Why not lift the ban on political TV advertising?
November 15th, 2005
-
How can more people be persuaded to vote?
Tomorrow I’ve been invited to take part in a “power lunch” at the Adam Smith Institute at which at which pollsters, journalists and others with a keen interest in the election process will discuss with Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, ways of boosting voter turnout in UK elections.
And in thinking about the issue it struck me that the decline in turn-out is closely correlated to the emergence of digital television. Until the 1997 election it was very difficult for TV viewers to get away totally from politics during a campaign because the vast majority of people had only only four channels - and each of these was required to show party election broadcasts like the “Brown-Blair love-in” (above) which kicked off Labour’s campaign in April.
Now the plan is for analogue TV to be switched-off by 2012 and the vast majority of households already have access to a minimum of 30 channels - most of them supported by advertising. The days when the public enjoyed a “common TV experience” by watching the same programme at the same time have gone.
Right from the beginning of commercial TV fifty years ago in the UK political advertisements have been banned. The result is that UK elections are totally different from US ones where TV advertising totally dominates.
What is the case for continuing the ban in the digital television era? Surely if we want to encourage more people to be interested in the political process then the full range of communication tools should be available to those who are seeking our votes?
The big argument against is the money - as we’ve seen in the campaign financing debates in the US. But the UK has now got a regime of much tougher reporting and transparency requirement on party funding as all three main parties have discovered in the past few months.
If we want to get the younger generation to be more interested in the political process then the parties should be able to reach them by being able to advertise on the TV channels that they watch. It would make for very different General Election campaigns.
I would be very interested in other ideas about how turnout can be increased so I can feed it in to tomorrow’s discussion.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It would be totally unfair for little parties that won’t have enough money to produce many commercial and buy lots of TV time to air them. Parties won’t start at the same level, because the main one would be already favourite just for the fact they’re more likely to get the resources to run a major TV ads campaign.
This debate is very common in Italy too. Unsurprisingly Berlusconi would like to have “uncontrolled” ads on TV, while the opposition is against.
I’d be horrified to see any increase in political advertising on TV. I don’t watch party political broadcasts as it is - I find them all to be highly insulting to my intelligence. I manage to make my choice, and vote, perfectly well without being exposed to these “broadcasts”.
The USA has turnout problems even worse than our own so I hardly think that copying their ideas is any answer to the apathy problem.
I wouldn’t like to see unlimited spending on TV ads. But I do agree that public political awareness is not helped by the limitations on access to the medium that reaches most people most often (in some cases, the only one where they are ever going to encounter politics).
What would be interesting is allowing parties more flexibility with how they use their time. 10 30-second slots instead of a 5-minute PEB, for example.
Andrea, playing devil’s advocate here: the current rules are in your words “totally unfair for little parties”. They can’t match spending on billboards, newspaper adverts, direct mail. They don’t have the resource of thousands of unpaid deliverers and canvassers. They don’t have the call centre capabilities and they don’t get the exposure on current affairs programmes. Why single out TV advertising?
If you wanted to set up a washing powder company is it “unfair” that you can’t match the spending of Unilever and Proctor & Gamble?
Online voting would do it… on the other hand do we want people who don’t care voting?
Far from agreeing more spending there should be tighter controls on national spending and the electoral comission should actually take action against those who break the rules.
Restrictions on spending level the playing field, not restrictions on advertising. Why restrict TV advertising and not billboards? So, with the spending regulations in place I would be open minded about TV advertising.
One problem is to prevent special interest groups advertising at election time. You could see the Countryside Alliance or Trade Unions spending vast amounts on political advertising by another name.
Richard Church
tv advertising would not improve turnout…most of the adverts would be negative and personalised and would turn people off politics. the last thing we need to do is go down the american path - that political system is awful imho.
Political parties currently only take 5 minutes of their permitted 10 minute PEB slots because they know that people are bored silly by them. I cannot see how MORE TV advertising would boost a campaign unless the rules on content are relaxed. Then we could see US style attack ads which are often unpleasant and I suspect would not be popular over here.
I would leave things as they are on TV advertising. The Tories did try some limited Cinema advertising this year but I havent seen any feedback as to whether it was considered successful or not.
Bally Eric is right. I think it’s pretty generally accepted that most American political advertising is aimed at discouraging your opponent’s supporters from voting, not at persuading people to vote for you.
One qualifer to this is that with a straight two-party system discouraging a Democrat (Republican) from voting has the same net effect on your chances of winning as encouraging a Republican (Democrat) to vote. As Britain is a two-and-a-half party system with some three way contests, this isn’t always the case.
And why is a high turnout an a priori ‘good thing’ ? Was the Major government of ‘92 (78% turnout) better, more legitimate than Blair ‘01 with 59% ?
The numbers:
Year 1959 1964 1966 1970 1974F 1974O 1979 1983 1987 1992 1997 2001 2005
Turnout 78.73 77.09 75.81 71.95 78.79 72.78 75.98 72.66 75.34 77.72 71.29 59.38 61.36
I broadly agree with the main thrust of Mike Smithson’s arguments - and the thesis linking the decline in terrestrial television with turnout merits further examination by professional psephologists.
However, I also believe that the ban on local radio adverstising should be reviewed. This is an important market which is growing in significance with people under 30. In my own constituency, we have 2 commercial radio stations who would welcome the chance to pitch for political advertising at election time - and need the income!
Stewart - Welcome to the site….will you be joining Nick Palmer in becoming a Parliamentary ‘regular’ here? And of course, many congratulations on your spectacular result back in May. Your predecessor is periodically cited on these boards, and not for her political acumen.
If higher turn-out is the goal, then the obvious answer is compulsory voting on the Australian model with or without “incentive vouchers” (as some ministers have thought aloud about IIRC). I am not convinced it is the problem.
First, turn-out is a proportion of those registered to vote. Let’s improve the electoral roll first - why not make (some of) the personal income tax allowance being dependent on being on the roll?
Second, there is a powerful argument that voting is irrational for most people under FPTP - what civic virtue is advanced by the public promotion of irrational behaviour?
Third, do we also want TV advertising of inner-party elections such as the one the Tories are having now? (Perhaps we do…)
The only reason why so many people don’t vote is that they don’t care which of the parties win. By not voting you’re basically just saying “Whoever wins that’s fine by me”. Until one of the three main parties breaks with the centre ground and provides the electorate with a more meaningful choice turnout is going to keep declining.
