One effect of David Laws’ resignation is that it has made the government unrepresentative of the population in one overlooked respect - their marital status.
AFAIK, every one of the Cabinet is married. By contrast, amongst 40-64 year-olds generally, only 68.4% are married. 15.3% are divorced and 13.5% are single.
This means that if the marital status of the Cabinet were representative of the general population, six or seven would be divorced or single. In fact, none are. There’s only a one in 2500 chance that this would happen by pure luck.
What’s more, only two Cabinet ministers (Lansley and Warsi, I believe) have been divorced. But statisticians estimate that 45% of marriages will end (pdf) in divorce.
So, what is it about government ministers that means they are more uxorious than the general populace? Here are some theories:
1. The same features that cause success in politics make people attractive marriage prospects. I’m sceptical of this. The Cabinet includes Eric Pickles and Michael Gove. Yes, married men tend to be more successful than unmarrieds, but this effect seems stronger at the lower end of the earnings distribution, not the higher. Are all top investment bankers, or top doctors (say) married? Surely not. There is, then, something odd about politics.
2. Ambitious politicians know that singlehood or divorce is bad for their career, and so will avoid it. Alternatively, single politicians just don’t rise to the top. This just raises the question: why would there be so strong a bias against the non-marrieds in politics when there isn't elsewhere?*
3. Successful politicians’ have skills which make them likely to stay married. They are good at communicating, compromising and suppressing their individuality in the interests of other goals. They are also unusually capable of enduring dull people.
4. Politicians meet lots of people, so they are more likely to meet Mr or Ms Right.
5. Successful politicians are an easily recognisable type of person - and a type that doesn‘t change much over time - so their partners don’t suffer the information problems that can cause a bad match. It’s hard to imagine the spouse of a Cabinet minister leaving them on the grounds that “you’re not the person I married.”
Whatever explanation one favours - feel free to add others - there is a puzzle here. The fact that all Cabinet ministers are married is a new feature; the Blair and Thatcher governments contained several divorcees (Cook, Blunkett, Nigella’s dad). Is this difference just accidental, or is there some significance in it?
And, indeed, should we worry that the government is unrepresentative in this respect?
* Actually, one significant exception here is the Daily Mail. Paul Dacre, allegedly, has a strong preference for his senior employees to be married.
AFAIK, every one of the Cabinet is married. By contrast, amongst 40-64 year-olds generally, only 68.4% are married. 15.3% are divorced and 13.5% are single.
This means that if the marital status of the Cabinet were representative of the general population, six or seven would be divorced or single. In fact, none are. There’s only a one in 2500 chance that this would happen by pure luck.
What’s more, only two Cabinet ministers (Lansley and Warsi, I believe) have been divorced. But statisticians estimate that 45% of marriages will end (pdf) in divorce.
So, what is it about government ministers that means they are more uxorious than the general populace? Here are some theories:
1. The same features that cause success in politics make people attractive marriage prospects. I’m sceptical of this. The Cabinet includes Eric Pickles and Michael Gove. Yes, married men tend to be more successful than unmarrieds, but this effect seems stronger at the lower end of the earnings distribution, not the higher. Are all top investment bankers, or top doctors (say) married? Surely not. There is, then, something odd about politics.
2. Ambitious politicians know that singlehood or divorce is bad for their career, and so will avoid it. Alternatively, single politicians just don’t rise to the top. This just raises the question: why would there be so strong a bias against the non-marrieds in politics when there isn't elsewhere?*
3. Successful politicians’ have skills which make them likely to stay married. They are good at communicating, compromising and suppressing their individuality in the interests of other goals. They are also unusually capable of enduring dull people.
4. Politicians meet lots of people, so they are more likely to meet Mr or Ms Right.
5. Successful politicians are an easily recognisable type of person - and a type that doesn‘t change much over time - so their partners don’t suffer the information problems that can cause a bad match. It’s hard to imagine the spouse of a Cabinet minister leaving them on the grounds that “you’re not the person I married.”
