It was a good few years ago that the magazine of my Professional Institute ran a Leader column about elections and politics in general. The thrust of it was - why n earth are politicians bending over backwards to pander to the wishes of people who don't participate in the political process. It was a very black-and-white argument and superficially very attractive - along the lines of: as no one is preventing them from expressing their views and getting involved, it's their choice not to be involved and therefore why bother about them.
It's tempting to go along with that. I met people at University who shrugged that politics was nothing to do with them - although they moaned about the paucity of their grant. I have a recall of a woman whose door I knocked on in a 'Registration Drive'. She lived on the Valley Road Estate in Streatham - so we're talking about early to mid 90s, when a combination of lack of government funding (£4 billion backlog of council house repairs and maintenance) and an inefficient council running a corrupt Direct Services Organisation and inert housing department meant that council housing was dire. She was on benefits and had children of school age. she refused to register to vote because 'The government has done nothing for me'.
I can't believe the number of times I have heard direct or reported about people who found the London electoral system confusing. Granted, there will always be a few who can't cope - two years ago I was behind an elderly woman escorting her mother to the polling station. The daughter and the polling clerks were trying to get over to her that she had three votes. Sadly, I think she was well past understanding the concepts either of 'three' or 'votes'. I'm talking about people who hold down responsible jobs. I am amazed that there are people who can't understand three simple sets of instructions (first sheet - you have two columns, in the first mark an 'x' against your first choice for mayor and in the second mark an 'x' against your second choice; on the second sheet make an 'x' for whichever candidate - who are listed along with the name and picture of their political party - you would like to be the Assembly member in your area; on the third sheet mark an 'x' against which party you like best across London). These people are allowed to have their feet on the accelerator and clutch and their hands on the steering wheel while looking in the mirror, signalling and getitng ready to pull out. And yet they can't follow these simple instructions on how to vote.
( I can understand why people don't always understand the mathematics and the tactics of alternative vote and party lists. Having voted for Ken in the first column it was a waste of effort to put my X next to Sian Berry in the second column, just as in the Streatham Selection, having voted for Chuka 1 it was a waste of effort to vote Steve 2. But the maths and the tactics aren't the mechanics).
I know I am banging my head against a brick wall. My first election campaign was twenty four years ago. My favourite subject at both A-Level and degree level was psephology. But it annoys me like hell that people vote on National Issues in Local Elections. We had the ridiculous situation two years ago in the London Borough elections of certain idiot bloggers saying 'Vote Lib Dem' because of Iraq, displaying their political (and verbal) illiteracy - fortunately sufficient (and more!) of the voters of Lambeth decided 'vote Labour because of the horrendous mess the LibDems and Tories have made of running the council' - and yes, back in 94, many of them said Vote LibDem because of the mess Labour has made. So in each of 94 and 06 Lambeth bucked the national trend because of Local Issues in local elections, whilst in places like Croydon they voted on national issues. Yes, that allowed crowing emails to be sent round work to Conservative residents of Croydon, but I doubt it was really a reflection on how the Tories had been running Croydon Council nor on how Labour promised to do so. The same but vice versa in 2006.
It puzzles me how the closer an issue, and the more impact it has on people's daily lives, the less likely they are to engage. Reading through the 'comments' in the right wing newspapers on-line this week, people are sounding off about this and that and laying blame where it doesn't lie, or only partially lies.
Meantime, in their local communities decisions are being made about local schools, bin collections, planning strategy, social housing, traffic calming, pollution and noise control, parking, and all sorts of issues that affect people on a day-to-day basis. and, it seems, a large proportion of those who could even be bothered to vote decided not to hold their local councils accountable for those decisions, but, instead, participated in a great big opinion poll about...what?
All those who voted Tory on the swing, do they honestly believe that a Cameron government would have left Northern Rock to collapse, and with it the life savings of thousands of people? Do they honestly think a Cameron government would have not joined in the Iraq war which has been a major factor in soaring oil prices and the knock-on effect? Do they think that a Cameron government would somehow join the Eurozone and thus reduce the cost of our summer holidays, just like that? Are they taken in by the Tory promises of £20 billion pounds cuts in public services running simultaneously with vote grabbing soundbites of increasing services (uncosted) to the early-middle-aged-middle-class-prosperous who demographically ought to be voting Tory but haven't done so for more than a decade?
