1945 (Labour victory): -72.8% voter turnout (92.2% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)
1979 (Conservative victory): -76% voter turnout (80.8% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)
1997 (Labour victory): -71.3% voter turnout (73.9% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)
2010 (Hung parliament; Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition): -65.1% voter turnout (65.1% of votes taken by Labour and Conservatives)
These facts show fluctuations in turnout, but significantly declining faith in the two main parties. From a democratic point of view, the largest party at the 2010 Election (the Conservatives) were elected (albeit as part of a coalition) with 36.1% of a 65.1% voter turnout. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. The Liberal Democrats have capitalised on this declining faith to a degree, increasing their MP representation at every General Election from 1992 until 2005, and increasing their share of the vote to 23% in 2010. However, if we are to crudely analyse the size of the electorate from 2010 statistics here: http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm, then out of an electorate of 45,597,461, a total of 29,687,604 people voted; that’s nearly 16 million people who didn’t vote at all.
This disenchantment with General Elections is not only a crying shame, but it is bad for our democracy. I’ve no doubt that the policy makers agree, but nevertheless the Conservatives or Labour can get elected on a minority vote of a small majority turnout. Therefore, I have listed below ways which I feel can improve turnout and faith in the political process, although I stress that my suggestions would not suddenly convert the UK to unilateral praise for politicians (that would never be possible or desirable).
The list, in no particular order:
1) Electoral reform:
Many people will not feel inclined to vote in a seat where the outcome is almost inevitable. In too many seats, more people vote against the successful candidate than for them, yet the MP is often left with a comfortable majority. Nationally, what the country voted for is not reflected in terms of the number of seats, as this chart demonstrates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chartinguk20100506electionvotesandseats.png
Whilst defenders of First Post the Post argue that it results in strong and stable governments, a declining voter turnout and 2010 hung parliament will disagree. Proportional Representation (PR) would link the share of a Party’s vote to the number of seats. Furthermore, under the STV (Single Transferable Vote) variant of PR, multi-member constituencies would mean that a voter could choose to talk to the MP which bests represents their ideological preference rather than one who doesn’t. Tactical voting would be removed, allowing for people to vote for the party they want rather than the party most likely to defeat their lowest preference. My 2011 blog entry on electoral reform explains the benefits of PR in more depth here: http://tinyurl.com/olps932
2) Party funding reform
Thankfully, this process appears to have re-entered the political discourse after numerous abortive attempts. Too much big money is in politics, whether its the trade union influence in the Labour Party, the backing of wealthy individuals in the Conservative Party or the questionable £2.4 million donation from a crook to the Liberal Democrats in 2004. Trust in politicians will never be a given, but it will be improved if voters know that they are voting/supporting a party which has transparent and legitimate funding. The proposed £10,000 annual cap on donations (or, better yet, a £5,000 cap) is a good starting point, and one which should be embraced by all of the major parties if they are to remove dogma and self-interest from their ranks. Getting rid of powerful special interest groups is a must.
3) Statutory register of lobbyists
This is also under consultation. The example of former Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offering “premier league access” to the Prime Minister for £250,000 (and possibly influence party policy) in 2012 was a disgrace, along with Tory MP Patrick Mercer being caught up in a sting by a fake lobbying firm from Fiji. Similar to the party funding elements, voters need to know that questionable individuals will not be influencing the Government.
4) Reform electoral registers/move General Election dates
I’ve grouped these two together as they are similar in terms of practicality. The Electoral Reform Society has recently highlighted the risk of people falling off the electoral register. In terms of busy schedules in everyday life, many people indifferent to voting may not prioritise registering or re-registering for elections, especially if the process is lengthy and problematic. Registering should be simplified, with the possibility of being able to register on election day suggested by the Electoral Reform Society. In my first year of University, people in halls of residence were automatically registered to vote, and I believe a similar element nationwide (admittedly an idealist aspiration) would be beneficial.
