The coalition is wrong to be complacent about unemployment

The latest fall in unemployment becomes a rise if you take out the massive drop in London.

The DWP select committee has given its verdict on the government’s much-heralded Youth Contract. And it’s not good news. The scheme compares poorly to previous projects and is in danger of missing its targets. You might not be surprised – after all there are still over a million young people out of work and long-term youth unemployment has more than trebled in the last year. You hardly need a report to tell you things aren’t going well.

So why is unemployment falling? What is going on behind the headlines? Well, closer study of the figures reveals that new employment minster Mark Hoban was perhaps a little rash to describe the state of the labour market as "very encouraging." What we are really seeing is that in great swathes of the country Britain’s jobs crisis is becoming deep set. For Britain’s women, there has been no let up – women account for 80% of the rise in long-term unemployment since the election. And our construction industry, a sector we need roaring back to life if we are to rebuild Britain, has seen nearly 120,000 jobs wiped out since the election. Whilst in eight out of twelve regions across the country , unemployment is higher than it was in May 2010.

In fact, the latest fall in unemployment becomes a rise if you take out the massive drop in London as it prepared to host the Olympic Games. Even for those in employment, the glass is emptier than you might think. Two-thirds of the increase in employment since the election is due to a rise in people becoming temporarily employed, or working part-time - now at record highs. And that rise is almost entirely down to people who would rather be in full-time work. They are being forced to take part-time jobs because no full-time jobs are available.

So how do these figures square with ministers’ claims that their flagship Work Programme is doing the job? Well the signs aren’t good – earlier this year DWP downgraded its projection for their flagship scheme by almost half. The sad truth is ministers refuse to tell us how they are getting on. The figures remain tethered behind a depressingly familiar wall of secrecy along with the truth about their Youth Contract and the blueprints for the increasingly beleaguered Universal Credit. David Cameron once told us that sunlight is the greatest disinfectant, but if something is rotting in DWP, it seems ministers aren’t ready for the cure.

The time for secrecy and excuses has long past. Britain desperately needs a change of course. We are now in the longest double-dip recession since the Second World War,  the government’s failing economic plan has pushed borrowing up by a quarter already this year and programmes to get people off benefits and into work seem to be stuck in neutral. The select committee’s report should act as a wake-up call. Thanks to research done by Acevo we know that today’s youth unemployment emergency is set to cost our country £28bn in the coming decade – that’s money we can’t afford to waste.

We now need decisive action – not more tinkering round the edges. Ministers should listen to the International Labour Organisation and urgently bring in a jobs guarantee, like Labour’s Real Jobs Guarantee. They should pay for it with a sensible tax on bankers' bonuses and create a fund that'll help us get 100,000 young people back to work.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith arrives for a Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Getty Images.

Liam Byrne is Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill, cofounder of the UK-China Young Leaders Roundtable and author of Turning to Face the East: How Britain Prospers in the Asian Century.

Getty
Show Hide image

Why is it called Storm Doris? The psychological impact of naming a storm

“Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person.”

“Oh, piss off Doris,” cried the nation in unison this morning. No, it wasn't that everyone's local cantankerous old lady had thwacked our ankles with her stick. This is a different, more aggressive Doris. Less Werther’s, more extreme weathers. Less bridge club, more bridge collapse.

This is Storm Doris.

A storm that has brought snow, rain, and furious winds up to 94mph to parts of the UK. There are severe weather warnings of wind, snow and ice across the entire country.

But the real question here is: why is it called that? And what impact does the new Met Office policy of naming storms have on us?

Why do we name storms?

Storm Doris is the latest protagonist in the Met Office’s decision to name storms, a pilot scheme introduced in winter 2015/16 now in its second year.

The scheme was introduced to draw attention to severe weather conditions in Britain, and raise awareness of how to prepare for them.

How do we name storms?

The Name our Storms initiative invites the public to suggest names for storms. You can do this by tweeting the @metoffice using the #nameourstorms hashtag and your suggestion, through its Facebook page, or by emailing them.

