What is the biggest difference between the Labour party of today and it's early incarnation under Keir Hardy? I think the answer to that question lies with all of us.
It now astonishing to reflect upon the voter turnout for the General Election of 1950. A staggering 83.9% of the then electorate exercised their right to vote. That figure rose to 66.1% of the electorate at the last election. Why then have so many of us just opted out in the intervening years? Before answering that question, it is not all doom and gloom. The lowest turnout so far was in 2001 when a paltry 59.1% turned out to vote. That is all the more remarkable when we consider that the 1997 election which brought Tony Blair to power amassed an impressive 71.4%. That is quite a drop in just four years. But even that figure of 71.4% is pretty poor when compared to John Major's turnout of 77.7% in 1992.
Either we are entering a new period of increased voter engagement or we have just witnessed a blip in the overall trend of mass apathy. To try and find the answer, it is perhaps instructive to reflect on what drove 83.9% to vote in 1950. The country had just emerged from the misery of the Second World War. Rationing was still a part of daily life as was National Service and the country was just starting the long process of getting back on it's feet. Clement Attlee had surprisingly been voted in after the war when many had expected Churchill to be rewarded for his perceived wartime success. In a way though, Attlee had been awarded the poison chalice in that he had to take the first steps in dealing with a truly battered economy. The history books now reveal that Attlee was perhaps the greatest leader we have had in modern times. His style was collaborative and he has thus earned praise from across the political spectrum in the years since. In many ways, he was the complete contrast to Margaret Thatcher who, in later years, came to epitomise the "my way or the highway" style of leadership which also became the hallmark of both Blair and Brown albeit in rather different styles.
But perhaps the biggest factor underpinning the mass voter turnout in 1950 was that, compared to today, people had so little. By inference, they arguably valued their vote more than we tend to today. But that trend looks as though it might be in reverse. Could it be that we have reached a tipping point?
When the voter turnout of the 2015 election is broken down, one figure stands out from the rest. The voter turn out in Scotland jumped from 63.8% in 2010 to an impressive 71.1%. That really is an extraordinary jump given that the figures fro the other home countries barely changed. Perhaps Scotland provides us with a clue. The legacy of the Scottish vote could scarcely have been more dramatic with the Nationalists taking all the seats bar three leaving just one Tory, one Labour and one Liberal. But what caused such a momentous sea change in voter behaviour. It wasn't just that more people voted. More people voted in a very different way which suggested an end to the hitherto tribal habits which had predominated North of the border.
Contempt for voters is a dangerous business and voters as a rule have long memories if they are sufficiently upset. If the Tory party under Thatcher upset the Scots in the 1980s, the Labour party under Blair and Brown arguably went one step further. This was epitomised by the incident in which the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown referred to "that bigoted woman" when we thought the microphones were all switched off. It is sometimes more prudent to think ill of someone than to come straight out and say it. It is even worse to say it when you think nobody can hear you when they really can. Coupled with the clever machinations of the Scottish Nationalists under Salmond and Sturgeon respectively, Labour in 2015 simply paid the price for a combination of arrogance and complacency.
So what did Joh Major do in 1992 to realise a 77.7% turn out given that the turn out for Tony Blair just 9 years later had plummeted to 59.1%? It's important to remember that Major was about to take the country in to its last five years of an 18 year Tory government so his was not exactly an ideal position. But my recollections of that campaign recall Major going around the country and literally standing on his soap box to get his message across to the electorate. Who, among the current crop of politicians, would even have the front to do that? And Major was not exactly dripping with the stardust and charisma which propelled Blair to power just 5 years later. Of course, one person has emerged recently who probably would go around the country standing on a soap box to get his message across Like Major, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exactly exude the "Holywood factor". But that is to miss the point. The point is that Major and Corbyn are both old fashioned in that they actively engage with their electorate and too few modern politicians are prepared to do that. That partly explains why voter turn outs have been on the decline over recent years. To sit in a cosy studio and bicker with one another is both boring and exclusive. To go out on to the streets and actively engage is dynamic and fruitful.
But the other part of the answer lies not with the politicians but with the public themselves. If Mohamed won't go to the mountain, the mountain must go to Mohamed. Quite why people have retreated to their homes and refrained from political engagement is a mystery to me. I am sure it would also be a mystery to their parents and grandparents. Even at a local level, the majority appear disinterested in the issues which directly affect them on their own doorsteps. So what would it take for that to change? What would it take for 83% of the electorate to vote at the next general election in 2020? Furthermore, what difference would it make if 83% of the local electorate voted where you and I live? If we are to see meaningful change in our current democracy, we need to collectively aspire for a turn out on that scale. Perhaps we have just had too many years of politicians (both national and local) being too out of touch and too unwilling to engage and listen.
