Is electoral politics in terminal decline?

Two bits of data suggest this is the case. A sharp decline in turnout which never dropped below 72% 1945-1997 (with a peak of 82/83% 1950/51) but in 2001 fell to 59% and only rose 2% in 2005 despite some arguing the contest would be closer. There are a number of factors that drive turnout, one being the extent to which votes matter. While many voted in 1992 to try to ensure victory of Labour or Conservatives, and again in 1997 to kick out the Conservatives it seems, the foregone conclusions of 2001 and 2005 would clear depress turnout.

One reason for that is engagement in party politics itself. Tribal politics, which pitted capital against labour, is a feature of history and what has resulted is a lack of ideas in politics and a convergence around the centre ground. In order to differentiate themselves, parties enter into empty oppositionalism and attack politics. There is a lack of a narrative underpinning party manifestoes and so it is more about selling a party as 'least likely to cut core public serices' than competing approaches to governance. Research suggests that this process of marketisation of political policy making and campaigning has a sclerotic effect on voter engagement. It simply promotes a ‘hard sell at any cost’ approach using bold statements that focus on image not substance. While it is argued this is a response to lowering engagement and involvement, so political messages must require only peripheral processing and not deep cognitive engagement, this lack of interest may actually be exacerbated by the style of communication.

Turnout figures also however mask a stark political reality; that not only is there a lack of choice but that there is also a representational divide in Britian. In 2005 the highest turnout was 77%, the lowest 34%; some voters were engaged! There is a big disparity between Marginal and Safe seats! The former see a keen contest fighting for every vote; the latter see little contest and are likely to have a lower level of representation from their MP. This may seem a contentious point, but having moved between constituencies in recent years I note receiving newspapers, flyers and a significant amount of literature from both the MP Annette Brook across a four year period, as well as her opponent in the 2005 election. In four years within the Poole constituency I have not heard anything from MP Robert Syms, nor even seen him in the media: it would appear he makes no effort to publicise his work for the constituency at the very least.

The separation between an air war (via the mass media) and the ground war (on the streets and doorsteps) can be highly important in terms of maintaining a representational connection as well as achieving electoral victory, and could be crucial in 2010. The Air war is likely to be highly negative aimed at getting committed voters out and convincing those who already lean towards one party or another. The negativity will appeal only if the receiver agrees with the foundation of the attack; if they feel it to be inaccurate or too personal the sender will suffer. The Ground war, in contrast, will be about persuading by personal contact and making policy relevant to lives and localities. But only the key voters in the marginal and target seats will see a ground war; this two tier system will remain as long as the UK uses the first past the post voting system. Voters need to be asked and convinced, most are not!

A further set of indicators relates to trust in politics (standing at 24% currently) and general interest in participation. 80% are interested in politics (though this drops to 35% in the most deprived areas which are also likely to be safe Labour seats) yet only 15% are interested in an active role and only 27% feel they have any say in how the country is run. Self-efficacy in the UK is very low and, following the expenses scandal, can only be lower.

Leader debates may be the one positive element in the air war. Controls demanded by the parties will reduce audience spontaneity though. On the other hand, they may also be more like PMQs and full of rhetoric and attack and not setting out clear reasons for electing any of the participants. So the debates may only be peripherally processed and not play a role in providing informed choices. The media will also have a key role to play. The danger here is that focus will be on minute performance issues and political substance will be ignored or forgotten. This may be the case with much media coverage of the contest, their perspective being of a horse race with a focus on strategy as opposed to political choice, and highlighting personal failings and gaffes; does this encourage particapation?

Much has been said about the effect of the Internet, that it will come of age in 2010 and that there may be an Obama-isation of political campaigning. Parties will try to use the Internet to increase awareness but UK politics lacks an Obama, and the parties find it hard to develop participatory campaigns. MyConservatives.com centres around local candidates in marginals but struggle to gain supporters. In the marginal seat of Mid Dorset and North Poole, candidate Nick King has four supporters and has raised £150; not exactly demonstrating high engagement – perhaps the product (politics firstly, perceptions of elected representatives, and the party, not Mr King) is the problem! Activists will be trying to innovate and mobilise but can they touch the hearts and minds of the masses?

Due to the Internet, more voices will be heard, and some will be new ones, but largely they are megaphones for the parties. Greater co-production of the campaign will occur but outside party sites, and a lot will be satirical. Labour’s change we see site, I am told, gets more negative ‘Changes’ than positive and there are a few ‘negative’ changes shown on the related Facebook site; debate online regarding the site then centres on censorship rather than the aim of the site which should provide citizen endorsements of Labour’s tenure. The fact that the majority of pictures are uploaded by Labour candidates and activists tells us that either ordinary citizens do not see positive changes or they cannot see the point in engaging.