Whatever explanation one favours - feel free to add others - there is a puzzle here. The fact that all Cabinet ministers are married is a new feature; the Blair and Thatcher governments contained several divorcees (Cook, Blunkett, Nigella’s dad). Is this difference just accidental, or is there some significance in it?
And, indeed, should we worry that the government is unrepresentative in this respect?
* Actually, one significant exception here is the Daily Mail. Paul Dacre, allegedly, has a strong preference for his senior employees to be married.
Your final question is an interesting one. I wonder whether the need to keep the Lib Dems happy will see the Tories ditch their proposal to institutionalise discrimination against unmarried couples in the tax system.
Posted by: Pete | June 01, 2010 at 01:42 PM
Conservatives are often homophobic and biased towards the nuclear family - I suspect they'd prefer to suffer in a marriage or behave adulterously rather than admit defeat, face what they perceive as public shame and - for the rich ones - divvy up massive inheritances and landholdings. The Conservative Associations are even more reactionary than their MPs and will largely select only married heterosexuals.
Posted by: plashing vole | June 01, 2010 at 04:14 PM
By contrast, amongst 40-64 year-olds generally, only 68.4% are married. 15.3% are divorced and 13.5% are single.
How many of the single ones are widows or widowers, I wonder? You wouldn't expect many of those among Cabinet ministers, who come from and marry into the longer-lived professional classes.
Posted by: ajay | June 01, 2010 at 04:56 PM
What about the causal effect in the other direction? Such as:
1. Those in strong relationships have someone there to provide emotional support and so find it easier to reach the top.
2. The partner of the politician may have become interested in that person because they could be successful, and they would quite like being married to a successful politician.
However, I have to disagree with this bit:
"There's only a one in 2500 chance that this would happen by pure luck."
It didn't happen by pure luck. At least, David Laws wouldn't have gone if he had been married/in a civil partnership, since he wouldn't have been hiding his relationship. His marital status and him not being in the cabinet are not independent. Thus, a calculation should only be done for the chances of only 1 member of the cabinet being not married.
Posted by: Alex | June 01, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Not sure about your calculations, actually. 68% married implies out of a cabinet of 29 (according to the Number 10 website) you'd have about 20 married and 9 single/divorced. On your probability calculations; assuming a binomial distribution, the probability of having 29 married out of 29 individuals is 1 in about 61000. Your figures don't indicate where divorced-and-remarried individuals are binned, but counting them as divorced (ie 27 of 29 married) gives about 1 in about 700.
Your binomial calculator is a little suspect, since it returns a probability for a number of success greater than the number of trials. My figures are from R, by the way.
Posted by: Calum | June 01, 2010 at 06:41 PM
I think for the very top social/economic class, which the Cabinet have been in for years, the divorce rate is lower and marriage rate is higher.
Posted by: Matthew | June 01, 2010 at 08:14 PM
Alex Ferguson prefers his players to be married too.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article6854258.ece
Perhaps you could argue that MP/candidate selection is done in an unfair manner and might be considered illegal in other forms of employment
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508031/So-married-And-questions-CANT-ask-job-applicants-more.html
Posted by: TL | June 02, 2010 at 12:07 AM
@Alex "Those in strong relationships have someone there to provide emotional support and so find it easier to reach the top." haha excellent insight. I haven't thought of it that way.
Posted by: Fred Kapoor | June 02, 2010 at 12:54 PM
I would be more concerned if they were all 'faith-based' Christians with an evangelical turn of mind. Blair did more than enough damage on his own with his ludicrous opinions about the efficacy of faith based schools for example.
Posted by: Chris Purnell | June 02, 2010 at 01:21 PM
Really helpful blog, thanks!
Posted by: Bruce Lee | June 03, 2010 at 12:16 AM
Chris,
No we should not. To worry is to give in to a false premise of Executive Branch "representation".
Surely its not the job of the Executive even in a Parliamentary democracy to be "representative". That is the job of the legislature.
Posted by: Zambian Economist | June 04, 2010 at 10:02 PM