I don't even think it's a case of right versus left. Too many of the current policies being pushed through seem at odds with the majority but the majority don't seem to want to come out and vote. In fairness though, 4 million people did exercise their right to vote vote for UKIP in 2015. With just one MP to their name, it is not difficult to see why they might feel disillusioned with the status quo. By contrast, the SNP in Scotland had a windfall of 56 MPs with less than half the votes of UKIP. But that would be to miss the effect of engagement. However lopsided the current voting yields are, Sturgeon and the SNP managed to engage with the Scottich electorate in a way that Labour hadn't for donkey's years. Thus, the SNP realised an extra million votes. The SNP engaged with a firm anti-austerity message and the people responded. I believe it was a combination of that and the sheer contempt for both Labour and the Tories which had been brewing over many years.
But that speaks of engagement at a national level in which we are afforded our say every 5 years. So what about the picture on a local level and why is it that the two seem to be treated so differently by people? Local decision making is devolved to local government and it is instructive to consider exactly how that works and just how poorly we have come to engage with a system which impacts so heavily on all of us. In the county of Denbighshire in North Wales where I live, the local council is run with a Cabinet system in which a select group of 8 county councillors effectively make the all the big decisions despite there being 47 elected county councillors from across the county. This is all the more pertinent at a time when cuts from central government are largely being delivered by 8 people when 47 have been elected. It seems a far cry from democracy.
The existing Cabinet system was introduced by none other than Tony Blair under the Local Government Act, 2000. It is baffling even now to try and understand the rationale for such a poor system. Put simply, the majority party elected or, alternatively, a coalition of parties agree to elect a leader of the council. He or she then chooses the other 7 members of the cabinet which is supposed to be politically balanced. It is evidently a system ripe for abuse with the end result being 8 Cabinet members calling all the shots while everyone else looks on and are powerless to do anything about it.
In the town where I live, 63.9% of those eligible to vote in 2012 did so. A staggering 2,708 people chose not to vote. In 2008, the figure was very similar with 4,515 of the 7,324 eligible voters exercising their right to do so (61.6%). It might be argued that these figures do not differ hugely from the national picture in 2010 (65%) and 2015 (66.1%). But it is again instructive to bear in mind that figure for Scotland at the election this year in which 71.1% voted as compared to 63.8% just 5 years previously. That increase in turnout yielded a cataclysmic change in the Scottish political landscape with the Nationalists all but wiping out the competition. Imagine if that sort of turnout was replicated not just in the national elections in England, Wales and Ulster but also at a local level when choosing county councillors!
But what of the current Cabinet system? I have tried to get to grips with it and I have even facilitated several local meetings in which local people and county councillors alike have given their views. The overwhelming concensus from across the county is that the Cabinet system does not work and renders the local democracy farcical in the majority of cases. A situation has now arisen in which the majority of those questioned strongly believe that our exisiting local government arrangement is officer-led with an approving Cabinet on hand to sanction their decisions.
As recently as last autumn, the Chief Executive Officer of my local council was quoted in the local media as saying, "We can't go on like this". Although he was referring to the cuts being enforced by central government, I would agree with his sentiment for different reasons. As things stand, we really can't go on with a system as undemocratic as this one. The reality is that even if we did emulate the turn out of 1950 when 83% of the national electorate voted, we would still be stuck with this sorry system of local government. So while I would be the first to urge people to engage in the political process, it is equally easy to understand why so many choose to abstain from exercising their vote.
Denbighshire Voice Llais Sir Ddinbych was formed as a facebook group for local people to have their say over matters which were of importance to them. It has grown admirably within the space of 9 months and it has succeeded in giving local people their say. But the real challenge is to change the current system. Only then will we have made any real progress in our quest for a more inclusive democracy.
Change is brought about in many ways but is often brought about as the result of important single issues. In Denbigh at the moment, people are about to lose their longstanding care home for the elderly but I suspect many people still don't realise this.The stark reality is that a vital service such as this is about to be thrown overboard at a time when the need for it has seldom been greater. Whether that happens or not will almost entirely depend upon public engagement. We might not be able to achieve the longer term goal of ditching the Cabinet system immediately, but we can certainly win some key battles on the ground in the meantime - if that is what people want. As Joni Mitchell sang in 1970, "Don't it always go to show, that you don't know what you've got till its gone". Time to engage?
