Will unemployment sink the coalition?

Why Cameron can't ignore the electoral consequences of rising joblessness.

In February 2012 unemployment reached 8.4 per cent of the workforce, or 2.67 million people, according to the Office of National Statistics. The jobless total increased by 48,000 over the previous quarter, and with current polices it is only a matter of time before it reaches 3 million. On the other hand, this does not appear to be helping Labour very much, with a YouGov poll in the Sun earlier this month putting the Conservatives on 40 per cent in voting intentions compared with 38 per cent for Labour. From the 1950s to the 1980s governments ran scared of unemployment since it appeared toxic to the re-election chances of an incumbent party. In these years it appeared that a governing party would be rewarded in the polls if unemployment fell and punished if it rose. So what has happened to this relationship and can the coalition safely ignore the electoral consequences of rising unemployment? There are good reasons to think not, and there is a real chance that this issue will sink the coalition government at the next election in May 2015.

There were seventeen general elections between the first fully peacetime election in 1950 and the most recent one in 2010. The chart below shows the relationship between vote shares for the governing party and unemployment in the election year. The diamonds represent the elections and the striking feature is the strong negative relationship between unemployment and votes for the governing party, particularly in fourteen of the seventeen elections. In each of the fourteen elections the governing party, whether Labour or the Conservatives, took a big hit in their vote share if unemployment grew on their watch. This was most apparent in 2010 when unemployment reached 2.4 million under Labour and the party achieved the lowest vote share of any government in the era of mass democratic politics.

Unemployment and Votes for the Governing Party 1950-2010

A

So what happened in the cluster of three elections in the chart which do not appear to fit the pattern? These were the elections in the Thatcher era between 1983 and 1992. Unemployment grew rapidly after the Conservatives won the 1979 election when the Thatcher government started to make rapid cuts in public spending and introduced very deflationary monetarist policies. As a consequence Conservative support in the polls started to decline rather rapidly and it is fairly clear that they would have lost the 1983 election were it not for four key factors. The first factor was Labour's split in 1981 which gave birth to the Social Democratic Party and greatly weakened the party electorally, since voters dislike a divided party. The second was the Falklands war in which the Conservatives managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and this raised their support dramatically overnight. The third was Michael Foot who may have been admired by many Labour Party members, but was very unpopular with the voters. Finally, there was the Labour manifesto of 1983 famously dubbed 'the longest suicide note in history' and this damaged support even more. Cumulatively this combination of factors put paid to the party's chances and served to protect the Conservatives from the consequences of their economic policies.

Once Mrs Thatcher had got over the hurdle of the 1983 election and more than 3 million unemployed, joblessness started to slowly decline and fell to 2.8 million by 1987 and to 2.7 million by 1992. As a result the Conservatives could claim that their policies were slowly but surely working, a claim which was successful as voters forgot what had happened in the early eighties. The key point here is that the relatively strong relationship between unemployment and votes for the governing party was overridden by a very unusual set of events in 1983. These events were rare by historical standards, since major British political parties do not split very often, and it is not very common for the country to win a short, sharp, legitimate war. This means that if events are momentous enough and produce sufficient cumulative bad news for the main opposition party, the impact of unemployment on voting is going to be greatly weakened. But as 1983 demonstrated it takes a great deal for this to happen.

So the key question is what are the chances of the coalition government repeating this and being insulated from the consequences of its economic policies in 2015? At the moment the chances look pretty slim. Unlike in the early eighties Labour is a united party despite the grumbling about Ed Miliband's leadership, and he is unlikely to face a leadership challenge in the present Parliament. Actually his popularity and that of the Labour Party is likely to increase as it becomes more and more apparent to the voters that Labour has been right about the economy and the Conservatives have got it wrong. The party will receive an additional boost if as seems likely Barack Obama is re-elected President of the United States. This is because the US economic strategy under Obama has been much closer to that advocated by Labour than to the government, and unlike Britain the early signs of a recovery in the US economy are now emerging. Overall the Labour Party has a very good story to tell about the economy in the run-up to 2015.

Events in the Eurozone are currently conspiring against the government. Even if the coalition were pursuing a growth strategy, it would largely be stymied by the Eurozone crisis. As is widely recognized the Euro bailout is all austerity and no prosperity so it is very likely to fail. Moreover the one success the government can claim, low borrowing costs in international financial markets, will be undermined if Britain loses its AAA credit rating as the deficit continues to rise. It may sound a bit far-fetched but I would not rule out a Labour landslide victory in 2015 if things go on as they are.

Paul Whiteley is Professor of Government at the University of Essex and Co-Director of the British Election Study.

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.