Because of all this, turnout is likely to show the same mixed pattern as in the last two contests with engagement being higher in the marginals. There may well be a slight average increase if the contest stays close however. It is highly likely that voters will select the best MP, locally, or the least worst leader and some may remain unsure till very late in the campaign. But will anywhere near a majority engage and become involved in electoral politics generally, let alone in the campaign of one of the parties. Based on current indicators related to the voting system, the level of negativity already circulating, and the nature of engagement online via party sites and across Twitter, it seems not. It will be a dirty fight and for many engaging in that fight will be anathema despite the powerful arguments for making an informed choice.

But does this suggest electoral politics in in terminal decline? Probably. Politics needs to be made relevant beyond key voters in marginal constituencies, perhaps this suggests revising the voting systems; it also needs to be part of everyday lives, suggesting better communication. Policy making should be closer to the people, either via effect representation or forms of direct democracy. Ideological space needs to be reconfigured to match modern society and the emotional and personal aspects of the leaders need to be discussed intellignetly to enable both personal and political involvement. News values need to be changed, as does the spin culture within politics; which we accept feed one another. Political communication needs to think not about victory but reception; victory at any cost may be pyrrhic and empty in terms of perceived trust and legitimacy when all that has been achieved is a depressed electorate bored with negative attacks. These were just some of the suggestions, perhaps a combination of all would reverse the negative social trend towards politics?

This is an overview of a debate held on March 14th at Bournemouth University featuring the author, Prof. Barry Richards, Dr Dan Jackson, and Roman Gerodimos.

Must Labour lose... in 2010

A Yougov poll conducted 29/05-04/06 has been used failry bluntly to explain voting for the BNP, but actually it reveals a great deal more about the state of engagement in British politics. In terms of the election itself it is questionable whether it matters, or whether the results can be translated into a national trend; the majority are expressing their views on Britain's relations with Europe or on the British 'political scene'; the problem is that both are transient and as Europe is unlikely to be a General Election issue, and the scene could well change following Brown's reforms, the next election will be framed by a very different context. Perhaps then the other revelations offered by the poll are more interesting.

Firstly, something which we were probably aware of, has been the break in generational loyalty but what is surprising is that this is least pronounced for Labour where 66% of current Labour voters are copying their familial predecessors. Currently Labour has lost the faith of those who are most loyal, but their allegiances are now spread across competitors; hence they may be able rescue their position electorally if they are able to recapture their heartland voters. Of course the erosion of loyalty from Labour is not new, I identified this in research in Barnsley back in 2002 after the famous low-turnout election of 2001, but is is perhaps becoming more pronounced and so leading to more protest voting. However, given that Labour is still perceived on the left and, perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives on the right and for the rich; an image that remains hard to shift particularly perhaps in the wake of those moat cleaners and duck houses. That said it seems that there is little real difference between the perceptions of parties in relation to issues or voter satisfaction. In fact the only slight difference, which one could note and say here is where the voters for any particular party can be identified from others is confidence of prosperity in years ahead. Supporters of the Conservatives and UKIP seem to have more fears than do voters for the more left parties; is this an opportunity for the right? Certainly the figures offer some insights into potential strategies; however the data needs more sophisticated analysis of the raw numbers to really glean powerful insights.

A final point, however, while many talk of media usage and the power of online across all the parties the traditional mass news media predominates; well almost. The BNP website is in many ways the most interactive; interestingly, and despite the media coverage, their supporters are more likely to use party websites (12% over 3/4% the next highest and joint median average). Are the BNP capitalising on the negativity of the mainstream media coverage and gaining direct communication with current and potential supporters, if so this is worrying as not only does this allow for purer persuasion (indoctrination perhaps) but also influence via the two-way communication facilitated on their forum. Something else to throw into the strategy pot.

