ‘millennials’ (the generation enjoying their childhood and adolescence at the turn of the century) are a “jilted generation”, locked out of the housing market, enduring insecure and low-paid employment, and facing record levels of debt thanks in part to rising tuition fees.

The challenges faced by young adults are not simply economic, but cultural and political too. There is evidence that suggests mental health problems, particularly depression and anxiety, are rising. Young adults are also experiencing a more polarised and turbulent political environment.

Of course, young adults also enjoy unparalleled opportunities, especially with regards to travel and leisure. They also currently enjoy record levels of employment, educational attainment and entrepreneurialism.

To examine these issues in more detail, we have conducted, in partnership with Opinium, public polling providing a snapshot of the attitudes of young adults towards public policy, political outlook, the Conservative Party and the state of Britain. We have released these results on the eve of our flagship Fixing the future conference.

Methodology

Polling was undertaken by Opinium and conducted between 3th and 5th July 2019. It consisted of one nationally representative sample of 2,002 UK adults. From this overall sample we produced a subset of 562 young adults (adults aged between 18 and 34), which we utilise to discuss the attitudes of young adults. The sample was weighted in terms of age, gender, region, employment status and social grade to reflect a nationally representative audience.

Throughout this analysis, the responses of young adults are compared to those of all adults. All adults includes young adults.

  1. Policy priorities

As can be seen in Chart 1, when asked to pick the top three policies which would help young adults the most, making the cost of housing more affordable emerged as the top choice among both young adults (55%) and all adults (56%), running significantly ahead of all other policies. A majority of young adults and all adults believe that making the cost of housing more affordable would help young adults the most.

The second favoured option among young adults (improving mental healthcare provision) was different to that chosen by all adults (cutting tuition fees). Young adults were more likely to think that improving mental healthcare provision would be among the most helpful (40%), in contrast to 30% of all adults. Young adults were also less likely to think that reducing immigration and leaving the EU (both at 14%) would help them in comparison to all adults (25% and 22% respectively).

However, when asked what should the UK government prioritise above everything else in broader terms, a very different picture emerges. Resolving Brexit is seen as the top priority by all adults (36%) and young adults (24%), as can be seen in Chart 2 below. However, these results also suggest that young adults are not as concerned with Brexit to the same extent as all adults.

The gap in attitudes between young adults and all adults is most notable with tackling climate change, where 19% of young adults see it as the main priority for the UK Government, the second preferred option. This is in contrast with 11% of all adults.

2. Perceptions of Britain

Young adults are broadly in agreement with all adults about what best describes Britain today, with ‘divided’ coming significantly ahead of all other options. This is illustrated in Chart 3 below.

Sadly, young adults today are somewhat gloomy about the state of Britain. ‘Unequal’ (27%) and ‘struggling’ (27%) emerged as the next two picks for young adults, which are also the same ordering as for all adults.

Young adults are broadly in agreement with all adults on what is the best thing about Britain, where the NHS is chosen, as seen in Chart 4 below. Notably, young adults are slightly more likely to see the NHS as the best thing (41% of young adults, in contrast to 36% of all adults). For young adults, this is followed by British countryside and British culture.

Chart 5 below illustrates that all adults (28%) and young adults (22%) have politicians at the top as the worst thing about Britain. Nonetheless, young adults are less likely than all adults to believe the worst thing about Britain is the crime levels (11%, as opposed to 16% of all adults), and are more likely to believe the worst thing about Britain is inequality (17%, as opposed to 14%) and the cost of living (15%, as opposed to 10%).

3. Perceptions of the Conservative Party

The dominant perception of the Conservative Party amidst both all adults and young adults (37%) is being a party for the rich, as can be seen in Chart 6 below. This is followed by descriptions of it as a ‘a party of old, white men’ (19%) and a ‘party stuck in the past’ (12%) by young adults, the same ordering as for all adults.

4. Political outlook

As Chart 7 below signifies, when asked to describe their political outlook, young adults are most likely to describes themselves as liberal (25%). The second most likely choice is progressive (12%). In comparison, only 17% of all adults would describe themselves as liberal and even less (7%) as progressive.

For all adults, they are more likely to describe their political outlook as moderate (24%).  In contrast, 16% of young adults would describes themselves as moderate.

The difference is even starker for those who describe themselves as conservative, with only 9% of young adults choosing it, in contrast to 19% of all adults.

Conclusion

Our polling has provided a snapshot of the attitudes of young adults to public policy, politics and the state of Britain.

