This week, David Cameron issued the public with an “invitation to join the government of Britain”, promising to “shift power from the state to the people” in a “revolution of civic engagement”. But if the latest polls are any guide, far from running our own schools, parks and libraries, the British people don’t even seem terribly keen on that most basic feat of civic engagement – popping down to the polling station to vote.
Somehow, despite being the closest race for nearly 20 years, in perhaps the most uncertain times for 70 years, this is the campaign that has failed, so far, to catch fire. Even Mr Cameron admitted during his big launch that “a lot of people are very switched off from this election”.
Traditionally, levels of engagement rise steadily once the campaign begins. In 2005, those saying they were certain to vote went from 53 per cent three months before the election started to 61 per cent after the first week of campaigning and 64 per cent by the last week. (The actual turnout was just over 61 per cent.) Even in the 2001 race, a wholly foregone conclusion, certainty to vote rose by five percentage points during the campaign.
This week, according to ICM, just 55 per cent say they will vote – no change over the past month, and only slightly up on January. The other finding is a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm for either main party. In only five of the 55 polls in the past four weeks have the Conservatives scored more than 40 per cent.
Every time I turn on the TV, I seem to find Gordon Brown in some heavily policed council house, sharing a sofa with vetted Labour voters, or Mr Cameron being applauded by a well-scrubbed, carefully multi-ethnic claque of young Tories in T-shirts. To date, there have been no breakthrough moments, no episodes of real spontaneity, only one minor voter ambush – and despite the media verdict that the Tories “won” the first week, they have scored little, if any, dividend in the polls.
Over the past two weeks, the news channels have hired more helicopters than Sarah Ferguson, convened you-the-voter juries by the score, even given Newsnight’s Michael Crick his own personal ice-cream van. Sadly, however, it has gone down no better with the ratings than the HMS Bounty’s late, lamented Captain Bligh.
Could it be that, in an election decided in 150 marginals, people are twigging how little influence they have? The New Economics Foundation’s fascinating “Voter Power” index claims that the average British citizen does not have one vote, but only a quarter of a vote, reflecting our real chances of being able to change the outcome in our local constituency. Living in ultra-safe Greenwich and Woolwich, I am deemed to have less than one-twentieth of a vote.
The system, of course, has always been that way – but the consolidation of the Liberal Democrats at about 20 per cent, and the more recent rise of fourth, fifth and sixth parties, have put first-past-the-post’s credibility under ever greater strain. In the days when nine out of 10 voted Labour or Tory, its deficiencies didn’t matter much. Now that only two-thirds do, those limitations are much more obvious.
In 2005, Labour scored just 36 per cent of the vote – but won 55 per cent of the seats in the Commons. Factoring in turnout, the Government secured a substantial majority with little more than a fifth of eligible voters. Perhaps people feel disconnected from democracy because they are disconnected from it.
Yet even in the minority of seats where voters exercise real power, there is conflicting evidence about how interested they are. Today’s poll by The Daily Telegraph suggests a turnout of 65 per cent or more in the marginals, so perhaps they are coming to realise their significance to the contest. But on the same day last week that ICM found 55 per cent of voters nationwide “certain to vote”, it polled in the marginals and found only 52 per cent answering yes to the same question.
The expenses scandal has damaged all politics and all parties. But perhaps a greater factor is the feeling that the real issues are being ducked. Despite being named as voters’ second or third concern, nobody is talking about immigration. And despite the certainty of tax rises and savage public spending cuts, no party is saying where those cuts and taxes will fall.
Yet is that their fault – or ours? We may tell the pollsters that we want honesty, but if Cameron or Brown gave us the truth it would probably destroy their chances. The result is that neither party has a clear or credible message. The Tories started talking about cuts, then backed off – and are now promising to reverse a tax rise. Labour attacks the Tory “threat” to public services – while admitting that it, too, will make huge cuts.
This could be the day when it finally comes alive. At 8.30 tonight, for the first time in history, the leaders in a British national campaign will debate on TV. If the US presidential debates are any guide, the broadcast will be seen by up to a third of the electorate and influence the voting choices of three-quarters.