It's easy when you have nothing to hide

Full marks to my former MP Annette Brooke, she has published her expenses on her website for all to see: a total of £1765.85, interesting that so few are able to do the same and justify their expenditure. This seems utterly reasonable and consistent with my opinion of Annette as a very honest and ethical lady; it is a shame that her and those with a similar attitude to what is justifiable will receive little media attention and instead it is those who are playing the system for every penny that will tarnish the image of all elected politicians. I assume that focus will turn to the Liberal Democrats at some point this week, then perhaps to minor parties who are also getting as much as they can from Brussels, the London Assembly etc etc. One wonders who will benefit out of this and what impact it will have on democracy and the MEPs and councillors that are elected in less than a month. Will the minor parties benefit and how much will those parties use this as a weapon against the 'establishment'. The Jury Team hint it will part of their contribution on Sky tonight, the British National Party have launched an attack on Labour and the Conservatives already; but can either make an electoral breakthrough at a time when turnout is more than likely to be severely depressed and when the parties are going to have to expend energy digging themselves out of the whole some of their elected members have put them in rather than making a case for people to vote for them. Brings to mind that ancient Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times'; clearly we need more MPs like Annette Brooke to make their defensible and low-level expenses public to try to bring some balance to this highly damaging fiasco that could well undermine British democracy.

By the way: revelations show Sinn Fein claiming £500,000 but never attending parliament; so where exactly were the scrutineers here? Did no-one at any time think about any of these expenses or are the laws that lax? Guess I do not really need to ask that question, the answer is all too obvious.

Are we missing something?

There is a debate, possibly dead for a while, but due to re-emerge if the Conservatives hold firm to the policy, of whether police chiefs should be directly elected by the public. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has canned the idea as it may politicise the police force, the Conservatives claim this is due to the Labour government's reluctance to give up control; but I wondered why should an election politicise the police. Keith Vaz suggests it may give control of the police over to far right groups; but why? Here is my reason for wondering. While we may associate elections with parties and their leaders, that is only political elections. There are a range of elections, student union, trade unions etc, where there may be ideological differences between candidates but these are not shaped on party lines. If an election is run that excludes parties and is outside of party politics would this mean politicisation? Surely many elections are decided simply on who is the best person for the job, one wonders if ideology or personality is key in contests such as that for US President. At a more minor level, student union elections are based on popularity to some extent but also on key qualities for a post; at Bournemouth the communications officer is nearly always from a communication or public relations degree suggesting qualifications are important. So why should anyone question the platforms on which candidates for police chief would stand, would they not promote their record, their vision for a community, offer to redress imbalances, reinforce their role as caring for the community and how they will be accountable? Perhaps if party was less of a factor, and voters were encouraged to think more about who would be a good representative as opposed to how to use a vote tactically to ensure X does not get in (the popular tactic in marginal constituencies) then more people would actually engage in voting. And here is the key thing. Of course no-one would want a police chief to be elected by 20-30% of those they are accountable to; though we seem to accept it as a fait accompli for government. But if people feel their vote counts, that they are motivated to engage in the contest and become attached to candidates then they are far more likely to vote. So there could well result in a non-political, highly engaging contest taking place and voters participating on the basis of trying to get the best person for the job installed. Would that not be the ideal of democracy? If it is, what is the problem?

Perception Management

I was talking to my students today about the focus on image and marginalisation of substantial policy from much of the political communication that is made mainstream. In other words the stuff that is promoted to us is more about building a perception of the man rather than telling us what the man will do when elected. The following video is a prime example.

The link is sent around by email saying that his opponents are asking 'who is Barack Obama'. His campaign team's response is to: "share a video of personal moments from behind the scenes at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, so you can see Barack and Michelle as they are -- decent, warm, and kind people with a loving family". It is a fly on the wall style video, well done yet appearing to capture private moments - a cynic would wonder how much is staged and whether anyone can act normally when a camera is pointed at them. But the broader picture is also whether this is asking the US voter to vote Obama simply because he is a nice guy, a family guy, a guy 'like you' or just to get them interested and involved to collect further information. While the latter may be an aspiration is the former more likely in reality and if so does this have a negative impact on how informed voters actually are?

So maybe they did care!

Every news outlet yesterday predicted a derisory turnout around the 20% mark and claimed this would be an indictment on David Davis' decision to step down to run on a civil liberties platform. Maybe the people of Haltemprice and Howden decided to fly in the face of predictions, or rather maybe they wanted to demonstrate that they did care and were mobilised by the media. It has been shown that as results are announced in the US presidential elections on the Eastern seaboard it affects voter behaviour in the West (see Geoffrey Peterson's work), so why cant the media also have an effect in either increasing or decreasing turnout through their use of polls and predictions. I wondered if some of the 17,000 voters who turned out to tick the Davis box watched the news, were told they didn't care, thought actually I do and so went out and demonstrated their concern.