Anyway, why should people who don’t want to vote be encouraged to vote? If they don’t feel the need to express a preference, and they pay their taxes, then why not just leave them to do as they please?
Erm… what about a voting system where voting has some effect on the result? Given that only a handful of constituencies are marginal, and that there are only two parties that may actually win overall (at most!!), it’s a wonder as many peopl vote as they do. Changing the system - not necessarily to PR but at least to ranked preference expression or the inclusion of regional constituencies - has got to be key.
Allowing a ‘Non of the above’ vote would provide a reason for those not engaged by the major political parties (but not necessarily apolitical) to turn-out. It would formalise the ’spoilt paper’ and remove ambiguity as to the intention of the voter. The major benefit of the “NOTA” option is it removes any the argument from people who don’t vote that staying at home is ‘a protest vote’. It should become socially unacceptable to not go and use your vote - even if it is a protest vote.
I’m in favour of freedom of speech and I don’t see why it should be curtailed in the case of political advertising.
[18] Curtailing freedom of speech is exactly what the parties try to do come election time, by buying up billboards so that other people can’t!
9. I’m stunned to find I agree with Rik. The PEB and PPB system works reasonably well, is a level playing field and prevents the excesses of negative advertising. They can be important in enabling minor parties to reach people - as with the Greens in 1989 - despite the media concentration on the main parties. I wouldn’t change it significantly. The important change was less the growth in TV channels than when (early 1990s?) they stopped broadcasting them simultaneously on all channels.
I am, however, sympathetic to Stewart Jackson’s suggestion about local radio - a relatively cheap medium which can be used to project genuinely local messages or enable candidates to get themselves known. That might help a bit with reconnecting people to local campaigns. The constituency expenses limits are so tight that a candidate with a financial advantage couldn’t swamp the airwaves.
Agree very much with all the comments about having an electoral system that makes it worth voting! Why should most people bother? If even candidates in ‘hopeless’ seats are ordered to go to marginals to campaign, what hope is there for encouraging voters? And a fairer system would encourage the parties to take more distinctive and interesting positions on issues rather than parroting back what people in Northampton tell focus groups. No wonder people feel turned off politics and imagine that the parties are all the same.
I would also go for compulsory voting, for all sorts of reasons (though incentive voting by a special lottery also has its attractions). But it should be part of a wider set of measures including electoral reform - it shouldn’t be able to be seen as a partisan measure or a bid to shore up a failed political system.
14 - “Second, there is a powerful argument that voting is irrational for most people under FPTP - what civic virtue is advanced by the public promotion of irrational behaviour?”
I think that’s true in any conceivable system (unless you do something wacky, like have the candidate with the highest odd number of votes win - clearly not very sensible!). Even in STV, or closed list, or whatever, the likelihood of your vote getting your party an extra seat is tiny. Even if you really, really, really care about the election result, it’s very unlikely for voting to be rational in the strict sense.
PR systems do tend to make everyone’s vote equally (in)significant - which I quite agree is desirable.
12. I’m inclined to agree with Stewarts point here about local radio. The election campaigns are increasingly becoming presidential, so a local radio broadcast might engage people put off by the party leader but who are interested in local issues.
I don’t really think we’ll ever see voting at 70%+ again for various reasons. No real socialism vs capitalism any more, a new generation in a comfort zone and not interested in politics, Labours war on sleaze then being worse themselves. At the end of the day, a lot of people just can’t be bothered to get out of their chair and go to the polling booth.
I think we should steer clear of TV advertising, though I think Radio advertising is s a very good idea.
TV adverts would degenerate into a slanging match as they are stateside. Radio on the other hand reinforces the constitutency based of elections.
17. I’m not convinced about NOTA - I doubt it would attract many extra voters to the polls, and even if it did, what effect would it have? If NOTA polled more votes than the winner, would you re-run the election? If so, the result would be decided in a foolish little by-election that would probably have very low turnout. If not, all that is accomplished is having an MP for that constituency with a vague, de-legitimising stigma that will make it difficult for the constituency to be taken seriously. People are already entitled to spoil their ballot papers.
There’s no evidence that any gimmicks like online voting, SMS voting, etc etc significantly increase turnout - the only thing that works is postal voting although I’d like to see a larger trial of weekend voting.
The way to persuade people to vote is to make the contest more competative. It helps if the voters are either be very keen for one side to win or be equally keen for one side to lose. Obviously to give the contest this competative edge it helps if we don’t know the result ahead of time. So ban public opinion polls for the two weeks of the election.
I think we’ll end up with higher turnout if or when one of the main parties gets a bit radical in a way that is popular with a large proportion of voters and unpopular with the rest. I don’t think it’s likely to be socialism vs capitalism. Given the divisions in parliament on present issues I think its more likely to end up being liberalism vs authoritarianism.
25. Banning polls would have several undesirable effects. For a start people would conduct polls anyway, just not publish the results. The French Ministry of the Interior always knows election and referendum results in advance because it conducts private polling.
It would enable insiders to clean up on the political betting markets!
It would also see a return to the worst sort of pompous journalism, in which the great sage of the London press would somehow mystically commune with the ‘mood of England’ or wherever. People deserve better information than that.
17. A tiny minority of people would actually bother to go to the polling station just to register a NOTA vote… maybe quite a few of the people who read this type of site, but still a tiny minority overall. The main reason for low turnout has to be that the parties appear too similar and a widespread belief that politicians are all the same and voting doesn’t change anything.
TV advertising time for politicians would do anything to help either, probably the opposite. People would just be even more fed up with politicians, as indeed they seem to be in the USA where turn out is even worse than here. It seems politics is slowly becoming a minority interest
On thing that has changed a lot over the past 20/30 years is the displaying of posters in windows. I grew up in a solidly tory constituency where no other party had a hope. However come the GE there was no shortage of labour posters in windows and even a fair scattering of liberal ones. This no longer happens.
In areas which are not thought to be competitive (the great majority of constituencies I think) it is easy to forget that an election is going on. Politicians blame the voters for apathy but it is the politicians who are apathetic in most areas.
‘I live in a safe seat. Why should I vote, it cannot matter?’ As a fellow anorak, I’d love to have an answer to that. The problem is: its true. Who can help?
Why should UKIP have zero MPs?
If you are at the Adam Smith institute, it would be sensible for them to have a view on PR, especially as there is a reasonable probability of a hung parliament next time. I know, lets set up a commission….