But though it will be hyped to the skies, the omens are poor. Precisely because the stakes are so high, the parties have negotiated a web of rules to minimise the risk of anything interesting happening. The “debate” will consist of each leader in turn speaking without interruption for a total of six minutes on each question (one minute each for answers, then another minute each for rebuttals) before they get to the four-minute section where they are actually allowed to, well, debate with each other.
There will be no follow-ups, from moderator or audience. No audience reaction is permitted, and no questions about just one leader will be allowed. Even Mr Cameron says he hopes the public “won’t feel short-changed”, adding: “I do worry that we may have ended up with a format that’s going to be a bit slow and sluggish. I think we’ve got to make sure the public feel they are getting their questions answered.”
This last admirable sentiment might have more force if Mr Cameron’s handlers had not used the debate as an excuse to turn down the traditional interview with Jeremy Paxman – the first time one has not taken place with Paxman or his predecessor, Robin Day, since 1964. Mr Brown, too, may refuse Paxman.
Regular national programmes where politicians are grilled by voters, such as Election Call, have been absent from our screens; 2010 may well see no Diana Gould, the West Country teacher who ambushed Margaret Thatcher. Nor is there any sign yet of a repeat of the programme in which the three leaders separately faced the BBC’s Question Time audience, the single most democratically exciting moment of the 2005 campaign. Nobody who watched it will ever forget the sight of Tony Blair learning for the first time, from a member of the audience, how GP waiting targets were manipulated. The memories, however, may have to do, because it doesn’t look like we’re getting another chance.
What of new media? Maybe in the future, the wonderful power of the net will rip away control from the moth-eaten apparatus of two-party politics. For the moment, however, it is subject to the same management, the same compulsory blandness as the rest of the campaign – with occasional, joyous lapses, such as Stuart MacLennan, the Labour candidate who tweeted himself off his perch by calling train passengers “chavs”.
The other slight difficulty for the Twitter kids is that in order to vote, you still have to take a stubby pencil and mark a cross on a piece of paper, something only 37 per cent of the age group, an all-time record low, managed in 2005. An entire generation could be getting out of the voting habit.
I hope I’m wrong about this: that the debates will be good, that the campaign sparks to life, people get involved, and that turnout will be up. Because for whoever wins, the next few years will be horrendous. A prime minister with a slim, or non-existent, majority will be obliged to take enormously unpopular decisions. The last thing we need is a crisis of legitimacy: a government grudgingly elected by a small fraction of the public in a campaign which fails to address the real issues, or provide a meaningful mandate.
Andrew Gilligan's article about
British voter participation is a brilliant and poignant one.
Voter apathy is plaguing the
Western world, because of
frustration of the electorate
with business-as-usual politics,
along with business-as-usual politicians. Sleaze, corruption,
waste, extravagance, partisan politics, preoccupation with
lobbyists, self-aggrandizement,
graft and other improprieties,
are just some of the aberrations
and transgressions that rattle, infuriate and aggravate voters
and the electorates all over
the world democracies. So much
that many would like to trade
their local or national leaders
and politicians for some one or
some people. The irony is: Other
electorates would feel the same
way thinking their local
politicians are the sleaziest.
This is what creates voters'
apathy: Sense of alienation and
corrupt inevitability: The idea,
feeling and instinct that one's
vote won't make any difference--
what will be will be, and the
same set of odd politicians would be back to perpetuate the
status quo. That could be the
case in ordinary elections
where one party--especially the
incumbent--is so far ahead that
that the status quo is well
entrenched. But, not in this
election where change is very
much possible.
The probability is more than
50 percent that a brand new government other than Labour could be formed after the
May 6 general election. And, that will bring change in ideas,
change in policies, change in
ideology and philosophy, change
in cabinet, change in fiscal
policy, change in economic
strategy, and in almost every
conseivable mechanism of
leadership, government and
administration.
But, this looming changed may
fail to materialize, if taken
for granted. For instance, if
Democrats had realized that,
572 votes could have made a
huge difference in the Florida's
then 25 electoral votes, more
could have voted and Al Gore
would have been president. It's
one the bitterest and greatesr
lessons in voter apathy.
