December 21, 2010
The Politics of Snow
Snow and ice have brought chaos to Britain. Flights cancelled, trains delayed, motorways deadlocked. Holidays have been ruined, general frustration caused to millions, and economic productivity reduced.
As in previous years, this has led to rafts of angry declamations. Fingers are enviously pointed to Finland, Germany, Illinois, or whatever places get far more snow than Britain each winter, and yet manages to stay operational. Angry letters are written to local newspapers, denouncing councils for not gritting every lonely lane and back alley. Her Majesty’s opposition requests the Government make a statement on the snow. Her Majesty’s government obliges.
Thus, the recent snow demonstrates some basic dynamics of modern democratic politics.
Firstly, that voters are unreasonable – both in the pejorative and the technical sense. It is highly dubious, for example, that the Outraged of Tumbridge Wells spend their warmer months lobbying for higher council tax to pay for more gritters and street-salt. (Things which, of course, may never actually be used if the next winter turns out to be mild.)
Yet as soon as the cold weather hits, the local council (or for that matter, central government) has wickedly neglected its duties to look after citizens, and must be condemned and bewailed accordingly. Never mind that those demanding Government Action frequently speak from the other sides of their mouths about the rise of the Nanny State.
For you see, voters cannot be trusted. They want their problems dealt with now. Regardless of whether they were happy to sell the collective lifejackets six months ago. And it’s likewise irrelevant that, in three months time, none of them will care that for a fortnight in December snow caused chaos. People demand action when their interests are sufficiently prompted in the here and now. And those demands and interests are often highly insensitive to any long-term reasonableness.
But politicians know this. Hence why Labour calls for a statement on the snow which can be nothing but platitudinous – and the Tories duly give one. The game has to be played; voters are outraged by the ice; Something Must Be Done.
Or rather, Something Must Be Seen To Be Done. Because politicians are canny. They know that in two months time nobody will give a sod about the snow. They also know that when the council (or general) elections come around, lower tax rates and more visible permanent public services will curry most favour. By contrast, platoons of unused road gritters – sitting silently in darkened hangers waiting for a winter’s day when might be called upon – will butter precisely zero parsnips in the balmy mornings of May.
The reason Germany, Finland et. al. have adequate infrastructure for dealing with snow is because it snows there a lot, hence permanent provisions are needed. The same is not true of Britain. It would be a very silly use of economic resources for the normally mild UK to install the same level of pre-emptive preparation these other countries do. Even if that means accepting that in some years the country will go to the snowy dogs for a week or two.
But of course, no mainstream politician can risk pointing out this blindingly obvious truth. Because pointing out such basic facts would be tantamount to explaining to outraged voters why they are unreasonable and irrational. Or, in other words, why they are acting like selfish, short-sighted idiots.
And in a mass democracy, you get nowhere telling hoi poloi such things. Especially if they happen to be true. Hence, the platudinous drivel you will find yourself surrounded by. Until next week, when the ice melts and the rabble finds something else to clamour for instead.
Steve Hayes said,
December 21, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Cynical, but amusing and, most of all, true.
Dothakers said,
December 21, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Well said, and very true!
MarinaS said,
December 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm
This is not in any technical sense untrue, but I can’t help but feel it doesn’t really address the issue. The weather is only a catalyst for exposing the fact that so many of our basic services are operating at breaking point, and when the smallest little domino wobbles, they duly break.
All transport links were virtually unusable during the summer of 2003 too. Back then it was “the motorway melting” and all sorts of silly stuff. The real answer to the question “why can’t trains operate properly in either heat, cold, or autumn?” isn’t that we don’t have super-extra-special wasteful provisions to deal with each one of those situations, but that we only just barely have what it takes to move people from A to B on a perfect day.
Yes, people complain most when the pain is most acute; but in fairness when does the BBC do vox pops on delayed trains outside of these crazy conditions? Anyway, with something like 80% of English residents being in favour of renationalising the railways, I don’t think they’re quite as unreasonable and short-termist as you say.
Peter said,
December 21, 2010 at 9:58 pm
There are things that the government could do though, aren’t there? It’s not as if all the options involve high-tech snowploughs or whatever it is they use in Russia/Germany etc.
An example that’s often brought up is that you could place everyone under a legal duty to clear the snow/ice that’s on the bit of pavement that’s outside their house. No massive expense there, as far as I can see.
Paul Sagar said,
December 22, 2010 at 2:00 am
MarinaS, I don’t really see why any of your points count against me? If anything, youre backing me up – public transport is shit and only just works, but we tolerate that for 90% of the year, and complain about it for a little while, but not enough to sustain any momentum for actual reform. That people want the rail network nationalised as an abstract point simply indicates that they have observed train companies to be inefficient rip off merchants. Dont see how that undercuts anything Ive written in the OP.
Peter, having people clear their drives is hardly going to grit the M6 or ensure Heathrow stays open for the duration of the festive period…
MarinaS said,
December 24, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I don’t agree with you that we *do* tolerate it for 90% of the year, that’s exactly my point. The BBC may tolerate it for 90% of the year, or the Daily Mail may, but actually for the majority of ordinary people transport, traffic, parking, fuel prices and other things relevant to how they get to work/play in their everyday lives is of constant importance and a suorce of 365-a-year kvetching.
It just doesn’t bubble up to the top of the journalistic agenda until some big corporation is losing money over it and/or lives are at risk; but to say that “we” just dumbly “tolerate” it and therefore are as much at fault as the poeple in charge of maintaining the infrastructure (as sort fo “the government we deserve” argument) is to ignore the patent fact that media furore does not reflect public interest withphotographic fidelity.
Is it an “election issue”? Probably not. Even at the local level, no amount of potholes would make rural Wiltshire councils anything but true blue. But again, the fact that periodic electoral snapshots don’t illuminate this as an agenda topper is not a good measure of how much people care about it or are angry about it, even when things are not going quite as spectacularly wrong as this.