Andrew Rawnsley wrote a column in the Observer yesterday under the title 'Euro and local elections: the Stay At Home party will win a landslide victory'. In the process he offered all sorts of explanations as to why Labour and the Conservatives cannot generate significant poll leads, why people will vote UKIP and why most people will not vote at all.
What was odd was that the whole article was written from the perspective of the two party system.
Stranger still was the failure to recognise that given the consistency of view between the two major parties on matters such as austerity many, thinking that there really is only a two party system, simply fail to vote because they are not offered an effective choice.
It seems that even the commentators on the Westminster bubble can't see why it's so far removed from reality - and the pluralistic system it is meant, at a minimum, to supply.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It’d be really interesting if we did like the Aussies did and made voting compulsory – but with the proviso that spoilt votes counted!
There is also the point (well made by Prof Mary Beard) that in the Euro election it is a party list you vote for rather than a candidate – something quite a few people would struggle with, given that traditional UK parliamentary politics can be as much about personal loyalties as belief in a party. To that extent, Lab and Con are right that Euro results are outliers.
Good points James. I’ve often thought there should be a none of the above option. On your second point as you vote for a party and there’s PR your vote counts even in ‘safe’seats. The problem being the party place men and women get priority.
I thought it odd because overwhelmingly, it has been a one party system for the last 30y. The leaderships of the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and now Ukip all have (have had) much more in common than any of them have had with their respective memberships.
Tony Blair said that there were really only two parties – those that believed in the ‘wisdom of the market’ and those who held out a role for the state… probably the only instance of my agreeing with Tony Blair!
It is against that background, that Ed Miliband is taking baby steps to change the paradigm. He is severely limited in his capacity to take on and win against a PLP still largely handpicked by Blair/Mandelson but I have no doubt that he is trying.
Unfortunately, after 30+y of TINA, the electorate are understandably cynical and apathetic. It was/is precisely the neoliberal/neofeudal intention. Margaret Thatcher may have destroyed the LP but it was Tony Blair who destroyed faith in the democratic process.
A lot I agree with there!
Thanks
@ syzygysue and Richard
Me too. I actually resigned from the Labour Party in 2001, over a matter of conscience, namely Blair’s pusillanimous kicking of the Jenkins Report into the long grass: my view was that NO PM, indeed, NO Party could take that decision, which could only properly be taken by a Referendum of the UK electorate.
Nothing Blair did thereafter led me to think I had been wrong to resign – quite the opposite – and I only came back when Gordon Brown took over, as he seemed more open to electoral reform, and certainly spoke more like Old Labour.
Gordon could have implemented Jenkins, and ushered in the REAL pluralism this country yearns for, but only if he’d fought and won (he should have) the abortedv 2007 General Election, with a Jenkins system in place for 2012 – which would SURELY not have produced the current chimaera (head of a lion, rear end of a goat, wings of an eagle) Coalition, but something more genuinely representative of the deep. Somewhat socia democratic, tendencies of the electorate – a result whoch wopuld have at least begun to vall time on the ludicrous failed hegemony of TINA.
Alas, by the time Gordon took over he was a spent force, having exhausted his energies and imagination (and even his psychological balance) in battling Blair and the toxicity of Blairism. The failure to go to the country in 2007 really was a lost opportunity, even a climacteric, so that the intellectual and political landscape remains in its current zombified state, of dead ideas animating a moribund body politic. No wonder people can’t be bothered!
Apologies for a) incorrect description and b) typos (using a mobile leads easily to typos)
A) incorrect description
A chimaera, in Greek mythology, was “Usually depicted as a lion, with the head of a goat arising from its back, and a tail that ended in a snake’s head” – I leave readers to decide which part of the Chimaera relates to which part of the Coalition.
B) Typos
The sentence beginning “but something more genuinely representative”
SHOULD go on to say
“of the deep, somewhat social democratic, tendencies of the electorate — a result which would have at least begun to call time on the ludicrous failed hegemony of TINA”
Don’t worry about typos , Andrew-you are spot on and have explained some of the reasons for the National Narcolepsy.
Hi Richard – just a personal observation on this, which I know cannot be extrapolated, but I do think is worth sharing.