All quiet on the Henley front

Henley voters go to the polling booth on Thursday, not that you would know it. Maybe it is because it is a safe seat, maybe because the candidates are doing nothing outrageous, but it is not on the media radar. But the candidates are not exactly striving for national media attention as was the case in Crewe & Nantwich. Conservative favourite John Howell's campaign is embedded within the local Conservatives' site and hinges around a video of him talking about his local-ness and how his concerns are those of the people he seeks to represent. LibDem Stephen Kearney offers similar selling points on his page of the Henley party site, but also opportunities to interact via Facebook and Twitter. Labour's Richard MacKenzie seems to have given up, the party page for him was last updated on 5th June announcing his selection.

The local paper takes a similarly subdued approach, it recognises visits from both David Cameron and Nick Clegg but for them the two Miss World contestants get more attention, though all the candidates, Cameron and Clegg have been interviewed by the newspaper and videos are on the site. But what it seems to lack is any real sense of a contest, the attitude is clear: this seat will not change hands so effort is minimal. Now this makes perfect sense in terms of preserving the campaign funds. But it should also lead to lower turnout and lower interest locally. Research on local voting suggests that voters need a reason to vote, and being asked to and made to feel important are both key to turnout. If effort and asking online equates to the same on the street, which is impossible to tell, Kearney seems most active while Howell is second. That is not going to be the result but if voters are mobilised by effort and there is a link then the LibDem vote could increase proportionately.

Brown's Eastbourne?

While voting is often unpredictable, it seemed the result of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election was a fairly safe bet. But the scale of the result is incredible. Most incredible is not the swing, but the swing in relation to the turnout. With 57.6% voting, and with votes being similarly apportioned as in 2005, just with the top two reversed, this is not a mid-term aberration. Usually we find low turnout, the incumbent's supporters demobilised, and so a candidate can sneak in through the backdoor only to lose it at the next election. This is not a case of being elected due to your opponent not getting their voters out. Unless the other 42.4% of the constituency are all loyal Labourites who previously voted, and a large proportion of the Conservative voters did not vote previously, then a lot of allegiances have switched. Probably for the first time since 1983, or maybe even before, Conservatives are winning voters from Labour.

The combination of factors caused this landslide, and one that perhaps depressed the Labour vote as well as perhaps providing the final push to potential switchers was the style of the campaign. Despite the Brown 'bribe' as it seems to have been perceived, voters had little reason to vote Labour and every reason to give the Conservatives a chance. Tamsin Dunwoody's campaign did nothing to make the case for Labour instead it was full of eye-catching, negative gimmicks that offered the perception of a desperate, personal-attack, based strategy. Of course this result means that the media will increasingly play up the fact that Labour will lose and Brown should go, perhaps creating at least one self-fulfilling prophecy.

The cost of credibility

Is about 10pence it seems. This whole sorry saga is quite shocking for a man that may not have been renowned for a great deal across his career except for his competent management of the economy. How this went so wrong we may never discover until memoirs appear, if it was a mistake in the first instance then no-one seemed to notice until too late; whatever the political and financial ramifications seem to have been completely ignored. Is this the final straw, the low point from Labour cannot return. The Conservatives seemed doomed to lose from the first poll taken after Black Wednesday, while Brown's standing has never been high is this the event that means that the next election is the Conservatives to lose? It is whether there is a symbolic significance attached to the recent economic events.

If economic management is all Brown stands for within the public consciousness then that is now shattered as it seems that the decline in support is linked to accusations of dithering over the future of Northern Rock, is inability to explain how economic stability will be maintained or how much it will cost the nation, and this long drawn out series of discussions over the 10p rate where Brown simply got it wrong. What could brown do to reverse his standing, how much will the heartlands abandon Labour for alternative leftist parties or the Liberal Democrats, or perhaps more importantly what would David Cameron have to do to lose the election. What will be interesting in Crewe & Nantwich is not who wins or not but the extent of the swings in votes. If these indicate vote switching away from Labour it could say a great deal about the general tide as there is no incumbency or personal vote. So it could be, in microcosm, despite the lower turnout, the general feeling of the nation if May 20th was a General Election and not just a by-election.

All politics is (not) local

Apart, perhaps, for the London Mayoral Election contest, most of the other 150+ council elections seem to be driven by the popularity of the national parties and their leaders than the desire for a assemblies or councils to be run by specific individuals or parties. The media are focusing on the 'kicking' Gordon Brown will receive with the Express reporting that "Labour insiders expect the party could lose more than 200 councillors in a punishing response from voters to Mr Brown’s blunder-hit first 10 months in his job". The Conservatives are also promoting the notion of sending Brown a message, in a campaigning email and video 'David Cameron' tells subscribers that "Every Conservative vote today will help send Gordon Brown a message".