These names are collated along with suggestions from Met Éireann and compiled into a list. These are whittled down into 21 names, according to which were most suggested – in alphabetical order and alternating between male and female names. This is done according to the US National Hurricane Naming convention, which excludes the letters Q, U, X, Y and Z because there are thought to be too few common names beginning with these letters.

They have to be human names, which is why suggestions in this list revealed by Wired – including Apocalypse, Gnasher, Megatron, In A Teacup (or Ena Tee Cup) – were rejected. The Met Office received 10,000 submissions for the 2016/17 season. According to a spokesperson, a lot of people submit their own names.

Only storms that could have a “medium” or “high” wind impact in the UK and Ireland are named. If there are more than 21 storms in a year, then the naming system starts from Alpha and goes through the Greek alphabet.

The names for this year are: Angus (19-20 Nov ’16), Barbara (23-24 Dec 2016), Conor (25-26 Dec 2016), Doris (now), Ewan, Fleur, Gabriel, Holly, Ivor, Jacqui, Kamil, Louise, Malcolm, Natalie, Oisín, Penelope, Robert, Susan, Thomas, Valerie and Wilbert.

Why does this violent storm have the name of an elderly lady?

Doris is an incongruous name for this storm, so why was it chosen? A Met Office spokesperson says they were just at that stage in their list of names, and there’s no link between the nature of the storm and its name.

But do people send cosy names for violent weather conditions on purpose? “There’s all sorts in there,” a spokesperson tells me. “People don’t try and use cosy names as such.”

What psychological impact does naming storms have on us?

We know that giving names to objects and animals immediately gives us a human connection with them. That’s why we name things we feel close to: a pet owner names their cat, a sailor names their boat, a bore names their car. We even name our virtual assistants –from Microsoft’s Clippy to Amazon’s Alexa.

This gives us a connection beyond practicality with the thing we’ve named.

Remember the response of Walter Palmer, the guy who killed Cecil the Lion? “If I had known this lion had a name and was important to the country or a study, obviously I wouldn’t have taken it,” he said. “Nobody in our hunting party knew before or after the name of this lion.”

So how does giving a storm a name change our attitude towards it?

Evidence suggests that we take it more seriously – or at least pay closer attention. A YouGov survey following the first seven named storms in the Met Office’s scheme shows that 55 per cent of the people polled took measures to prepare for wild weather after hearing that the oncoming storm had been named.

“There was an immediate acceptance of the storm names through all media,” said Gerald Fleming, Head of Forecasting at Met Éireann, the Irish metereological service. “The severe weather messages were more clearly communicated.”

But personalising a storm can backfire. A controversial US study in 2014 by PNAC (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) claimed that hurricanes with female names lead to higher death tolls – the more “feminine” the name, like Belle or Cindy, the higher the death toll. This is not because female names are attached to more severe storms; it is reportedly because people take fewer steps to prepare for storms with names they perceive to be unintimidating or weak.

“In judging the intensity of a storm, people appear to be applying their beliefs about how men and women behave,” Sharon Shavitt, a co-author of the study, told the FT at the time. “This makes a female-named hurricane . . . seem gentler and less violent.”

Names have social connotations, and affect our subconscious. Naming a storm can raise awareness of it, but it can also affect our behaviour towards it.

What’s it like sharing a name with a deadly storm?

We should also spare a thought for the impact sharing a name with a notorious weather event can have on a person. Katrina Nicholson, a nurse who lives in Glasgow, says it was “horrible” when the 2005 hurricane – one of the fifth deadliest ever in the US – was given her name.

“It was horrible having something so destructive associated with my name. Homes being destroyed and lives being lost shouldn’t be named after any person,” she tells me over email. “I actually remember at the time meeting an American tourist on a boat trip in Skye and when he heard my name he immediately linked it to the storm – although he quickly felt guilty and then said it was a lovely name! I think to this day there will be many Americans who hate my name because of it.”

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.