On the issue of General Election dates, this proposal may sound rather piecemeal. Elections are usually held on a Thursday, supposedly to allow the incoming Prime Minister a weekend to formulate a cabinet and start business on Monday. However, even with a 10pm poll-closing time, certain individuals many not have the time after a long shift to travel and cue. The 2010 Election in particularly had cases where hundreds of voters were turned away from polling stations: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8666338.stm
Perhaps Elections could be held on a Saturday, where voters who have the whole weekend off can vote earlier, allowing for those who work on a Saturday the chance to vote after their day has ended in polling stations with smaller cues. Electronic voting has also be considered, allowing for people to vote online or through mobile phones. Such a system would need to be rigourously tested, but with the boom of mobile applications over the years, surely voting could be on the agenda? This could reduce cues further. An incoming Government could also be allowed until Wednesday to form a cabinet to compensate for the lost weekend.
5) Votes at 16 and 17/political education
I disagree with cynics who believe that this is a pointless proposals due to teenagers not possessing political knowledge. I’ve no doubt that there are 16 and 17 year olds out there who are clued up on politics (ask 17 year old William Hague and his speech to the Conservative Party Conference), but for those who aren’t, there is a reason. At the age of 16 I had no interest in politics, and a lot of this was due both to a lack of information and necessity; why should a 16 year old near an Election show interest if they are not able to vote? Any attempt at taught political education was not displayed until sixth form, and General Studies is not a suitable or effective form, as millions of students will testify. Ultimately it was studying history at GCSE and A-Level which lead my slow conversion to politics.
The principal of voting at 16 and 17 is also a serious matter. The ‘Votes for 16’ website http://www.votesat16.org/about/ notes that, by law, 16 year olds can:
- Give full consent to medical treatment
- Leave school and enter work or training pay income tax and National Insurance
- Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
- Consent to sexual relationships
- Get married or enter a civil partnership
- Change their name by deed poll
- Become a director of a company
- Join the armed forces
- Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society
6) Fireside chats
An old fashioned method, but used to great effect by FDR during the banking crisis and subsequent reforms in the early 1930s. Barack Obama publishes a weekly video address to update the nation. We have Prime Minister’s Questions, but voters are often turned off by the weekly slanging matches and ‘yah-boo’ atmosphere that it all too often promotes. A weekly video statement from the Prime Minister to the nation wouldn’t necessarily set the pulses racing, but it would show a signal of intent, and force a Government to justify its record on a regular basis.
7) Reform/abolish expenses
The 2009 expenses scandal crushed faith in politicians, and in a 21st century democracy it is quite simply unacceptable for the taxpayer to be subsidising a duck house for an MP. The proposed increase in MPs’ pay has caused a furore, but perhaps a fair deal would be to accept the £6,000 increase but abolish expenses? This is probably too simplistic, but surely expenses claims could at least be streamlined and limited to travel costs. A statutory list of expenses claims to constituencies is another option; some MPs publish on their websites how much they have claimed, but not necessarily what that money has been claimed on. A full list of expenses claims would force MPs to justify and/or reverse fraudulent and ludicrous claims.
8) Compulsory voting (a more tentative proposal)
This would immediately solve the issue of voter turnout, but it wouldn’t necessarily improve faith in politics. A perceived coercion of voting here raises concerns over civil liberties, but when you consider that people many years ago died for the right to vote, is compulsory voting really that bad? Punitive fines are in place in the Australian system for those that don’t vote, by I am told by an Australian friend and native that it is made very easy for people to vote, with a significant amount of polling booths and operations (this would combat the problem of people being turned away when the polls close). I accept that this is a more sensitive issue, but if the 16 million or so people who don’t vote were automatically involved in the voting process, the outcomes of General Elections could be radically altered and reinvigorated.
--------------------
This list isn’t perfect, and I’m not suggesting that if it is implemented then voter turnout will shoot up to over 80% and politicians will receive praise, but I believe they are important and vital steps. Some of them should be (but aren’t necessarily) considered bare-minimum and obvious steps to reform, such as political funding. There are numerous other reasons why people are disaffected with politics, but answers to these questions are of a more ideological nature (e.g that the three main parties may be indistinguishable from each other), and will elicit radically different responses depending on where you are on the spectrum. Nevertheless, without serious attempts at reform that aren’t impeded by special interest groups, then people both dissociated and bruised by politics will forever be gripped by a grim submission to the cliche that “nothing changes; they’re all the same”. However, to quote Nick Clegg in 2010, “the way things are, is not the way things have to be”.
No comments:
Post a Comment