It strikes me as a bit of a shame for the many Councillors and AMs who have done an excellent job but whose careers hang in the balance due to the performance of a party leader whom they have little influence over. But is it their fault, should the campaign be more intense and personalised, or is there nothing that can be done to ensure Council elections are about election a strong local team not sending messages to the top. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is the problem with representative democracy that we have so few ways to participate, or give voice to our feelings, outside of an election, that most people take the only chance they have to message the prime minister.

But it could also be due to the demise of ideology. As the parties increasingly bunch around the centre, offering almost identical solutions, the only differentiating factor is trust in the competence of that party to deliver. If there are no local personalities, with a recognised track record, or who promise something different, then many who wish to vote may only be able to judge the party as an entity and use the leader as a reference point to assess competence.

Why Polls don't predict Results

The media, their pundits and the pollsters seem to have egg on their face this morning 9particularly newspapers that have seriously outdated headlines) as we wake to discover that it is a narrow victory for Hilary Clinton in New Hampshire and not the predicted Obama landslide. It seems the polls got it wrong again! Well perhaps it is really the fault of those who use the polls. Polls are good fun, and often without them there would be no news stories during elections, but even if they ask the right question of the right people they cannot tell us who will win the party nominations in the US and it is doubtful if they can truly predict who will win the presidency unless it is a non-contest; this is why.

1. Polls are context specific

While rolling polls can iron our problems and identify changes in opinion, any poll is related entirely to the moment when the question was asked. The Obama surge may have been linked to his appearance as a winner on the media, so before the New Hampshire campaign got more intense, or there may have been a post-Iowa sympathy surge to Hilary Clinton; either way the results can be outdated and changed very quickly.

2. Polls effect turnout

Polls can be an indication of support but they are not predictive of actual behaviour. The disparity between poll and result may be a reflection of individuals who support Obama, would go to a caucus if their vote mattered, but assumed it did not; so they stay indoors in the warm and actual support seems lower. Alternatively the polls may have mobilised the Clinton supporters in the fear that she would lose. Either way anything but a marginal result can either mobilise or depress turnout; why do you think that TV presenters when running a phone poll tell viewers the results could not be closer, they haven't a clue but it encourages voting!

3. Polls effect results

But polls may also make people question their support. Supporting Obama, the great rhetorician and orator, may be different than wanting him to be President. Voters may have considered whether another Democrat (Clinton) had a better chance of winning the White House, or they don't actually want him as President, or they do want Hilary; whatever the various reasons people may have changed their minds between poll and vote.

4. The mystical caucus

While voting can always prove unpredictable, a caucus is something different. Here it is about face to face persuasion by campaigners for each of the candidates. It is here that prejudices can be played upon, beliefs eroded, hard arguments can have impact; all the tricks come into play here. Maybe evidence of Hilary's record and experience made some Obama supporters question their allegiance; or maybe Edwards' supporters were more swayed by the Clinton team. Whatever it makes for a very unpredictable outcome.

So for those four reasons, all of which may well be happening at the same time to skew results one way or the other, polls should be taken with a pinch of salt and a degree of intelligent scepticism until the results actually emerge. If not you get headlines wrong, assume too much and look very daft when the results emerge.

Democratic? Fair? Confusing?

In the UK the process of selection of candidates is simple really. Local parties, often guided from central office, select their candidate for MP, MPs and party members select the party leader. It limits choice to the voter but the process is transparent and in theory should encourage the interested to get involved at a local level.

In the US the path to being presidential candidate is long, arduous, complex (at least to an outsider), and privileges the rich or well sponsored. The single, most stark contrast is that in the UK an individual with no personal money could get onto the ballot paper and not worry about winning or losing if they have party support, in the US this is not the case.

