Olympics bounce: Cameron may be wrong to play down his chances

Rule one of politics: never assume people are "sensible".

David Cameron is probably right to play down an Olympics polls bounce, but the reason why is not as obvious as he makes out.

The Financial Times reports that the PM told colleagues:

People are too sensible to confuse a sporting event with their day-to-day lives.

Which is just not true. New rule of politics: never assume people are sensible.

A 2010 paper by political scientists Andrew J. Healy, Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia Hyunjung Mo (via WonkBlog), titled Irrelevant events affect voters’ evaluations of government performance, shows just that:

Does information irrelevant to government performance affect voting behavior? If so, how does this help us understand the mechanisms underlying voters’ retrospective assessments of candidates’ performance in office? To precisely test for the effects of irrelevant information, we explore the electoral impact of local college football games just before an election, irrelevant events that government has nothing to do with and for which no government response would be expected.

We find that a win in the 10 d[ays] before Election Day causes the incumbent to receive an additional 1.61 percentage points of the vote in Senate, gubernatorial, and presidential elections, with the effect being larger for teams with stronger fan support.

The authors also find that the more surprising a win, the stronger the incumbency affect; that the effect seems to occur because the happier people feel, the more likely they are to vote for the incumbent; and that if they are made conscious of their reasoning, the effect of irrelevant events diminishes.

So the real question for Cameron isn't whether people are "too sensible" to confuse a sporting event with their day-to-day lives; it's whether the sporting event makes them happier, and, if it does, who they attribute (subconsciously) that happiness too.

The former question is something we'll have to wait until the end of the games to properly answer. The Opening Ceremony, certainly, resulted in a tremendous outpouring of goodwill nationwide, and while it is still a bit too early to tell (literally – the morning rush hour has not yet begun as I write this), it seems unlikely that the much-feared transport chaos will hurt too many people. Partially, admittedly, because many, fearing the worst, have already gone on holiday/arranged to work from home/told their bosses they are planning to contract smallpox for a couple of weeks, so don't expect them in, OK? But also because most of the nation does not actually live in London, and is experiencing most of the games as a televisual event with no real downsides.

National pride will also play a part in any Olympics boost. If Britain wins a lot of medals, then expect at least some people to wander around feeling a lot cheerier than they might otherwise.

The latter question, though, is harder to answer. If the Olympics does make people happier, is it going to be on such a subconscious level that they just attribute it to whoever's in charge? But unlike most sporting events, there is actually some political relevance to consider. It was, after all, Labour who chose to bring the games to London, and who ensure the bid was a success. But it was the Conservatives who oversaw the high-stakes final stretch. And does more of the credit go to the successive Mayors of London, or to the Governments who were ultimately in charge?

Ultimately, the goodwill effects of the Olympics are likely to be too small, too diffuse, and too unclear in provenance to give Cameron much of a boost in the polls. But the reason for that is emphatically not because people are too sensible. Cameron's just lucky he's not being blamed for a tornado.

A spectator walks past the Olympic Stadium. But is she happy? Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.