I’ve recently started doing some campaigning for the Greens, and in the town-centre canvassing I’ve done so far, I was astounded by the number of people, of all ages and backgrounds, who were genuinely interested in chatting and in the policies (the social justice, as much as the sustainability ones), and even giving their email address for more info or to join the local party. And that doesn’t include those who may have stopped if they hadn’t been in a rush or too busy (as people often are when they’re shopping / running for the bus). The general consensus seemed to be that they just didn’t know enough about the issues.
As far as I’m aware in my town there has been no similar ‘face to face’ work by Labour/LibDem or Conservatives, just leaflets through doors etc. There was a UKIP man out though with a loudspeaker showering hate.
There is obviously a lack of conviction politicians, statespeople, and policies of integrity etc, and there is a dominance of neo-liberal thinking that you discuss and counter in this blog. That taken into account however, my un-evidenced theory is that what is missing is not necessarily interest/motivation from the public, but genuine grassroots movements/campaigning, to build memberships of local parties, and engage people in politics from a local right up to national level. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the effects of our modern, media and data driven culture is that politicians do the poll analysis and think “if I can spend X amount on this Y message it will get me Z amount of votes in a particular demographic, and completely ignore the necessity to connect with, educate, and serve and represent a local community. I think this is also reflected in the plethora of electronic-based counter campaigns (38 degrees, etc) which, whilst doing a good job on single issues, are no replacement for genuine political community.
My theory is thus that the ‘apathy’ of the public stems from being disengaged and ignored – which is at the least a ‘two-way process’, and most likely is far more complicated than comments such as “the people need to rise up, but they’re not” give credit for.
I think there is a great deal to that
I feel ignored
Why shouldn’t anyone else?
I was taken by my parents to the polling station when they voted at each election. This social duty to vote was therefore inculcated in me from an early age. I therefore always go and vote, even when I decide not to vote for anyone, and deliberately spoil my ballot. My kids come with me to vote now.
Good idea
I will take mine
The only decent point Rawnsley makes in the article is: “The result is that we have a multi-party politics wrestling within a system still set up for two-party politics”.
The present system is obsolete and nothing more than a ‘must visit’ item on the list of London tourist attractions. Where is:
The party representing banking reform?
The party representing debt-free money creation?
The party representing a Green Deal?
The party representing an unemployment policy that is not NAIRU?
The party that campaigns for LVT
The party that guarantees a citizens income?
The party that educates the public on the possibility of anti-austerity approaches?
The list could go on.
There is a thundering absence of the very things that are MOST needed. Our only hope, sadly, is that apathy ( a misnomer really) is so great that it renders any result meaningless and brings into question the validity of our so-called democracy and fully reveals the oligarchic stranglehold of the financial system and corporate interests.
Simon, I can’t help feeling that AAV (Another Angry Voice) shows that the Greens largely match up to your requirements.
See http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2014/05/euro-election-scorecard-aav.html
I have a suspicion they are going to be the surprise this week
I would welcome that
Some very interesting trends if you look at recent YouGov polling which gives a breakdown on who the supporters of various parties in 2010 are now supporting. Both Labour and the Tories seem to be holding on to about 80% of their 2010 voters. Lib Dem vote has, as we know, collapsed, with most going to Labour although there are also not-insignificant chunks going to UKIP and the Tories. Tories are leaking vote share to UKIP, but so is Labour (not to the same extent as the Tories, but more so than in 2012 or 2013). There is also increasing leakage from 2010 Labour voters to the Greens – this could be a big problem for Labour if it persists as their strategy is based on holding their 2010 vote and then grabbing as many disaffected Lib Dems as possible. Which is a reasonable strategy, but if they start shipping votes to UKIP and the Greens they are in big trouble. (Disclaimer: I’m a Green Party member).
Howard-the labour party NEEDS to be in big trouble! It has failed to become an anti-austerity party and banking reform party and has thus rendered itself irrelevant by depriving the public of an alternative. Unfortunately, the greens still only poll for the national elections at about 3% (10% for the EU). Unfortunately a tired and misinformed populace who are treated like mushrooms by the main parties are opting for in incoherent anger vote and for simplistic explanations rooted in defunct sentiment.