Here is an explanation of the system:

Iowa will be critically important in this race. But there are some unique aspects of the Iowa caucus that you need to know about. Here in the first state where the Democratic candidates will compete, people don't "vote" for their candidate in the way that you might think. In order to win, we have to turn people out to a caucus -- a process that lasts over an hour and requires supporters to publicly advocate for their candidate and persuade others to join them. That means in Iowa, it's all about organization. We have to organize all 99 counties and train over 1,700 precinct captains to lead these caucuses. We have to recruit more Obama supporters to attend their caucus and build the ground game to turn them out on caucus day. It's a massive undertaking, and with just over 100 days left before the Iowa caucuses, I'm asking for your help. Why does Iowa matter to you? Because the momentum from a win in Iowa could create a domino effect in the rest of the states that follow. In the last two presidential elections, the candidate who won the Iowa caucuses went on to win the Democratic nomination. Now is a crucial time to show your support. A donation of $12 will provide ten yard signs for Iowa lawns. $27 will send fifty Iowans a piece of mail telling them Barack's story. $53 can sponsor a college student at a Students for Barack Obama weekend training. And $114 buys enough t-shirts for canvassers to wear while knocking on every door in Evansdale, Iowa. Please make a donation now to help us win Iowa.

The issue perhaps is the economy of scale, how do you reach the number of people required in a nation the size of the USA; perhaps it is no wonder that all but the most liberal of Chinese argue that democracy would not work in China. But when you consider the money here it takes obscene amounts to get elected as candidate, that is before the presidential race proper begins. One wonders what impact this has on those Americans to whom $53 is a significant sum of money, who are concerned about politics but who know that they can have no role in the process of selecting who will go forward to the two-horse race.

Is there a real sense of low self-efficacy and cynicism (perhaps as a product of one another) born out of the fact that there is no real input into the process until it is largely two late? This is not to suggest the wrong candidates emerge at the end, but a comment on the nature of a system and the way in which it can either encourage or discourage participation.

Cynics or Sceptics and why?

Last Thursday and Friday I attended a conference on Political Socialisation organised by Universiteit Antwerpen, it was all fascinating stuff but one paper in particular made me think. That was offered by Henk Dekker, based on research into young people's political attitudes in The Netherlands. It discussed two important themes, firstly the nature of cynicism and secondly the sources.

Dekker made an important distinction which is often overlooked in studies; that is between scepticism (the rationale questioning of communication), and cynicism (the rejection of communication due to a mistrust of the communicator). The media often conflate and confuse the two on the basis that politicians are mistrusted so any questioning of campaign communication or manifesto promises are contingent on that mistrust. This may not be so and so cynicism may not be a widespread as is commonly believed. It is a question worth asking, particularly if studies look for cynicism as opposed to having indices for both cynicism and scepticism.

The second aspect that Dekker proposed is regarding one key source of cynicism, low self-esteem. Dekker argued that those individuals who feel they have not realised their own potential are more likely to blame others and create conspiracy theories to shift blame onto broader society and structures of power. So perceptions of powerlessness and feelings of low self-efficacy can result from personally not doing anything but the blame for that is easier to shift on the political structure than accept.

So, for example, non-voters may find it too difficult to make a decision, or even motivate themselves to go and vote, but may later feel guilty for failing to exercise their democratic duty (a feeling that may inspire low self-esteem). Their excuse however is shifted onto the political system by repeating negative press reports and claiming all politicians are the same and every vote is worthless.

Clearly there are rationale arguments for being cynical, and research of media coverage can suggest there is an effect between cynical reporting and cynical public attitudes. but this is a fresh perspective worth some consideration. Perhaps we should consider whether data such as the graph (right) represents healthy scepticism or a cynicism that is corrosive to democracy. So perhaps what I take from Dekker's paper is a suggestion that research into non-voting and the causes of cynicism should be a little more sophisticated to attempt to assess how deeply the cynical attitudes are within the public psyche as opposed to accepting that cynicism is really rife and is a prime cause of political disengagement.

Limiting choice doesn't win elections!

The Conservative party seem to have a problem, well several actually, but I note three of importance. Firstly, they are behind in the polls; secondly, the news agenda is most interested in possible splits between left and right, modernisers and traditionalists; thirdly, the only policy that hits the main news is their pledge to stick to Labour spending plans.

The problem therefore is that public perceptions of the party, leading to lower scores in the polls, are likely to be driven by an impression of division and lack of direction and that they have no original policies. While there is currently an online initiative to consult which is gathering pace (see here), this is ignored as it is not entertaining news.

Perhaps the pledge to stick to Labour public spending plans, which to an extent undermines their open consultation, is an attempt to capture the agenda but this is flawed. It worked for Labour in in the run-up to 1997, but because the Major government was in disarray and there was a need to reassure the floating voters that a Labour government would not incur and economic collapse; in this instance fine. But Labour's record on the economy is Brown's strength, providing this lack of choice will give people the choice between a tried and tested brand and an unknown alternative, but for the same price (or risk if you like). The choice will be Labour.