In this British election, there has never been a time voter
participation has been more
significant than on May 6 when
the general election will take place. There're over 100 constituencies where a swing of few hundreds votes, can also, swing the results the other way and create huge upsets. Victory depended on who votes and for which party or candidate. So, for an election with polls this close, voting en masse is extremely important or valuable.
Igonikon Jack, USA
Andrew old chum, surely politicians will seek a mandate only if they know what they want to do when they get into office? What they want is to be in office, but they are not particularly focused on the need to govern. Ergo, most voters who are aware of this paradox, are not interested in the stream of BS that will be broadcast over the next three weeks. I was taught from a young age that leadership is defined as followership and on current form, all our political class fail on this basic tenet.
This is what it'd sound like if a party leader was honest:
"public sector employment needs to be cut by 800,000, spending needs to be cut by more than £100 Billion if we are not to suffer a debt downgrade and welcome the IMF back in.
As for immigration, the political class are frightened of talking about it, but we will cut all immigration apart from the HSMP. This will result in net levels falling from 190000 to 5000"
And do you know what'd happen then? The BBC would be all over our imaginary politician like the red army, accusing them of scaremongering and being racist. Then their poll ratings would collapse and that'd be the end of their political career.
To (mis)quote a famous movie speech: "you want the truth? British voters can't handle the truth"
"There will be no follow-ups, from moderator or audience. No audience reaction is permitted, and no questions about just one leader will be allowed."
The prohibition on audience reaction will be impossible to enforce. Just look how forceful David Dimbleby has to be on Question Time sometimes to stop people from shouting out of turn or heckling. Without a proper outlet for when politicians dodge questions (as they are bound to do and are never properly called on it) then the atmosphere could very quickly turn poisonous.
Think the atmosphere during the Question Time debate after the MPs' expenses scandal broke and ratchet it up several notches and that is what could happen if the debate rules straight jacket is not relaxed. The results for the politicians' standings if that happens will not be good.
You can bet that all three leaders will steer clear of the real issues that are getting people worked up: the EU (and the impact that 'ever-closer union' is having on British democracy), immigration and the great fraud that is being perpetrated on tax-payers under the guise of 'climate change'.
With huge swathes of London now looking like Beirut or Lagos, the indigenous British are rightly concerned for the future of their land. Yet to listen to the politicians you wouldn't guess that this is even an issue let alone a serious one.
Fortunately, as I have already made up my mind to vote UKIP, I don't need to waste time on this TV non-event. Unless they throw custard pies at each other, I won't even bother to watch re-runs of the 'great debate' as a podcast either. They can all three go to hell as far as I am concerned.
Forget the economy. There are three issues any potential candidate can espouse to shake people from their armchairs to vote.
1. IMMIGRATION. Not only is immigration and welcoming of bogus asylum seekers placing undue strain on education, health and housing, we are importing potential terrorist threats. The evidence has been demonstrated, but will not be mentioned by the three party leaders.
2. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. Restore legal powers to our judges and restore the balance to law abiding, tax paying people. Will not be mentioned - rather we will be encouraged to work with out partners in Europe to safeguard human rights for all.
3. WELFARE BENEFITS. There is a need to end guaranteed housing, housing benefits, an income above what many pensioners receive just from arriving here from abroad, chosing to get pregnant and refusing to get out of bed to go to work. Will not be mentioned by party leaders. They will espouse what we should all do to repair the broken soociety.
If you work, take responsibility for your family, comply with the law one thing is certain. On 7th May you will be not better off, or have your morale lifted.
If Brown had a microgramme of probity he would have an on-air nervous breakdown.
The last thing either main party wants is the election to 'catch fire' as that will mean one or other of them has made a gaffe (i.e. told the truth) and therefore lost the election. If New Labour or the Tories can gain power with a voter turnout of 60% or less that's fine by them.
The whole debate issue and how they are organised is an affront to democracy.
These 'leaders' wont discuss real issues and they make sure they do not meet real people and you wonder why people are not interested in the election?
The debates are just another barrier between the electors and the politicians. A way of sanitising the whole election process. The debates mean that we will be left sitting passively isolated in our own little boxes - so hardly voter involvement.