Our polling shows that young adults have a notably different political outlook, being much more likely to describe themselves as liberal and less likely as conservative. However, despite these differences there are also many commonalities. Young adults, like all adults, think that the best policy to help young adults today is to make the cost of housing more affordable.

There is common pessimism about the state of the country, with a shared view that Britain is, first and foremost, divided. As with all adults, they are also most likely to believe that politicians are the worst thing about this country.

Young adults are a generation that are most likely to regard themselves as liberal and believe that the best thing about Britain is the NHS. The Conservative Party has a long way to go in appealing to young adults and ridding itself of a common perception that it is a party for the rich.

Anvar Sarygulov is a researcher at Bright Blue

Notes

The full data tables for the polling can be found here.

We are grateful to Opinium for advising on and carrying out the survey.

July 8, 2019

‘No DSS’ – the barriers to private renting for benefit claimants

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write

In November 2018, 1.1 million people on Housing Benefit (HB) and 340,000 households on Universal Credit (UC) utilised these benefits to at least partly pay for their rent in the private sector. Most of these individuals are eligible for social housing, but with 1.1 million of people being stuck on waiting lists due to shortages, many have to wait for years before receiving it. In the meantime, they have to live somewhere, so they are in the private rented sector.

This group of people faces significant challenges in obtaining alternative housing to that in the social rented sector, and it has only been getting more difficult for them in recent years. In 2010, 53% of private landlords were unhappy to rent to those in receipt of benefits. By 2017, this number increased to 61%. One of the culprits is UC.

Under HB, local authorities had a significant level of discretion for enabling the payment of this benefit to landlords directly. Hence, private landlords could experience a significant level of financial security. This was a fairly common practice, representing 29% of all privately rented HB claims.

Whilst UC claimants also have the option to request direct payments to landlords under the Alternative Payment Arrangements (APAs) scheme, the uptake has been extremely limited, with only 5% of privately rented UC claims coming to such an arrangement by November 2018. This seems to be caused by several factors.

First, the criteria for UC APAs is significantly more restrictive when compared to HB. Under HB, local authorities had the discretion to pay directly to the landlord if they believed that it would help the claimant to obtain or keep a tenancy. This is no longer a valid factor under UC. Instead, the criteria emphasises problems such as debt, substance abuse or mental health.

Second, many UC claimants are not even aware that APAs exist. For example, only 30% of UC claimants in a recent Citizens Advice survey were told about direct payments to landlords, while a majority of those who were not told would have liked to utilise them. Claimant interviews from our report on UC, Helping Hand? also suggest that awareness is low and that even when claimants are aware, Jobcentre staff do not always choose to facilitate such arrangements.

To give credit where it is due, the Government has started to act on the issue in 2019, announcing that it will build an online platform for private landlords to allow them to be paid directly. The House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee’s current inquiry into ‘No DSS’ clauses (which means landlords not renting to someone on benefits) has also prompted most banks and building societies to remove their benefit restrictions from buy-to-let mortgage contracts, which should change the behaviour of landlords for the better too.

Government could do more to help UC claimants who are privately renting. In the short-term, giving claimants direct control of the destination of their housing payment through an online system, as suggested in Bright Blue’s recent report Helping Hand?, should greatly increase the uptake of direct payments to landlords and address some of their financial concerns. In the long-term, the Government needs to address shortages in social housing so that vulnerable individuals are not forced to struggle in the private rented sector.

Anvar Sarygulov is a Researcher at Bright Blue.

May 24, 2019

Anvar Sarygulov: Reassessing disability benefit assessments

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write

The story of the introduction of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and new work capability assessments for Employment Support Allowance (ESA) echoes what we found in our recent report on Universal Credit: contrary to media and popular perception, they are working for many.

The majority (82% and 81% respectively) of PIP and ESA claimants report being satisfied. Between April 2014 and March 2017, out of 4.9 million PIP and ESA decisions that were made, only 8% of decisions were appealed. However, these appeals are very significant, having already affected hundreds of thousands of individuals with physical or mental health problems, and things are getting worse.

All claims of PIP, and majority of ESA claims, involve face-to-face assessments with a ‘health professional’. The process of disputing these assessments involves two stages: the Mandatory Reconsideration, done by the Department of Work and Pensions, followed by a tribunal appeal if the claimant was unsatisfied with the outcome of the former.