While it is not for me to comment on which policies the Conservative Party should or should not lead on, they need to talk about those things the public are concerned about but offer a more attractive alternative to Labour not more of the same. This is the only way any party can steal the ground from a party of government that have not yet lost the support of the public completely. Maybe they need to do more research, maybe they need to consult more widely, but it seems that if this is all they can offer then a snap election would present an open goal for Brown.

The real winner?

By-elections are usually fairly well hyped, by the parties as endorsements and by the media as indicative of trends. The two recent UK by-elections were largely unsurprising in their results but worthy of some comment.

The first point to make is that the votes in actual numbers for virtually all the parties fell, as did the turnout, as compared to the 2005 General Election. In percentage terms the Liberal Democrats could claim some comfort, but their votes did not increase substantially; thus the question is do they have around 4,000 loyal supporters that will always turn out and vote or did they gain a raft of new voters? The Conservatives similarly lost out, but not badly, but equally it is a question whether they have a hard core of voters that turnout come rain or shine or if Cameron, or Robb and Lit the candidates gained new supporters.

Labour seriously lost out. But is this a feature of vote switching or the low turnout? As both are deemed safe Labour seats there must be a sense of 'low self-efficacy' or powerlessness when voting. Equally why bother turning out to vote if the result is predictable. In Sedgefield there is also the non-Blair effect. Whether he is nationally hated or not, the media could always find people in Sedgefield that would speak positively about him; his successor could not offer the same prominence.

And there are worrying features. In Sedgefield the British National Party came a respectable fourth with 2,492 votes, 9% of the turnout.

But can these offer any indications in reality. The answer is probably not. If turnout increases for a General Election then normal service in these seats will probably resume. Safe seats will show some variations, but nothing that will effect the overall result. If we have a marginal by-election that may be a little more indicative, but still by-elections are a strange and unrepresentative beast that are given a lot of attention by parties and the media but fail to attract the interest of voters: such is the strange system we try to make sense of.

Happy holidays!!!

Do polls tell us Brown would win?

The latest Yougov poll suggest a lead for Labour suggesting Gordon is enjoying a honeymoon as Prime Minister among voters, if not the media! This, the Telegraph argue, is a signal that the time is right for a snap election to dispel the question of how legitimate the Brown mandate is. But is this poll really saying that Brown enjoying unswerving support in the country. Reading the figures, the interesting aspect to these polls is that they are so mixed and, I would argued, could not seriously be used to predict an Election outcome.

While responses to the statement 'Who would make the better prime minister, Brown or Cameron' (which Brown wins 35 to 23) is indicative, more indicative are the 38% who don't know. Similarly on the 'forced choice' between voting Labour or Conservative, Labour wins 43 to 36, but there are 21% don't know. But consider these figures, 52% say it is possible for Gordon to make a fresh start, but 48% suggest he will be no better or no worse (the same as Blair then!). 41% say he will make no significant changes, there is a 40/40 split between yes he wants to meet the concerns aspirations of the country and no he doesn't. 57% say no Gordon is unlikely to restore trust in government.

So would you call I election if I were Gordon, well maybe. What this shows is a lot of uncertainly, the don't knows being a group that could go either way, but a degree of faith in Brown as a leader, a good manager perhaps. Cameron it seems does not yet possess the image the British voters are looking for and perhaps the Quentin Davies critique is one more widely shared. Sadly it appears that Brown is the best choice, but not because of his outstanding qualities or record, more that he is perceived currently as better than Cameron only.

Mmmm, choices, choices

Newbury's question the council candidates continues to thrive, yesterdays question was from Julian Waghorn, a 61-year-old retired financial analyst, and asked “What is your policy on council tax? Will you keep it tagged to inflation or below? And how do we know you will stick to your promise"; so what were the diverse answers?

Emma Webster (Conservative) “Our pledge is to keep council tax at or below inflation and our track record of delivery over the last two years demonstrates our commitment to this pledge.”

Denise Gaines (Liberal Democrats) “We are going to keep it at or below inflation for the four years. We are promising to do it and we keep our promises."

Grahame Murphy (Labour) “We would try to give best value for money, but not make any promises about reducing it"

Spot the difference? Me neither! Given that Newbury is currently a close contest between the Conservatives representing 27 wards and the Liberal Democrats representing 24, where is the choice here? If council tax is the the key issue for a voter like Mr Waghorn, and gaining a choice over the future cost of living in Newbury is a motivating factor for voting, what is the point? What happened to the Liberal Democrat council tax reform, was it edited out or has it been scrapped? Why is this down to a simple, far too similar, set of answers; but if we offer incentives more might vote - I remain sceptical on this evidence!