[29] So lower turn-out is due to more rational, less solidaristic behaviour by Party machines and activists! I like it…
28-Is turnout in the US necessarily that much worse than here? I seem to remember reading somewhere (The Economist?) that turnout in the US is calculated as a % of those eligible to vote, in the UK as a % of those registered to vote. A subtle difference yes, but with the effect that we are comparing apples and pears.
I agree with Guido (18) on this. It is a freedom of speech issue and I favour allowing TV adverts even though I doubt it would do much for turnout.
One thing which is different in the US, just as an aside, is their more relaxed libel laws. I think Advertising Standards regulation generally is also less strict. Negative advertising in the US is highly personal as a result - there is personal stuff here but it largely falls into the category of (often not very funny) parody which is very different. You could of course pretty easily prevent any negative advertising through regulation anyway if you particularly wanted to do so.
Postal voting may increase turnout but it is deservedly under a cloud at present and I wouldn’t advocate making it any easier
What about having polling stations open over three days eg from 7am Friday to 6pm Sunday? We could then count and have the declarations at a civilised time on Sunday evening.
Do we have the technology to give people a choice of where they cast their vote eg in portacabins at railway stations or supermarkets, rather than at one preallocated place?
Peter 2 is absolutely correct. The % turnout figure in the US is calculated using the census whch is the basis for drawing congressional districts. The details can be found in editions of “The Almanac of American Politics”
You often here on US election broadcasts references to a high/low poll amongst registered voters.
Pity that BBC coverage of american election night is hours and hours of a Dimbleby chatting to his friends.
I remember last year the BBC reporter saying that in her opinion watching a polling precint in Cleveland Ohio, the State would go Democratic. That is like reporting a UK election based on a polling station in Kensington.
The BBC would be far better simply pkugging into one of the US news cahnnels, after all most of those watching will have an interest in US politics and actually be interested in knowing how Senate/House and Gubenatorial races are going, rather than the inivetible “lets bring in so and so who can talk about the weather”
I’d echo the sentiments that the US experience is hardly a good advert for political adverts on TV. I doubt that the decline in turnout is due to Digital TV. A correlation does not prove a causal link.
THere are many other good reasons why turnout has declined:
1. Less difference between the parties. This was certainly greater in 1992 than since.
2. Election seen as ‘a foregone conclusion’. Both at a national level and the constituency level.
People don’t think that their vote is going to matter, whereas at the 1992 election a lot of Labour people were desperate to get rid of the Tories after 13 years and Major had successfully convinced a lot of people that Labour would cost them a lot of money [The Tax Bombshell].
I also think that the accuracy of the electoral rolls is an issue. With more students at University you will get more people registered at more than one address [I used to be registered to vote at 3! So even though I conscientiously voted in elections my personal turnout was only 33%]
15. That’s not strictly true Andrew. Studies in Ireland have shown a strong link between the voter’s own sense of political knowledge and turnout. Many voters don’t vote because they feel they do not know enough about the issues or the parties to make a reasoned judgement (although I suppose in some ways this is connected to your point that if they really did care they would go out of their way to find out who they should vote for).
This, in one way, would seem to support Mike’s thesis that in a digital TV world it is far easier for voters to avoid, consciously or accidentally, political information and debate, thus depressing turnout.
34. The problem with that would be having the staff to cover all the time the booths are open and the security of the ballot boxes overnight (Certain Birmingham councillors might get ideas). The idea of an election over a weekend and counting on Sunday night is interesting though. Would certainly make better TV than Heartbeat and other various rubbish programmes on a Sunday evening.
As to suggestions for change then I think a simple PR system [such as in Scotland] could help by giving a wider range of parties a higher profile. I accept that turnout is lower in Scotland elections but I feel that it woul dhave been worse without the PR element [ie it is due to the “these elctions don’t affect me” sentiment that produces abysmal turnout in local elections]
I would couple this with a change in the legislative procedures so that minority parties would have a reasonable amount of parliamentary time to table legislation and attempt to get it agreed upon. I don’t see that a majority executive has to have an effective monopoly on this [Private members bills don’t get enough parliamentary time].
Given a more dynamic system where minority parties can propose legislation there wouldn’t be a need for formal coalition pacts to produce parliamentary majorities and the executive could be formed by the largest party even where it was in the minority.
This would give the ‘Opposition’ parties more chance to show the elctorate what they would want to do [by proposing actual legislation].
I guess this is seperating the executive from the legislature really.
If anything is likely to depress turnout at the next election it’ll be the sight of Cameroon, Brown and Kennedy selling their wares like soap powder …… dear god NOoooooooooooo !!!!!!!
The juxtaposition of Brown selling ecomonic prudence between ads for Toys R Us and Captain Birdseye will send the nation into political slumber …… and then there’ll be the awful soft focus shots of their respective brats …. YUK !!
I’m not sure that there is any evidence that political advertising, whether on TV or otherwise, increases turnout. The complaint of many non-voters is that politics is too punch-and-judy, that politicians are in it for themselves and can’t be trusted etc. Having more political advertising, where the competence and integrity of other politicians or political parties is often attacked, is hardly going to combat this perception. I can also see that political advertising on TV would be used by public service broadcasters to claim that politics was already receiving enough airtime, and might lead to a decline in balanced political reporting.
Having said that I do not think it is a particularly important issue. The problem of low political engagement will not be resolved by palliatives such as more advertising or postal voting etc. Neither would a single change such as a form of PR necessarily have much effect. Rather there needs to be a whole range of changes that bring the British political system up-to-date with a less deferential and better educated British public that no longer stick by traditional idelogically-based political structures.
The POWER Inquiry, for which I work, will be publishing a series of recommendations in February - which obviously I cannot go into detail about before then. However we are clear that minor changes such as voting in supermarkets, however desirable they may be, will do little to challenge the widespread distrust and disengagement with formal political structures.
http://www.powerinquiry.org
Over my dead body! This is one issue that I’d revolt on, even if the entire Cabinet, National Executive and my constituency party and voters were in favour.
a) Money already distorts politics in Britain to an alarming degree. Every major party has had embarassments with donors, yet none of us can do without them.
b) Political advertising reinforces the adversarial sound-bite culture. Anyone I’ve met who’s encountered an American election recoiled in horror at these things.
c) The curbs on spending in america are full of holes, and I suspect that if parties had to raise another £X million to stay competitive, they’d find ways round any rules (soft money etc.).
Perish the thought. Bury it 100 feet deep.
