Points of View
Posted Under: Democracy, Elections, Labour, Tories
Gordon Brown’s so far behind in points, he might as well be singing in Eurovision. But as he struggles to defend his already tarnished reputation against allegations of “double dealing” over the compassionate release of Megrahi, the Tories and Lib Dems took the opportunity to ratchet up their score even further. Today Sky News announced its intention to stage an American-style debate in the run-up to the next general election, and with Cameron and Clegg already on board, the only seat still empty is the Prime Minister’s.
“With politics – and dare I say, many politicians – currently held in such low regard, to debate publicly the major issues facing Britain away from Westminster, presents a unique opportunity to re-engage a disillusioned electorate,” John Ryley, head of Sky News, said in a letter to party leaders.
With just 61% of the electorate turning out to vote in the 2005 general election (only 11% higher than last month’s Afghan elections carried out under the threat of Taliban violence) it is clear that something needs to be done to engage the public. But is a televised debate the best way to reinvigorate the disillusioned masses?
The problem we face is not primarily voter apathy. A study I conducted shortly after the 2001 general election, which had the lowest turnout since WW2, found that whilst a considerable number of young people did not intend to vote at the next election, they remained interested in political issues, whilst the majority of those expressing an intention to vote were more interested in minor parties such as the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. My little study seemed to indicate a wider national trend which has since been confirmed by the success of the BNP and UKIP, the election of George Galloway and the support I found for the Greens whilst going door-to-door during the European elections. People are not failing to turn out because they don’t care. They’re not voting because there is a perception that none of the major parties represent their interests.
The reason that the high-profile glitz and glamour of Gordon Brown’s slack jaw and Cameron’s slick tongue going at it on Sky News will fail to make a difference is twofold. First, if, as will likely be the case, the debate follows the American format of pitting the leaders of only the main parties against one another, it will exclude a whole host of minor parties. This is no way to revitalise democracy or convince people that they have a real choice. All they will see is three leaders proposing three sets of policies with too little difference between them.
Second, if Tory policies are too similar to New Labour, the debate will be about little more than style and presentation, casting Cameron’s Blairesque charisma against Brown’s cardboard box. As German sociologist, Jürgen Habermas, points out, the media has become a theatrical vehicle for politicians and parties to represent themselves before the public, stage-managing elections based less on policies and more on appearance and personality, like the feudal lords of old. Cameron and Clegg’s public support for a debate contrasted against Brown’s reluctance is itself an exercise in stylistic point scoring.
Psephology shows us that, for the most part, turnout is high when the electorate is hungry for a new direction and there is an observable difference between the two main parties. The 2008 US presidential election saw the highest turnout in 40 years. Turnout, it seems, is lowest when voters perceive that their choice will make little difference. And though the country’s exasperation with New Labour will produce a Tory government by default, the absence of a clear ideological difference between the two parties, which characterised their relationship through most of the 20th Century, is unlikely to bring voters to the polls in droves. The resulting crisis is not one of apathy, but one of legitimacy. A debate on Sky News is not going to make the least bit of difference.
Reader Comments
Sal your study, probably not randomised or with a large sample size ignores much of the evidence. People are engaging in politics in a wider sense – pressure groups, NGOs, protests etc rather than traditional parties. Voter apathy is therefore real and a real problem in elections.
The increasing levels of success for minor parties seems to be coming from the electoral systems that make it easier for them to get elected as well as more nuanced targetting strategies rather than the voters simply being turned off regular parties. The Libs have learnt from the days of the alliance that a large vote doesn’t turn into a lot of seats in parliament. The Greens have never hit the 15% they got in 1989 euro elections (20 years ago) – they have just got better at electing people. UKIP benefited from gaining a similar percentage that the Greens did but in an era of PR.
In recent elections in Scotland the parties you state there is increased interest in also fell apart quite badly (SSP and Greens pretty much wiped out). Even in elections where you have highly proportional systems turnout is very low and the minor parties don’t always do well (greens only 2 seats in london and euros, BNP 1+2, UKIP wiped off london assembly, Respect going nowhere). In Westminster seats Galloway got elected on an only marginally better turnout than 4 years previous.
Finally I would question that there are no ideological differences between the big three. Of course there is common ground (basic faith in markets, democracy etc) but there are huge policy differences. The voters I have met who claim “we’re all the same” aren’t complaining about our policies but the fact that they believe all politicians have their snouts in the trough.
I do agree with you that a tv debate is not the right way to go about things. I watched the Presidential ones and VP debate whilst in the states. They were practically scripted with no one making any new statement of intent or policy. The only thing I got out of them was a hangover from playing a game that required imbibing alcohol everytime Palin said maverick.
Greg, come on, you know me, I’m a sociologist – I’m not going to cite a study that wasn’t randomised anymore than I’m going to claim all ravens are black. I admit it was a small sample, around 60 people if I remember rightly, but I’m not claiming the study itself proves anything, other than pointing to a wider societal trend which I think has been proven more conclusively elsewhere. As you say, people are engaging in politics in a wider sense – pressure groups, NGOs, protests etc rather than traditional parties. That points to exactly what I’m saying. The problem is not political apathy, it’s a disengagement from electoral politics for other reasons. Of course there are policy differences between the major parties. But these are, essentally, differences of the periphery. The core ideological differences of the past have significantly retreated. Blair entrenched the values of Thatcherism more than Major ever did. I can’t agree that the rise of the minor parties is due to the electoral system where proportional representation is used. You only have to look at the number of votes the Greens, BNP and UKIP have gained to see that. Their votes have seen a steady increase or remained stable despite a collapse in turnout for the major parties. In the wake of the expenses scandal, there is a strong element of people convinced all politicians have their noses in the trough. But turnout was falling long before that. And it’s precisely because people really don’t believe they have a choice in first past the post elections that can only produce one of two results which are far less distinct than they once were.