It now astonishing to reflect upon the voter turnout for the General Election of 1950. A staggering 83.9% of the then electorate exercised their right to vote. That figure rose to 66.1% of the electorate at the last election. Why then have so many of us just opted out in the intervening years? Before answering that question, it is not all doom and gloom. The lowest turnout so far was in 2001 when a paltry 59.1% turned out to vote. That is all the more remarkable when we consider that the 1997 election which brought Tony Blair to power amassed an impressive 71.4%. That is quite a drop in just four years. But even that figure of 71.4% is pretty poor when compared to John Major's turnout of 77.7% in 1992.
Either we are entering a new period of increased voter engagement or we have just witnessed a blip in the overall trend of mass apathy. To try and find the answer, it is perhaps instructive to reflect on what drove 83.9% to vote in 1950. The country had just emerged from the misery of the Second World War. Rationing was still a part of daily life as was National Service and the country was just starting the long process of getting back on it's feet. Clement Attlee had surprisingly been voted in after the war when many had expected Churchill to be rewarded for his perceived wartime success. In a way though, Attlee had been awarded the poison chalice in that he had to take the first steps in dealing with a truly battered economy. The history books now reveal that Attlee was perhaps the greatest leader we have had in modern times. His style was collaborative and he has thus earned praise from across the political spectrum in the years since. In many ways, he was the complete contrast to Margaret Thatcher who, in later years, came to epitomise the "my way or the highway" style of leadership which also became the hallmark of both Blair and Brown albeit in rather different styles.
But perhaps the biggest factor underpinning the mass voter turnout in 1950 was that, compared to today, people had so little. By inference, they arguably valued their vote more than we tend to today. But that trend looks as though it might be in reverse. Could it be that we have reached a tipping point?
When the voter turnout of the 2015 election is broken down, one figure stands out from the rest. The voter turn out in Scotland jumped from 63.8% in 2010 to an impressive 71.1%. That really is an extraordinary jump given that the figures fro the other home countries barely changed. Perhaps Scotland provides us with a clue. The legacy of the Scottish vote could scarcely have been more dramatic with the Nationalists taking all the seats bar three leaving just one Tory, one Labour and one Liberal. But what caused such a momentous sea change in voter behaviour. It wasn't just that more people voted. More people voted in a very different way which suggested an end to the hitherto tribal habits which had predominated North of the border.
Contempt for voters is a dangerous business and voters as a rule have long memories if they are sufficiently upset. If the Tory party under Thatcher upset the Scots in the 1980s, the Labour party under Blair and Brown arguably went one step further. This was epitomised by the incident in which the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown referred to "that bigoted woman" when we thought the microphones were all switched off. It is sometimes more prudent to think ill of someone than to come straight out and say it. It is even worse to say it when you think nobody can hear you when they really can. Coupled with the clever machinations of the Scottish Nationalists under Salmond and Sturgeon respectively, Labour in 2015 simply paid the price for a combination of arrogance and complacency.
So what did Joh Major do in 1992 to realise a 77.7% turn out given that the turn out for Tony Blair just 9 years later had plummeted to 59.1%? It's important to remember that Major was about to take the country in to its last five years of an 18 year Tory government so his was not exactly an ideal position. But my recollections of that campaign recall Major going around the country and literally standing on his soap box to get his message across to the electorate. Who, among the current crop of politicians, would even have the front to do that? And Major was not exactly dripping with the stardust and charisma which propelled Blair to power just 5 years later. Of course, one person has emerged recently who probably would go around the country standing on a soap box to get his message across Like Major, Jeremy Corbyn doesn't exactly exude the "Holywood factor". But that is to miss the point. The point is that Major and Corbyn are both old fashioned in that they actively engage with their electorate and too few modern politicians are prepared to do that. That partly explains why voter turn outs have been on the decline over recent years. To sit in a cosy studio and bicker with one another is both boring and exclusive. To go out on to the streets and actively engage is dynamic and fruitful.
But the other part of the answer lies not with the politicians but with the public themselves. If Mohamed won't go to the mountain, the mountain must go to Mohamed. Quite why people have retreated to their homes and refrained from political engagement is a mystery to me. I am sure it would also be a mystery to their parents and grandparents. Even at a local level, the majority appear disinterested in the issues which directly affect them on their own doorsteps. So what would it take for that to change? What would it take for 83% of the electorate to vote at the next general election in 2020? Furthermore, what difference would it make if 83% of the local electorate voted where you and I live? If we are to see meaningful change in our current democracy, we need to collectively aspire for a turn out on that scale. Perhaps we have just had too many years of politicians (both national and local) being too out of touch and too unwilling to engage and listen.