Not that I feel styrongly or anything.
Why not make polling day a bank holiday?
This would largely remove the opportunity cost to people of voting.
I have only failed to vote in any election once - the first London mayor vote. I did not vote because I was working from 9am-8pm (on commission) and living an hour away from where I was registered.
I share the view of some on the Forum that there is no quick-fix for the turnout “issue” which in itself is far more complex than first appears. Turnout in contests perceived to be close, eg: Conservative/Lib Dem marginals was at around 70% in many cases whereas “safe” Labour seats were down at 50% or below. I agree voter registration is another issue - I think more people are trying to “disappear” and this is particularly true in areas with highly mobile populations of migrant workers, especially East Europeans.
I’m not a fan of paid political advertising - I think there should be a much lower national spending limit on elections so we don’t see the proliferation of negative Tory billboards that has characterised the last three elections.
What I would support is greater local and national media coverage based not around the “presidential” debate but an hour-long debate on key issues such as the environment, the economy, public services etc. If ignorance is an issue, that has to be tackled first.
I believe the overwhelming majority of our MPs and Councillors are in politics to try to serve - they are given a massively hostile press some of which isn’t deserved. We are of course entitled to ask questions about the costs of Portcullis House but we forget that much of an MP’s time is spent with constituency casework which, by its very nature, requires patience and discretion. That said, we need to change the political “culture” operating in this country. MY personal bugbear is the huge amount of power exercised by central Government over local decision-making. I think it’s time County, Borough and District Councils were repatriated significant powers, capping should be removed and Councillors given real responsibility and accountability.
I find it hard to believe that there is any connection between the increase in TV stations and lower turnout at elections.
I believe that party political broadcasts at election time were at best watched mostly by political anoraks and at worst treated like any other break for advertisements i.e a convenient time to make a cup of tea.
20 + years ago the issues at General Elections were far more significant than current times e.g the choice between privatisation & nationalisation,multi lateral disarmament & unilateral disarmament,low tax & very high tax etc.etc.
Since 1997 Labour has adopted most of the Conservative policies and the gap between the two major parties has significantly narrowed.
Finally you have to have something or somebody to vote for and both the behavior of the parties and many of the politicians when elected is a massive turn off for many people.
Jack W - people might think Captain Birdseye was a candidate.
“I think it’s time County, Borough and District Councils were repatriated significant powers, capping should be removed and Councillors given real responsibility and accountability.”
I believe that is the idea behind New Localism / Direct Democracy.
Whilst I think that allowing more political advertising is a good idea, I think the thing you have to recognise in analysing the disengagement with politics over recent years is that the problem can’t really be traced to one or two factors, and it can’t be solved by one or two measures either.
I personally think there are several problems:
1) That some people, particularly young people, are quite simply uneducated about politics. We need to do more to inform people about our political system, say that voting is valuable, and that it is a historic right, fought for over the centuries.Yet young people do not choose to look into politics more fundamentally as
2) They don’t believe it will change anything in their lives. I think this is partly down to the fact that we’ve had several years of economic plenty, as it were, and if there was high unemployment and economic woe then people would become politicised pretty quickly. But its partly down to people believing that there will be no difference whichever party is elected, and partly down to a belief that politicians are not delivering for them on the issues they care about. Indeed people and government are now seen as “us” and “them”, and people see politicians as in a different class, with this impression heightened by the fact that there is no genuine engagement with voters at election time by the major leaders as compared with the past. For example, I worked in a pub recently, and the political issue that came up most, just randomly in conversation with the punters, was how unfair (they believed) speeding fines/ penalties are. There is a huge groundswell of opinion against them away from the road safety lobby in Westminster, yet despite complaining people see this simply as another imposition of “them”, the government. They do not feel empowered to change the situation.
3) For a lot of people, who in modern times thanks to cheap consumer goods, travel, and so on, are able to choose exactly how they want to run their lives, the party system seems out of step. You can go into a supermarket and buy whatever you want now (providing you have the money), but when it comes to selecting a party, this is like choosing a pre-ordained shopping trolley, a package of measures. If you should accept this package, then there will invariably be several measures that you don’t like, but which the relevant party, having made its way to office, will claim it has a mandate for.
4) This brings me a widespread distrust of party politics in general. Politicians are seen as people who, rather than listening to constituent opinion on a particular issue (and therefore literally “representing” their constituents), are influenced more by party loyalty. Nor are they seen as people who will come to a individual and personally formulated opinion of the merits of a particular issue. I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the American system on this post so far, but I worked in Washington for a while, and the best thing about the system in Congress there is that there is an independence from the party machine. This means that even someone as high as the fourth or fifth-ranking Republican in the House, for example, would be able to vote against an administration measure such as the recent CAFTA trade agreement.
5) The electoral system. If you look at the statistics, then close contests in marginal constituencies generally foster higher turnouts than contests in safe seats. Predictably, this is because if you are a voter in, for example, Sunderland South, then you might feel your vote is “wasted” whichever party you support as the same result is always going to occur. I think the remedy to this is difficult. One of the worst things about PR is that you get a situation like Germany is in at the moment, or was after the first world war, when there is an absence of strong government. If you were to use, on the other hand, one of the alternative vote/ second preference systems then there is the danger of making the system too complicated for people to understand easily. My own personal preference would be to use House of Lords reform, and a system like secondary mandate (www.secondarymandate.org) to increase the value of people’s votes.
I’m sorry for the rambling post, but the main point is that electoral apathy is an extremely complex phenomenon, and we shouldn’t pretend we can solve it with one or two measures, or voting in supermarkets. The important thing is to try and understand first why it is voting is becoming unfashionable, as it were, before we try and solve it. I’ve given some ideas, but I don’t believe I or anyone truly understands why we are finding it so hard to get young people to vote. We need to talk to young people, and those who typically do not vote, so that we can find out what the problems are before we try and solve them.
Mike
Totally Agree, and I’ve mentioned it to many people both in Labour and elsewhere.
The accusation that it would some how be crass or too “American”, is baloney if you ask me, we allow potentially harmful products such as alcohol, fast food etc… to be advertised why on earth not political outlooks and approaches?
What is more the current form which political broadcasts take, namely that of 5 minute “infomercials”, is hardly likely to get people engaged if suddenly they have a five minute ‘program’ imposed on their viewing of the TV, in contrast 30 second to one minute ads, are not an imposition and are just as innocuous as any other advertisement for a product.
