The politics of snow

In the United States, managing the consequences of bad weather is regarded as an essential public service, and it can make or break politicians. The 2012 election was swung, say some, by Barack Obama’s efficient handling of Hurricane Sandy. Why, then, in bleak winter, does Britain suffer through disrupted flights, blocked roads and closed schools, with little clarity about who takes responsibility?

There’s a case for saying a country with generally mild weather has no reason to invest as much money as, say, Chicago in dealing with snow. But if the Met Office says that UK weather is becoming more extreme, then there has to be a reaction – and a proportionate reaction, too. In some parts of the country, things have obviously been chaotic: teachers and students trapped, while over 100 people were forced to seek refuge in a pub on Bodmin Moor. In other areas, residents protest at apparent overreaction; the school is closed, but all they can see out of the window is a light dusting on the lawn. That means taking a day off work to look after the children, which has a knock-on effect upon the economy in a country that already has productivity issues.

Britain is not a nation of snowflakes: it ought to be able to handle bad weather, whether that means braving out a light flurry or responding swiftly to emergencies. So why do we keep getting caught by surprise, and who will take responsibility? British politicians – like their US counterparts – should be as visible as possible, and the voters need to hold them to account, to think more like consumers. We pay good money to government on the understanding that it exists to help out in moments exactly like this.