I am sad (well sort of) that I will be in Prague and not enjoying the excitement that is results night, though apparently results night could be elongated and a drawn out event due to the various new methods of voting and the long process of counting and verifying postal votes. Wouldn't it be great if there was a record turnout, a nation-wide excitement about the result, but it will not happen - why is that? Next post on Monday, when we know the result, how will all the gimmicks to improve turnout have worked? Well I find it interesting!

The voting rebate

Labour MP for South Swindon, and staunch party loyalist, Anne Snelgrove (right) yesterday talked about reasons for not voting and how to incentivise the young to vote. Some ideas were just about making voting easy, by text, email or online for example, but a more radical idea came out of her talk to Swindon's New College students: "offering people cash or money off their council tax bill".

When will these deluded politicians realise that it is not about ease of voting, it is not about being paid (though certainly for a reasonable fee most young people would vote), it is about feeling that voting is important enough to 'be bothered', 'make the effort' and gain the information to make an informed choice. Gone are the days when the majority of voters like herds of cattle would flock out and vote for their respective parties.

Unless the voter can have an impact (in marginal seats), feel the election is important (the government may change or a particular MP needs saving), and are engaged by the parties, they are not going to bother. So don't offer cheap incentives, change the electoral system, ensure the parties are significantly different, and communicate ideas as well as image, then we may actually see voters voting.

Is 'Ming' reading my blog?

On BBC's Breakfast programming, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell seems to be echoing my comments on comparing engagement in the French elections to those in the UK. He comments that "We've got two parties - two conservative parties - who agreed about Iraq, agree about civil nuclear power, agree about the replacement of Trident. What we need is a party of opposition. We are the party of opposition in these local government elections both in the north of England and the south of England too." But are the Liberal Democrats a real alternative? When we think of choice we think in terms of what we can have, not what we would like but cannot realise. Sir Menzies 'principles over fashion' argument is something all parties should take on board by setting out a credible set of policies and their solutions rather than masking them in soundbites, cliches and imagery. However a question must be asked. All parties are guilty of attempting to present their arguments in a way that appeals to voters, their solution is going negative and not actually offering substance within that communication; the LibDems are as guilty of this as the rest, their 'New-Tory-Labour' site and animations hint at solutions but the actual policy is a few clicks away. So sadly Ming's fine words may appear a little empty.

And it is appearances that matter. If the first line of communication does not convey a message, it may convey similarity and vacuousness; it appeals to those who agree but not to the undecided who want help in making a choice. Maybe he's not reading the blog after all!

When old media meets new media

There is much debate whether the advance of new media tolls the death knell of old media. True, it is easier to access the news you want, from a range of media outlets, from a single PC screen (an it is more environmental). However a safer bet is that old media will evolve to provide an online resource (as most do) but as a brand trusted for providing a certain style and content will retain a large audience. This allows the media brand more scope to offer a wider range of news and serve their audience better.

Newbury Weekly News has certainly taken these ideas on board and are offering the local people a political forum and their council election candidates the potential of the Internet without the hassle of creating their own online presence. Their website is putting readers questions to the candidates and publishing the answers on the hottest topics: today it is recycling! Given that council elections seem preoccupied with a mixture of local and national issues, and that voters like the big issues to be translated into political outputs that shape their life experience, this seems invaluable for democracy.

Why invaluable, because it forces the parties and candidates to engage with the issues people really care about. As commented elsewhere on this blog, for politics to appear interesting it must engage with voter's lives and aspirations and offer real choice. I suggest it is not about who leads the party, but what will the leader do for me that gets voters into the ballot box. Whether the party responses to the question posed by Carmel Owens (44 yr old Newbury resident) offer real choice is debatable without understanding the full context of their comments, and I don't live in Newbury so I do not claim that; but such initiatives offer the responses voters need when asked to make their choices. Maybe this should be a key function of the local newspapers during elections!

What must be remembered is that new media is not a magic bullet, you must have the 'pull' factor. If you wonder what theat means see the blog by Lisa Chambers (left) a Forest Heath District Councillor, it reads as little more than a chat between her and Robin (who uses the comments to tell Lisa that: May get a call from Sue McAllister about a visit at Studlands this week) sadly her efforts seem to have no pull at all.