Of course there would have to be constraints, but there really is no reason why political parties, so influential and relevant to our daily lives, should find they lack the same ability to communicate with the population at large which Coke-a-Cola, McDonalds, Orange or HSBC all enjoy.
Do we have any Danish posters or readers of the site? Denmark has managed to avoid the decline in voter turnout (without compulsory voting) over the past 30 years, with a remarkably consistent turnout of 85% (+-4%) for the past fifty years.
Apart from ‘civic pride’, does anyone know of any peculiarities why this is so in Denmark? (I believe the situation in Sweden is somewhat similar, but with greater fluctuations in voter turnout).
46 AT. “people might think Captain Birdeye was a candidate”
He already is ….. it’s David Heath … Lib Dem MP for Somerton and Frome !!
Parties should be able to spend their money in any way they please. If they want to spend it on adverts, them let them do so. One advantage of adverts, is that it lets the parties try and address issues outside the media box. So for example, the Tories could have addressed issues like health and education last time via adverts, when the media was obsessed solely with immigration. Ads break the power of the printed media to a degree which is a good thing. Incidentally I also think, that a political party should be able to rasie as much money as it wants. It is not for the state to level the playing field, that the voters job.
However if you want high turnouts, then you have to engender a cultural shift in attitudes especially amongst the young, something that any innovation by itself including PR is unlikely to do. Most people don’t vote, not because their preferred party can win in there area, but because they see no point in the political process at all, and believe no political party can make a difference.
BTW Angela Merkel is about to make the German recession even worse. Talk about selling out to your coalition partners. She and her cabinet need to start studying basic economics again.
I would query how much political advertising would actually take place even if it were to be allowed. First, TV advertising is very expensive in the UK due to scarcity related to the small number of breaks allowed and lack of advertising on the BBC. Secondly, TV advertising cannot easily be targetted (under our electoral system there is no real value in the Tories winning over Liverpudlian viewers or Labour appealing to people in Surrey - you can advertise regionally but nowhere near as locally as you would like). Finally, the Advertising Standards Authority and libel laws make the most effective, hard-hitting 15-second adverts impossible (a shame in a way - the Johnson/Goldwater countdown advert is an example of a hard-hitting advert which succeeded brilliantly because people recognised there was more than an element of truth in it).
42. What about the local radio advertising Nick. That would be quite cheap and help get away from the presidential style that TV would present.
47. http://www.direct-democracy.co.uk could go a long way to making people think they actually have a say in the democratic process. PR would not help if it was run along the same lines as the euro elections as there is even less of a local feel about the candidates.
13.”Your predecessor is periodically cited on these boards, and not for her political acumen. ”
How do you dare to name her? Then speak for yourself, John O! Many are aware of the political acumen of the Venerable Helen
37. I don’t think you can expect the majority of the electorate to be all that well informed. They’ll vote if they’re aware that a party who they either viscerally agree or disagree with has some chance of winning. I think they’d only need a little information to become engaged in this way - the kind of info that filters down to people through the tabloids and taxi drivers.
The two things that are needed to increase political engagement are PR, so that everyone’s vote counts, and, more crucially, a credible radical mainstream party to vote for or against.
54 - Local radio advertising could also be an interesting test because you could test the impact on turnout by comparing the impact in areas where it is used widely and those where it is not. You could also check whether people are good at distinguishing messages received from adverts rather than programming.
4. Andy. First,regarding your reference to P&G, an election is not a simply market considered only in economic terms.
Then considering that little parties have already disadvanteges, adding new ones will only create more problems for them. And some of those disadvantages could keep them “little” and secure the main parties to keep their dominance (I’m not saying they’ve few voters just cause they don’t have exposure, but that more exposure could help them).
56. No-one expects the majority of the public to be that well informed, nor has it been possible to identify the ‘tipping point’ where there exists ‘enough knowledge’; however, surveys in Ireland of voters and non-voters have identified ‘lack of knowledge’ as a strong factor in influencing voting/non-voting patterns.
Parties are fighting elections largely on the same ground, therefore the number of people who are viscerally opposed to or in agreement with a particular political party are increasingly small.
Re. 35, I agree entirely. Sky News plugged into Fox News for coverage of the 02 mid-terms, and it was excellent, graphics, figures and everything. Fifty times better than the BBC coverage (to which I briefly flicked over).
I only wish I’d had it for last year’s presidential election (I couldn’t - and can’t - get digital TV where I live now, when I live in a conservation area, and there’s no Freeview or cable in my town).
60 Richard. Whilst I agree that the technical aspects of Fox News are generally above par, their editorial line is so biased to Republican interests as to be laughable, something that at times causes embarrassment to their “friends” at Sky News.
58. There are barriers to entry for any market, both economic and non-economic. The only way to remove them in the case of elections and give the “little parties” a chance is to completely remove all communication and exposure to all parties. Which would be ridiculous - voters already complain that they don’t know exactly what candidate or party x will do about issue y.
61. Jack, I don’t even like their usual graphics.
Sky News and BBC GE coverage was pretty good IMO.
60 & 61. Exactly the point I was going to make Jack - it is no surprise that when Sky News shows the main American evening news at 12.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. they take it from CBS and not Fox…
62. but you want to make the situation of little parties even worse introducing “unregulated” TV ads.
Good for you, but I disagree with you.
I think TV advertising is a distraction from the crisis of engagement.
the fundamental problem is that politicians are becoming more professional - a process that sets them apart from the rest of us. When discussing politics most people don’t spin and it’s that language of spin that’s the problem
we need a political system that supports the involvement of the amateur. It won’t happen but I’d love a system where local elections were fought by local parties rather than the local branches of national parties
65- Then Andy, I’ve to add that my perceptive is different from your one. We’re in 2 different political situations.
63 Andrea. The Fox graphics and general coverage is big, bold, in your face and right wing … it’s an acquired taste.
The latest revamp by Sky News has been something of a flop and they are losing audience share to BBC News 24. I think Sky will revert to type or risk their marketplace. Certainly the advent of Freeview has been a big boost to the Beeb.
66. STV supports the involvement of the amateur. Some people won’t wouldn’t welcome it, but 8% of TDs are independents.
65 I’m not asking for unregulated TV ads. What I don’t understand is why this medium should be any different from print, cinema, billboard or direct mail. Surely if overall spending limits are enforced, why should a party not decide the best way to spend their marketing budget?
To protect the “little parties” you need to control the maximum expenditure, not dictate which media are to be used.