Furthermore candidates in the constituencies will expect to ride into Parliament on the coattails of their leader's performance and so will do even less by way of campaigning then ever.
At the end of the debates I still will not know if any of the candidates in my constituency is capable of putting together half a dozen words into a coherent sentence let alone explain and defend their party's policies or demonstrate an understanding of an MP's role.
In a catalogue of 'what have the Labour Party ever done for us?', after uncontrolled immigration, erosion of law and order, dropping educational standards, the economic crash and so on, comes perhaps the worst of all - the subversion of democracy in the UK. The change of the House of Commons from a debating chamber into a rubber stamp machine filled with career politicians who care little for the British people, and whose function seems to be to give the appearance of legitimacy to an autocratic government elected because of a failing system by less than a third of voters, is the real 'elephant in the room'. The silence of the Conservative Party and especially David Cameron on the way our institutions have been steadily twisted to increase the power of the Prime Minister, and the lack of checks and balances in our political constitution, makes Conservative rhetoric about 'people power' sound hollow. The suspicion has to be that Conservative politicians (those who think about anything other than their own career, that is) simply want to get hold of this power and use the state to bombard us with yet more social engineering and partisan legislation. Indeed, talk of getting us all involved in voluntary work to rebuild the nation sounds remarkably like social engineering to me (or meddling).
This, and the collusion of the broadcasting media and some newspapers in excluding the issues people really are concerned about, is the reason for lack of engagement with the election. If you talk to people you will find that most are considering their options vote-wise, they just don't like politicians at the moment, and they can see the system we have is letting them down.
As I have said before, I believe the next changes and the true opinion formers will have to come from outside the established parties and media, however this may come about.
Firstly... well said Alex @ 09.17... that's a manifesto i could quite happily support.
Second, i live in the cotswolds and it must be a "safe" conservative seat as i have yet to see anything or any canvassers, or even any election information... Yet down the road in Cheltenham & Gloucester they're all getting visits and stuffing the mailboxes full of party propaganda. Is it any wonder people feel disenfranchised when we don't even see our local MP out on the campaign trail to answer questions...
So much for democracy...
Gradually coming to a last minute shambles for the electorate to choose. (I don't know...give up, hopeless cases)
I'd wish someone with some jaw would put their boot in it. The UK needs more than a hero out of this hopeless party statemate. If this continues I do see voter apathy being a serious issue and sofar nothing serious has been done to avoid it.Where's the attraction ?
I am afraid I will not be watching the PM debate this evening. Why? Because whatever Brown says or however much he flaunts that stupid grin, I will find myself shouting at the TV. And that will do no good whatsoever.
Each political parties has produced its manifesto (which very very few voters will read) and now the respective three major party leaders (on the last, out of date, Westimster election basis) will appear in a stage-managed, planted question television performance, (which a few more may watch for a few minutes).
I am really surprised that anyone will vote as the average voter's concerns are dismissed by the professional politicians we now have.
It would be interesting to compare the CVs of a ramdom sample of candidates now with those of, say, 1945.
Oh I don't know Andrew. It's provided a few laughs. For instance the letter signed by 50 academics from around the world to try and trash the Tory policy on NI.
Can't Labour find 50 academics in the UK any more? Given the state of education since 1997 probably not. Next question; how many people do these academics employ and what is their gross turnover?
I think I'll listen to the 100 or so business leaders who seem to think it's a good idea. After all they have to live in the real world where if they get it wrong they lose a lot more than just face. If that's the best that Labour can come up with then the biggest laugh will be when they are turfed out on their ear.
Interestingly the academics didn't endorse Labour's view, simply pointed out perceived pitfalls in the Tory one according to their own opinions. Not much of an argument really and reeks of desperation and lack of ideas. Unsurprisingly people who have previously been wheeled out to support Labour are signatories.
"Well, I never felt more like votin' for Blues
'cause Gordo never thought that he'd ever lose
Your trust dear, "Why'd you do vote this way?"
Well, I never felt more like cryin' all night
'cause everythin's wrong, and nothin' ain't right
In the UK, you got me votin' for Blues."
Seems Journalists don't want to talk about key issues either.
