The UKIP phenomenon: party makes dramatic gains

The party has already made 42 gains and is averaging 26 per cent of the vote in those areas where it stood.

Most county councils haven't even begun counting yet, but it's already clear that it's Nigel Farage who'll be wearing the biggest grin today. With seven of 34 councils declared, UKIP has gained 42 seats - two more than it was forecast to gain in total - and is averaging 26 per cent of the vote in those wards where it stood. It is, as the usually restrained pollster John Curtice said, "a phenomenal performance". 

After a comfortable win in the South Shields by-election (in which UKIP finished second), Labour has gained 30 seats and is hoping to win back Derbyshire and possibly Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire, three of the four councils it lost in 2009. The party is pointing to gains in marginal seats such as Harlow, Stevenage and Hastings as proof that is recovering in those areas it needs to win for a majority at the next election. 

The Tories have already lost 66 seats and appear likely to perform worse than forecast, with the party prepared for losses of up to 500.

After a humiliating result in South Shields, the Lib Dems are taking comfort from their performance in their strongholds. In the eight Lib Dem parliamentary seats where the result has been declared, the party is averaging 33 per cent of the vote, with the Tories on 31 per cent, UKIP on 22 per cent and Labour on 11 per cent. In a by-election in Nick Clegg's Sheffield Hallam constituency, the party won the seat on an increased share of the vote, with a 4 per cent swing away from Labour. As in Eastleigh, this is evidence that the Lib Dems are benefiting from an incumbency factor, something that should worry the Tories, who are in second place in 37 of the Lib Dems' 57 seats and who need to capture more than half of those if they are to stand any chance of winning a majority in 2015. 

 

UKIP leader Nigel Farage answers questions from the media as he canvasses for votes in the South Shields by-election. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.