The NOTA option is certainly popular in mant other democracies. It allows all eligible voters to register their view; by so empowering many of the conventionally disenfranchised the NOTA option removes an excuse for total disengagement from the electoral system.
(From http://www.noneoftheabove.ie: More than 250 million citizens of Europe, Asia and the United States of America have the right to choose a ‘none of the above’ (or equivalent) option on their ballots. Some of the newest democracies in the world provide the option, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, the Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. The State of Nevada in the USA has had a ‘none of the above’ option for over twenty years and there are on-going campaigns for the option in other US States, for example, over 650,000 petition signatures were collected in California.)
I’m horrified by Mike’s suggestion. The only way to encourage people to vote is for their vote to matter. When the result is a foregone conclusion or the people elected have little power (whether Councillors, MSPs, or MPs) turnout will fall. If we had a voting system that made people’s votes count and a parliamentary system were Prime Ministers had to convince MPs of the arguements on the issues rather more offen rather than relying on the whips people might see it worth their time to vote.
On the otherhand allowing parties to use the PEB allowance in smaller packets might be no bad idea as part of a general reform that made elections more important to the way the country is governed.
Just to go completely off topic here, I am incensed that the Conservative Party is bringing a further vote on the Licensing Bill (and I have no connection at all with any drinks business other than being an occassional consumer)! I notice from the Parliament Website that the bars there do not have a licence and do not conform to the Licensing Acts and it goes on to say that “Members and staff require refreshment of all kinds whenever the House is sitting”.
If any MP’s read this, please please introduce an amendment to the Conservative motion to bring the Houses of Parliament into line with the rest of the country.
If you are a shift worker and finish at 3 in the morning why are you less entitled to go for a drink with your co-workers that anyone else?
70. but I would regulate other media too, but in some case it’s almost impossible, impracticable.
I like the idea of allowing radio advertising - it could interest people in their local constituency outcome, but i dont think TV advertising is a good idea. Too rushed, dumbed-down and “attack-ad” prone. Perhaps doubling the number of PEB and PPBs could be a substitute?
59. If the differences between parties are very small and relate to managerial matters then you need a lot of information to make your choice. If the differences are larger and relate to principle then you need less information.
The whole thing boils down to there being a lack of distinction between the main parties. That’s the problem, low turnout is just a symptom.
43 - “Why not make polling day a bank holiday?”
Not sure it wouldn’t make things worse, actually - as people tend to combine it with the days before or after and go away on holiday.
77. That would be a concern. Don’t see what’s wrong with the idea of weekend polling.
Turnout has nothing to do with TV advertising, polling stations at supermarkets, texting, early voting or the myriad of other whacky new Labour gimmicks we’ve had to suffer over the years.
Turnout is directly related to how close the election is - landslides have generally lower turnouts and close elections higher ones.
Close elections also mean the parties will campaign more and engage more voters. Hard fought local government by-elections have bigger turnouts than those where the parties go through the motions.
2005 had a higher turnout than 2001 because there was more to fight over. I predict 2009 will see turnout higher still…
For god sake Mike don’t give the electoral commission any more bright ideas - they know sod all about the realities of electoral campaigning. The next thing you know we’ll have another PPERA which has probably done more to sap the will of political activists than any single piece of New Labour baloney.
Dan and others have made the point that where voting affects the result, people are more inclined to vote. Where the result is a foregone conlusion (as it obviously can be with FPTP) why should they bother ?
Beyond that though, I sense we’ve entered an era of “Why vote? Whoever you vote for the Government always gets in” This not just in the sense that “they’re all the same” but coming from a deep feeling that the Government is an alien and hostile entity, out to get you in lots of unfair ways (speed cameras are a good example) and there’s nothing you can do to stop them.
The longterm answer has to be less government and real power devolved to local levels. Will it happen? I wouldn’t put money on it
Have to agree with Dan - I can’t see some of the more ‘gimmiky’ suggestions for voting reform making very much difference at all.
Out of interest are their any restrictions on other types of advertising - billboards etc because I noticed during the Motherwell V Aberdeen game that both the SNP and the SSCUP had taken out adverts at Fir Park.
A crucial point is being missed here.
It is not just the voters who are less inclined to turn out when there is little to play for: the politicians are as bad if not worse. These days campaigns are targeted and resources, including canvassers and visits from front bench politicians, are reserved for marginal seats and safe seats (your opponents’ as well as your own) are left to take care of themselves.
Politicians may be affronted when voters make similar calculations but frankly non-participation does make a degree of sense in most seats.
If advertising were allowed on local radio in order to boost turnout, parties would simply direct their advertising budgets at stations in the more marginal constituencies.
How about a spending cap per constituency?
Would stop parties piling all their money into marginals, but would it increase campaigning in safeseats?
83 - There is a spending cap in every constituency. It doesn’t stop parties piling into marginals nor encourage them to campaign in safe seats.
79. Turnout is a direct result of ‘how close the election is’… quite an oversimplification surely. In 1987 the turn out was 75%. Ditto 1983. These were by no means close results.
Jack W - I seem to have gone the other way! I actuall now watch Sky News ahead of the BBC. I find their coverage more indepth, their layout and studio more modern and just enjoy it better.
What kind of audience share do Sky have in terms of % and raw numbers? Anyone know?
86. I have to admit that Sky News’s coverage of the election campaign was hands down the best.
85 - Dan did only say turnout and closeness were “related” and that it was “generally” the case.
You also have to bear in mind that “closeness” is what is perceived by people at the time rather than the actual result. Nobody predicted that the 2000 Presidential election would be quite as close as it was, and turnout was quite low, whereas everyone knew 2004 would be close (even though in the event it was rather less close than 2000) and turnout was high. I suspect people in the run up to 1987 and 1983 saw that the Alliance and Labour had held quite commanding opinion poll leads and caused by-election shocks not long before the elections and expected things to be closer than they were. In 1992, people expected it to be incredibly close even though in the event it wasn’t particularly tight. In 1997, a lot of people genuinely didn’t believe Labour had the massive lead it actually had. 2001 saw a particularly low turnout because nothing in the events of the previous four years (except for about two minutes in the petrol crisis) even hinted at an alternative result.
R.e. 42, I agree completely. I turn over when party political broadcasts come on, or go and make a cup of tea. The thought of advertising like in America (which is what it would end up like I think) makes me cringe.