In 2017-18, there were 153,760 heard tribunal appeals for PIP and ESA assessments. As can be seen in Table 1, 68% of them were upheld in favour of the claimant, with this proportion trending upwards from 65% in 2016-17. Though the 2018-19 year is not yet complete, the numbers for the first three quarters suggest that these proportions will climb even higher, likely into low 70s for both benefits.

Table 1: PIP and ESA heard tribunal appeals upheld in favour of the claimant

Year PIP (% of all heard appeals) ESA (% of all heard appeals)
2014-15 3,571 (50%) 32,810 (54%)
2015-16 30,236 (61%) 28,949 (58%)
2016-17 45,697 (65%) 42,927 (65%)
2017-18 56,971 (68%) 47,788 (68%)
2018-19 (Q1 – Q3) 45,204 (72%) 30,970 (72%)

Source: Ministry of Justice, Tribunals Statistics (2019)

The waiting times for appeals are also an increasing source of concern, as can be seen in Table 2. While the Government has managed to decrease waiting times between 2014 and 2016, this trend has now reversed. In 2017-18, the mean time between opening a case and obtaining a decision has risen to 29 weeks. Furthermore, there is significant variation in waiting times in different areas, with claimants in Wales and Yorkshire having to wait the longest, meaning that 25% of appeals take 40 weeks or longer to resolve. Combined, the rise of successful appeals and waiting times paint an alarming trend.

Table 2: Mean waiting time for an appeal decision

Year PIP (weeks) ESA (weeks)
2014-15 N/A 24
2015-16 17 17
2016-17 16 14
2017-18 23 20
2018-19 (Q1-Q3) 29 29

Source: Ministry of Justice, Tribunals Statistics (2019)

However, it is important to temper these statistics with two considerations. First, the appeals process acts as a filter, as many claimants choose not to contest the decision or withdraw their appeal. Hence, the cases reaching the tribunal tend to be stronger, inflating the success rate. Second, the Government has argued that claimants often provide additional evidence at the appeal stage, bolstering their case, though it should be noted that 63% of overturned appeals were made on the basis of oral, rather than documentary evidence.

Yet, this evidence still suggests that assessment processes could be significantly improved, especially as it does not address the above trends. One way forward is decreasing the caseload through fewer reassessments for specific groups, which will decrease waiting times and potentially increase accuracy. Since the summer of 2018, the Government has already announced that it will only review PIP awards of pensioners and those with the most severe and life-long conditions once every ten years.

However, more substantive changes to the assessments are probably needed. If oral evidence is frequently the deciding part of appeals, then more effort needs to be made to ensure that it is obtained in the initial face-to-face assessments. This might be achieved through substantive changes to the types of questions asked, the manner in which they are asked or through improvement of knowledge and skills of the decision-makers.

Our current disability benefits work for most, but every year tens of thousands of people still have to struggle for months to await a correct decision, and things are getting worse, with both accuracy and timeliness in decline. It is vital for the Government to examine what is going wrong to reverse these trends, helping some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Anvar Sarygulov is a Researcher at Bright Blue.

March 22, 2019

Anvar Sarygulov: Here’s how the Government can improve Universal Credit

https://www.conservativehome.com/thinktankcentral/2019/03/anvar-sarygulov-heres-how-the-government-can-improve-universal-credit.html
March 13, 2019

Anvar Sarygulov: Have Conservative voters shifted to the right since 2015?

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write

The 2017 election has often been framed as a retreat from the centre for both parties, with Jeremy Corbyn shifting Labour to the left and Theresa May shifting the Conservatives to the right. Indeed, with 64% of 2015 UKIP voters that voted in 2017 voting Conservative, there was a clear electoral pressure for such a shift.

But is it true that Conservative voters became more right-wing under Theresa May? On economic issues, for instance, Conservatives under May saw a noticeable shift leftwards as she pursued a more interventionist approach compared to the Conservative party under David Cameron. Indeed, as Prime Minister, May outlined her determination to show “the good that government can do”.

To test the difference in some key attitudes of the typical Conservative voter under Cameron and May, we can analyse the panel data from the British Election Study, a long-running survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of a team of political scientists. Specifically, we can compare attitudinal data in May 2015 with May 2018 on three particular issues: welfare, the environment, and racial equality. Although these are only three issues, so we should be careful when interpreting attitudes towards them, stronger support for these issues tends to be identified as a more ‘left-wing’ viewpoint.