You mention immigration as being something the pollies won't talk about but two topics the journos and the pollies alike won't talk about are Europe and Climate Change. Both are strongly supported by everyone except the people.
If the electorate suddenly get the urge to try the French solution, blockading channel ports, tearing up the cobbles, throwing up barricades, and maybe decorating some lampposts, it will be a natural result of there being no accountability to the electorate.
The greatest gift of all to the appalling, failing Labour government is inertia. They set out long ago under the New brand to, on paper or in presentational terms at least, make their offering as indistinct from that of the Tories as possible.
Every Tory policy trail has been ruthlessly finessed for over a decade. Lack of Clear Blue Water is the theory which leaves Labour relying on the voter having little propensity to change horse, on a better-the-devil-you-know-basis.
Unfortunately, there is now a clear difference - in part created by careful work from Cameron's team - but widened considerably by Labour suddenly shooting off more visibly to the Left where all that they have done has always lain, and taking quite a punt on a series of policies - because they have lost their nerve re sticking close to the Tories in everything.
Labour are rattled. That is a good thing - because thirteen years of every sort of fraud from them in political honesty (oxymoron?) terms is more than enough. Under Blair, fooling all the people all the time almost looked liked a piece of cake. His recent speech in his old constituency was astonishing – suddenly he looked every inch the complete fraud he was from the start – and we are all to remember that it was he that fronted the New Labour con – and delivered us into 13 years of Brown’s disastrous economic policies. Away with them all.
Perhaps the democratic thing to do is to demonstrate our disdain of the whole political elite and conciously decide NOT to vote.
Given that, as you say, the election is decided in only 150 marginal seats what would we lose by voting for this dishonourable bunch.
Personally, I have decided not to vote until such time as our troops are accorded the same privilege. It is disgusting that the establishment considers it "too dificult" to ensure that our troops serving overseas have an opportunity to enjoy the democracy for which the fight. Their honour, heroism and self sacrifice is in such contrast to the politicians that lie, fiddle their expenses, feather there own nest and demonstrate only corruption and incompetence.
One of the most succinct and insightful articles I've read so far about the election. I wish I believed any of the political leaders would a) read it, b) actually do something about it, or c) care.
Stage Management, Stage Management, Stage Management.
They are the three most important aspects of this 'debate'.
There are too many fires ready to be lit under each of these participants to have any chance of voters ambushing with 'interesting' questions and insisting on open and honest answers.
I will be either reading a book or visiting my local for a (not so) swift pint or two.
Here is the _____ party manifesto for Britain for the next 5 years.
Well we have searched in vain in the cellar and behind the sofa and finally had the courage to look at our monthly bank statement and I can hereby confirm we are skint.
All yet to be started public funded works are hereby scrapped
All existing public work contracts will face a 50% reduction in budget from 2011 if the contractor wishes to be reselected
All public staff above 15k will face a 10% paycut, above 25k a 15% paycut, above 50k a 20% paycut and above 100k a 30% cut with 3 months notice.
Public staff pensions will be subject to realignement with private pension averages with 3 months notice
All public departments face 20% budget cut in 2011
Consultanty fees capped at 750k per department per year
Quangos - 75% cut in budget allocated
Benefits - free retraining offered to all persons unemployed for more than 3months. Training to be offered in the fields of plumbing, carpentry, mechanics, electrics etc
Benefits stagered - those on benefits for more than 12months will only receive 50%.
H&S/EU/Equal Ops/Green legislation slashed back to basics and personal responsibility to reduce admin and non-productive jobs in industry and commerce
AGW - all pledges scrapped with immediate effect
NHS - 50% of managers/admin - here is 3 months notice
Another 15% will go during the next 3 years.
GPs/Dentists etc - if you have been trained in a publically funded university then you must work for 15years in the NHS at our salary at our terms
Police - Hobby Bobbies offered full police jobs or leave - 3 months notice
Foreign aid - scrapped
Foreign wars - scrapped
Foreign trips - scrapped
Private employers will receive NI rebate of 4 months for every employee who is taken on before end 2011 and still in FT work in Dec 2012
Favourable tax for manufacturing businesses
I'll get my coat