On the issue of voting systems, PR might not give the desired result. If the system most practical is implemented, which is that a larger area is represented by multiple constituencies, then we could end up with a situation in which voters in certain areas are represented by MP’s from other parties when that constituency did not vote for that party. For example, Ipswich is currently Labour held by about 12% over the tories, yet it is surrounded by tory strongholds so chances are more tories would end up representing the area than Labour yet Ipswich did not vote for tory representation. However whether that is worse than the current system is open to debate. I have lived in Labour strongholds all my life and it is highly depressing to think that the situation will never change as a lot of people in my area (Durham North West constituency) continuously block vote labour no matter what, and it’s not like the area is highly politically active, as the tories and lib dems do not see the point in spending money in this area to campaign as it will effectively be wasted.
No there is not a spending limit on each constituency. There is a cap on ‘local’ spending in each constituency. But a number of Labour Mps upped their ‘paid for’ postage phenomenally in the year before the General Election, completely against the rules (and law?) - but look like getting away with it, sending unsolicited mail to large chunksof if not all of their constituency. Then after the starting gun went there were huge mailings into every constituent in selected constituencies (perfectly legal as long as not mentioning the Candidate by name), extra billboard advertising in those same constituencies and visits by Ministers (paid for by the taxpayer throughout their campaigning!) day in, day out, spawning massive TV and press/radio publicity valued at tens of thousands of pounds. other areas (safe seats) had nothing.
86 James M. The most reliable figures for audience numbers come from BARB - British Audience Resource Board. For October the average viewer spent 25 hours 35 mins watching the idiot box. Of that BBC News24 and SkyNews both accounted for 8 minutes and the ITV News Channel only 2 minutes. The Beeb is marginally ahead of Sky News and its lead is increasing. Historically Sky had a decisive lead, but that has been lost with the advent of Freeview. Sky’s recent changes have also seen the Beeb continue to edge further ahead. The Parliament Channel figure is too small to measure !! ….. except for members of this site ….. who with the exception Printz are clearly a bunch of weirdos !!!!!!!!
Wasn’t it Isaac Asimov who came up with a story about elections based on just one voter, chosen by a computer as being representative of the whole electorate? Sounds like a good scheme, it would ensure a 100% turnout at least. And Mugabe and Saddam Hussain managed pretty high turnouts too, as I recall… who needs advertising?
91 BTW the figures are weekly viewing numbers.
90 - Yes it is crazy as it stands at the moment - it is a complete joke that there is notionally a limit on local spending but you can send out endless Blair/Howard/Kennedy letters in individual seats as long as they don’t say “Vote for Fred Bloggs” on them. The use of postage paid Commons envelopes is even more scandalous - there are culprits from all parties who use the fact that somebody contacted them regarding the number 16 bus in 1982 as an excuse to spend buckets of taxpayers’ money “informing” people of their MP’s activities. “Annual Reports” are also a bit of a scam - the idea that because it doesn’t say “vote for my party” it is somehow totally different from a Focus/In Touch/Red Rose is silly (some MPs recognise this and do a wholly party funded “Annual Report” now to be fair).
89. I am not sure you have got your example right Nathan, as I am not sure what system of PR you meant, but I know of no example which has larger areas represented by multiple constituencies. Are you sure that you didn’t mean ‘multiple members’?
If that was the case, say for example, that we had multi-member STV, and that Sussex was a 6-seat constituency, (consisting of what had previously been Ipswich, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk Coastal, Suffolk Central, Suffolk South and Suffolk West).
On the basis of the 2005 election results, instead of currently returning five Conservative MPs and one Labour one, Suffolk would almost certainly return three Conservatives, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat.
The good Labour voting bughers of Ipswich, and all of Suffolk, would then have the luxury of being able to choose which of their two Labour MPs to turn to in their hour of need.
Now wouldn’t that be nice!
90 - Yes there are ways around the spending cap, but it exists, and does regulate spending in constituencies.
Funny that you single out Labour as being particular transgressors as I think they lost out by the recent changes more than other parties. The Tories spent a lot of money in target seats before the gun was fired (Lord Ashcroft’s famous £20k a seat), while the Lib Dems piled their national spend into a small number of seats.
In fact I would guess that in key marginals Labour was outspent by both other parties.
91. The Parliament Channel figure is too small to measure !! ….. except for members of this site ….. who with the exception Printz are clearly a bunch of weirdos !!!!!!!!
Speak for yourself Jack.
89. Surely with PR, at a point when you should be making democracy more local, Pr will make it less local and accountable. With a list system, you may want to vote for candidate 2 but not candidate 1. It will disenfranchise voters even more, not to mention the fact that a party like the BNP stands a chance of winning a seat.
97. That is why a list system is horrible and STV was sent by God on a thunderbolt!
95 and of course Cornmwall instead of returning 5 Liberal Democrats would return 2 Liberals 2 Conservatives and 1 Labour.
Don’t start the PR debate again please! I have yet to be convinced of the urgent need for PR and find all systems have weaknesses, including FPTP.
One thing I do think is that if a political party really worked hard in a certain constituency over years, and with a good local candidate there is a chance that any seat (however safe on paper) could be won over. Look at Kidderminster - yes rare example but it happened. Instead I think politicians and political parties sometimes act a little lazily here and lack vision in trying to win over seats and then use the ideas of PR as an easy get out.
Finally I just read that Secondary Mandate website by Billy Bragg - now that is an interesting way of choosing the Lords!
99. Spot on.
100. “Instead I think politicians and political parties sometimes act a little lazily here and lack vision in trying to win over seats and then use the ideas of PR as an easy get out.”
By political parties, of course, you mean the Liberal Democrats. The Kiddeminster result happened precisely because the candidate was non-party political.
How many years hard work do you think the Tories would have to put in before they could win Barnsely Central?
98. Open lists could solve some problems.
It would make MPs work harder than close list, because their election will depend on the number of preferences got and not by the list standing.
100. FPTP doesn’t nece necessarily more hardworking MPs. The introduction of FPTP in Italy produced lots of parachutees and MPs in safe seats not very interested in their constituencies (not everyone, but some). I live in a margianl and I have barely seen my MPs……
I did not mean any particular party Christo.
The problem is regarding your Barnsley Central idea - very few people, if any even try to create a strategy for Conservative victory there. They all go in with the mentality that such a seat was never ours or never will be and do not try. Of course this is in many ways shaped by the need to only win a set number of seats to win power in the first place.