I don't even think it's a case of right versus left. Too many of the current policies being pushed through seem at odds with the majority but the majority don't seem to want to come out and vote. In fairness though, 4 million people did exercise their right to vote vote for UKIP in 2015. With just one MP to their name, it is not difficult to see why they might feel disillusioned with the status quo. By contrast, the SNP in Scotland had a windfall of 56 MPs with less than half the votes of UKIP. But that would be to miss the effect of engagement. However lopsided the current voting yields are, Sturgeon and the SNP managed to engage with the Scottich electorate in a way that Labour hadn't for donkey's years. Thus, the SNP realised an extra million votes. The SNP engaged with a firm anti-austerity message and the people responded. I believe it was a combination of that and the sheer contempt for both Labour and the Tories which had been brewing over many years.
But that speaks of engagement at a national level in which we are afforded our say every 5 years. So what about the picture on a local level and why is it that the two seem to be treated so differently by people? Local decision making is devolved to local government and it is instructive to consider exactly how that works and just how poorly we have come to engage with a system which impacts so heavily on all of us. In the county of Denbighshire in North Wales where I live, the local council is run with a Cabinet system in which a select group of 8 county councillors effectively make the all the big decisions despite there being 47 elected county councillors from across the county. This is all the more pertinent at a time when cuts from central government are largely being delivered by 8 people when 47 have been elected. It seems a far cry from democracy.
The existing Cabinet system was introduced by none other than Tony Blair under the Local Government Act, 2000. It is baffling even now to try and understand the rationale for such a poor system. Put simply, the majority party elected or, alternatively, a coalition of parties agree to elect a leader of the council. He or she then chooses the other 7 members of the cabinet which is supposed to be politically balanced. It is evidently a system ripe for abuse with the end result being 8 Cabinet members calling all the shots while everyone else looks on and are powerless to do anything about it.
In the town where I live, 63.9% of those eligible to vote in 2012 did so. A staggering 2,708 people chose not to vote. In 2008, the figure was very similar with 4,515 of the 7,324 eligible voters exercising their right to do so (61.6%). It might be argued that these figures do not differ hugely from the national picture in 2010 (65%) and 2015 (66.1%). But it is again instructive to bear in mind that figure for Scotland at the election this year in which 71.1% voted as compared to 63.8% just 5 years previously. That increase in turnout yielded a cataclysmic change in the Scottish political landscape with the Nationalists all but wiping out the competition. Imagine if that sort of turnout was replicated not just in the national elections in England, Wales and Ulster but also at a local level when choosing county councillors!
But what of the current Cabinet system? I have tried to get to grips with it and I have even facilitated several local meetings in which local people and county councillors alike have given their views. The overwhelming concensus from across the county is that the Cabinet system does not work and renders the local democracy farcical in the majority of cases. A situation has now arisen in which the majority of those questioned strongly believe that our exisiting local government arrangement is officer-led with an approving Cabinet on hand to sanction their decisions.
As recently as last autumn, the Chief Executive Officer of my local council was quoted in the local media as saying, "We can't go on like this". Although he was referring to the cuts being enforced by central government, I would agree with his sentiment for different reasons. As things stand, we really can't go on with a system as undemocratic as this one. The reality is that even if we did emulate the turn out of 1950 when 83% of the national electorate voted, we would still be stuck with this sorry system of local government. So while I would be the first to urge people to engage in the political process, it is equally easy to understand why so many choose to abstain from exercising their vote.
Denbighshire Voice Llais Sir Ddinbych was formed as a facebook group for local people to have their say over matters which were of importance to them. It has grown admirably within the space of 9 months and it has succeeded in giving local people their say. But the real challenge is to change the current system. Only then will we have made any real progress in our quest for a more inclusive democracy.
Change is brought about in many ways but is often brought about as the result of important single issues. In Denbigh at the moment, people are about to lose their longstanding care home for the elderly but I suspect many people still don't realise this.The stark reality is that a vital service such as this is about to be thrown overboard at a time when the need for it has seldom been greater. Whether that happens or not will almost entirely depend upon public engagement. We might not be able to achieve the longer term goal of ditching the Cabinet system immediately, but we can certainly win some key battles on the ground in the meantime - if that is what people want. As Joni Mitchell sang in 1970, "Don't it always go to show, that you don't know what you've got till its gone". Time to engage?
Comments
Post a Comment