As Chart 1 shows, we can observe a clear shift amongst Conservatives on welfare. In 2015, 75% of Conservative voters thought that families on welfare received too much money, but in 2018 this has fallen to 57%. While Conservatives continue to have a negative view of how welfare is allocated, this attitude has greatly weakened.

As Chart 2 demonstrates, there’s a smaller, but pronounced shift towards believing that more measures need to be taken to protect the environment, with 38% wanting at least some degree of greater measures in 2018 in contrast with the 30% of Conservative voters in 2015.

Finally, as Chart 3 indicates, an increasing number of Conservatives believe that attempts to give equal opportunities to ethnic minorities have not gone far enough, with 18% expressing this sentiment in 2018, as opposed to 10% in 2015. Though this still remains a minority view amongst Conservative voters, there is a clear shift.

It is important to contextualise these shifts in the context of the wider electorate. For all three trends, the case is that the overall public opinion shifted in the same direction, signifying that all voters have become more concerned with the above three issues. What is interesting is that Conservative voters shifted their opinions along with the wider public despite now having a more traditionally right-wing electorate due to inflow of UKIP voters and defections from more liberal voters.

However, it is important to note that attitudes of voters are not static and they are influenced by a large set of factors, including the party they support. Though it is often assumed that politicians shift focus in response to voter’s demands, it is also the case that supporters take cues from the party on issues. Furthermore, this process can be self-reinforcing, making it difficult to establish a clear direction of causality.

Hence, it is important to consider the potential role of May’s Government in these shifts. Though welfare, environment and racial equality are traditionally seen as ‘left-wing’ priorities, the Government has increasingly focused on some of these topics in recent years. Most notably, a significant emphasis has been placed on a number of environmental issues, thanks in part to Bright Blue’s work, which has culminated with a new Draft Environment Bill last year.

Despite the influx of former UKIP voters, the evidence suggests that at least on a number of key issues, Conservative voters have become more concerned about traditionally ‘left-wing’ priorities. Though these changes are small, they still represent a significant shift in opinion.

Anvar Sarygulov is a Researcher at Bright Blue.

March 6, 2019

Anvar Sarygulov: Universal Credit: the challenges of in-work conditionality

By Anvar Sarygulov, Centre Write

In-work conditionality is a novel aspect of Universal Credit, requiring those who are currently in work, but earn below a threshold of National Living Wage rate of 35 hours, to make an effort to increase their earnings. There are exceptions for some individuals, but once Universal Credit is fully rolled out, up to a million people will be required, for the first time, to regularly interact with Jobcentres to meet the requirements of their ‘Claimant Commitment’, even though they are in work.

Currently, these interactions are described as ‘light-touch’ and usually involve monthly telephone contact with a Jobcentre Work Coach. However, the Government is also trialling stricter schemes, including compulsory fortnightly appointments at Jobcentres.

The policy has a noble purpose of reducing in-work poverty by encouraging people to secure more hours, get a promotion, or find a new job that will allow them to be more self-sufficient. But there are problems.

There has been very limited research on the effectiveness of in-work conditionality. DWP’s own trials have suggested that active intervention by Work Coaches for those in work has a positive effect, increasing weekly earnings by up to £5.25, but the difference was not statistically significant. Other research has found no positive impact of in-work conditionality on people’s progression, but also had a small sample size.

More consideration should also be given to the precarious nature of many low-paying jobs. With almost two million people being agency workers or having zero-hours contracts, many people will find it extremely challenging to secure additional work when their hours are already unpredictable from week-to-week. Even switching jobs might leave them in the same situation, as precarious employment has become prevalent in some sectors. Simply punishing these people will not change the structural difficulties that they face in the labour market.

Furthermore, there are many individual barriers for people to work more hours, most notably caring responsibilities. Work Coaches are supposed to account for this by personalising conditionality requirements. However, there is significant concern that currently, Work Coaches lack the necessary resources, training and knowledge to provide this.

Public perception is also important to consider. Polling in 2017 has found that the public has mixed feelings on sanctions for in-work claimants, depending on the behaviour in question. Sanctioning for failing to take an offer of a better paid job was seen as acceptable by 54% of respondents, but sanctioning for not actively looking for a new job was only seen as acceptable by 36%, with 45% opposing.

These problems create potential for another major backlash against Universal Credit. Hence, it is good that the Government is continuing to trial different systems of in-work conditionality to find a system that can truly help some low-earning workers, rather than punish them.

Anvar Sarygulov is a Research Assistant at Bright Blue.

February 1, 2019
Close Menu