I am not saying the Conservatives would easily win Barnsley Central or ever would - I just do not like how in some seats parties do not even try. Perhaps I am just an political idealist, but I think with the right brains, a bit of willpower, postive attitude and hard work any seat could have its voting dynamics changed fundamentally.
But who will even try?
For coverage of US elections, anyone with Sky has a choice of 3 sources of uninterrupted American coverage:
NBC (on the CNBC channel 510)
CNN (on channel 513)
Fox (on channel 531)
In addition Sky News usually shows a sustantial proportion of the CBS coverage.
Much to my amusement the Lib Dems are in an even bigger muddle down my way in Torbay today:
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk.
I refer of course to the disgraceful decision of the Bay Liberal Democrats to shun the opportunity to create a cross-party consensus group to run the Bay, by backing out of the cabinet before its maiden meeting yesterday, a decision that one of their own (ex) members has said amounts to ‘political suicide’.
For years we Conservatives have had to listen to Lib Dem’s lecturing us on the need for ‘consensus’ politics - telling us how high-minded their party are and how they don’t indulge in the ‘yah-boo’ of Party politics.
Yet here we are again faced with the truth, which is that Liberal Democrat politicians -once elected- are the worst offenders of the lot. Time after time they look after themselves first, their party masters second, and their local community last.
105. James, the Liberal Democrats have grown from 2.5% of the vote and 6 MPs into something rather more substantial over the past 50 years, and it didn’t come from blaming the voting system and not trying!
107. Shame all this didn’t happen last year really isn’t it.
Woody662 There were plenty of scandals in 2004 - it definitely helped us in May, but not enough to overturn a 6,700 majority - especially with UKIp targetting us and winning the thick end of 4,000 votes.
Political damage is cumulative, though, and I think the Lib dems really are a busted flush in Torbay now.
110. Let’s hope so. The UKIP vote was so ridiculous there. Letting through an MP from the most euro friendly party. Where did UKIP get their funding from for Torbay?
[66] 2 issues here- firstly the fact that there is not a free market in politics as there is in consumer products. If people felt that their vote mattered then they would use it- Dan’s point is well taken about the closness of the vote boosting turnout.
The second point is “professionalization” of politics. Current party leaders are all career politicians. This is not the best preparation for administration. There is no ENA in the UK (and yes I know that this has contributed to French elitism, but there are other ways of educating political leaders) in the US the Kennedy school of government for example. A basic problem is that most of our political leaders do not have the administrative skill set to run a jumble sale, never mind a large government department. At a time when the law demands higher levels of threshold qualification in such areas as teaching or nursing, is it too much to ask our professional politicians to be able to demonstrate threshold levels of competance in the fields of administration and governance? It would certainly save a load of dosh if we could stop reinventing the wheel every time the Government declares that “Something must be Done!”
[107] Marcus you lost- get over it!
110. Marcus, when will the new selection process begin in Torbay?
Christo - Where have I criticised the Lib Dems? In your replies it seems to infer that I am! But as you have brought the debate on the Lib Dems.
I think all parties are guilty, but if we are judging this objectively then of course the Lib Dems are better at tackling various seats than the other two parties, who often do not always try in my view.
However the Lib Dems success in this ability could cause them problems because rather than trying to sell Conservative ideas to Barnsley Central in imaginative ways (my dream), they more often than not have been shown to sell Labour ideas to seats like Barnsley and Conservative ideas to seats like Torbay! This is success for the strategy of political spinning, but is the success of Lib Dem principles and ideology - if the party has some?
Furthermore the Lib Dems are slightly different in that being the third party I would suggest it is easier for them to break down traditional political stereotypes by offering themselves as a protest vehicle in some, but of course not all seats.
115. Quite a few Lib Dems seem to have a complex.
It would seem that the Lib Dem councillors in Torbay have been critical of the editor of the local paper and he has gone over the top in reply. Nothing much there for Marcus to get so excited about - except that he always does.
On the central point of the Torbay issue, the whole idea of elected mayors is a new one and I am not sure how it will work out in practice. The editor´s idea (apparently shared by Marcus) is that elected councillors are there merely to rubber stamp whatever the mayor decides - or have I misinterpreted them?
Reading down the editorial opinion column, it appears that the whole situation in Torbay is still being negotiated. It also appears that two councillors (former Conservatives) are taking the same line as the Lib Dem councillors….
So stop stirring, Marcus!
115. Your criticism of the Lib Dems was implicit, if unintentional (though I guess it probably comes naturally!)
My issue with your comments is simply that they could only ever be made by a supporter of the two largest parties, who has little idea of the difficulties involved in getting your message across from a position of numerical and financial weakness in our electoral system.
107 - Marcus you have made yourself look really foolish there. You clearly aren’t sufficiently well balanced enough to hold public office.
119 Stonch Do I hear the kettle rattling its lid ?
45 Stodge: Take away the billboard advertising? No!!! What fun would elections be without billboard ads? From the demon eyes to ‘Are you drinking what we’re drinking?’, they’ve provided all the best amusement value for years (other than the Prescott punch, of course).
I’d hate to see more political ads on TV, though: I like the PEB ones. I agree with those who point out the US system just alienates voters. And I’d hate to have compulsory voting (I nearly wrote ‘betting’): I think it’s pretty dangerous to hand the casting vote to those who care so little for democracy (or at least for any of the parties on offer) that they wouldn’t vote if left to themselves.
I do agree with those who say PR would probably help: I’m a big fan of the Scottish parliament ‘top-up’ system, which keeps local representation but allows room for some ‘protest’ vote (though you then actually have to have good quality people to vote for…). I’d be against more postal voting (for obvious reasons), in favour of individual registration rather than household registration, and in favour of longer polling hours and week-end votes (especially for European elections).
119.”You clearly aren’t sufficiently well balanced enough to hold public office. ”
If Gorgeous George is belanced enough to hold a public office, I’m sure Marcus could do it too!
88. Anticipated closeness of the result is one influence on turnout, sure, but only one, that was what I meant. There are also other longer-term trends at work: the inadequacy of FPTP - a system designed for two parties which now needs to represent upwards of three main parties; focus of elections on the decreasing number of marginals while ignoring all other seats; alienation and cynicism among voters leading to apathy; loss of clearly defined distinctions of principle between the main parties - all the points which have already been mentioned further up the thread.
To come back to the 1980s Tory landslides, I think the main difference there was that Labour and Alliance voters felt that they really disagreed strongly with what the Thatcher governments stood for and therefore were m