In the wake of the televised leaders’ election debates, there was great discussion over whether policy or popularity would win the election. This prompted the Comment section in Palatinate to debate the topic: “Do manifestos actually influence the election outcome?” In this article I argue that manifestos have no real influence over the election result.
Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative 2010 Election Manifestos
The article was first published in Palatinate Issue 718 on 6th May 2010.
Oh, if only policy was paramount. Can you imagine an election where manifestos actually mattered? A vote where objectivity reigned over popularity? A fairytale where people voted on issues, rather than personality? “No” is the answer which springs to mind. An election invigorated by sensible policy fuelled debate? Don’t be daft. Anyone who seriously believes that a party’s proposed programmes for government critically affect the outcome of the election either has failed to notice the vast influence of the media furore or is idealistically deluded.
I am not wishing to underestimate the intelligence of the British people or to overestimate the ability of the media to influence the masses. It cannot be doubted however, that our electorate is fundamentally lazy.
The apathy of the voting public is astonishing and incredibly worrying. In 2005, only 37% of 18-to-25 year olds voted in the general election. This translates to more than three-fifths of potential votes in this age group alone being lost in the ether of indifference which has anaesthetised many elections of recent years. So many people, rightly or wrongly, are so disengaged and alienated by politics that voting is just no longer on the list of things to do. With all three major political parties (and several of the more minor parties too) squabbling over a narrow strip of centrist ideology, it becomes easy to claim that any vote is a wasted vote, as the differences between the three leading parties are negligible. This could not be further from the truth. Yet, the only way to discern clear difference between the parties is to closely and astutely analyse policy.
Being realistic, how many people sit down and objectively read each party’s manifesto in order to conclude which candidate will best represent them in Westminster? I imagine very few. Furthermore, how many people carefully consider their local candidates policies for representing a constituency?
Estrangement and a lack of knowledge seem to be a common, yet under-reported phenomenon in British politics. Take the party leaders, for example: Nick Clegg was born and raised in the Home Counties, went to school in London, studied at Cambridge and yet is MP for Sheffield Hallam.
David Cameron, born in London, raised and schooled in the Home Counties is MP for Witney in West Oxfordshire. Prior to winning his seat, he had previously stood for election in Stafford, which is even further removed from his home turf.
Gordon Brown does represent a constituency which is not too far from his home town; however, this is all too often the exception to the rule rather than the norm.
Quite how any MP can fairly and sensitively represent a constituency when they have little empathy with the local electorate is a bafflement frequently overlooked in our political system. No amount of research, polling or canvassing can substitute genuine knowledge and concern for a constituency.
The purpose of a General Election is not simply to choose a Prime Minister to be the face of Britain on an international stage. It is also an opportunity to choose an MP to represent the collective interests of a constituency in Westminster. Yet, I think it is all too likely that at the ballot box, the names of local candidates will have been forgotten and instead, Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be at the forefront of the electorate’s decision.
The leaders’ debates have added a whole new dimension to this election. Suddenly the public and the media are closer to their leaders than has ever been possible before. For the first time the electorate have been given the opportunity to question their leaders about the issues that matter most to them (well that is the theory, the “representative audience” and the questions asked are carefully selected by TV producers – a truly free debate would be a bit too risky, one would imagine).
Yet, this newfound freedom on behalf of the electorate has only succeeded in adding further confusion to the fray. Some would argue that the TV debates have allowed the politicians to be quizzed on policy and grilled on their political approach more than in any other election. However, as a swing voter and as a TV viewer, instead of concrete policy all I have heard is the same old rhetoric from all parties and nothing to really make anyone sit up and listen. It seems I am not alone: 9.1 million viewers tuned into the first debate, as opposed to only 4.9 million for the second debate, a shocking downturn if ever there was one.
The so-called “Clegg Effect” following the first debate has been churned over in the British press for weeks now. Yet, I would argue that it is not his policies that caused the surge in support but the fact that the public were able to encounter a fresh face on the scene.
I suggest that it is not the differences in policy which point towards a hung parliament, but the perceived similarity between parties which makes it impossible to choose between the parties.
It seems as though all campaigning between debates has ground to a halt. People now wait in earnest anticipation of the next debate, where they can listen to policy being made up on the spot, hear important decisions glossed and spun to the hungry media and follow snapshot popularity polls on a minute-by-minute basis.
By the time this edition is in print, the third debate will have been aired and the country will be going to the polls. It will be interesting to see if the electorate has finally decided to put policy at the forefront of their decision-making, or if, instead, they have succumbed to the X-Factor style popularity contest the TV debates have engendered.
The original online publication of this article may be found on the Palatinate website by clicking here and scrolling to the second article on the page. The opposing side of the debate, “Manifestos are an integral part of the election”, may be found following the same link to the first article on the page.
© Alexandra Bottomer 2010
Advertisement
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
In the wake of the televised leaders’ election debates, there was great discussion over whether policy or popularity would win the election. This prompted the Comment section in Palatinate to debate the topic: “Do manifestos actually influence the election outcome?” In this article I argue that manifestos have no real influence over the election result.
Lib Dem, Labour and Conservative 2010 Election Manifestos
The article was first published in Palatinate Issue 718 on 6th May 2010.
Oh, if only policy was paramount. Can you imagine an election where manifestos actually mattered? A vote where objectivity reigned over popularity? A fairytale where people voted on issues, rather than personality? “No” is the answer which springs to mind. An election invigorated by sensible policy fuelled debate? Don’t be daft. Anyone who seriously believes that a party’s proposed programmes for government critically affect the outcome of the election either has failed to notice the vast influence of the media furore or is idealistically deluded.
The apathy of the voting public is astonishing and incredibly worrying. In 2005, only 37% of 18-to-25 year olds voted in the general election. This translates to more than three-fifths of potential votes in this age group alone being lost in the ether of indifference which has anaesthetised many elections of recent years. So many people, rightly or wrongly, are so disengaged and alienated by politics that voting is just no longer on the list of things to do. With all three major political parties (and several of the more minor parties too) squabbling over a narrow strip of centrist ideology, it becomes easy to claim that any vote is a wasted vote, as the differences between the three leading parties are negligible. This could not be further from the truth. Yet, the only way to discern clear difference between the parties is to closely and astutely analyse policy.
Estrangement and a lack of knowledge seem to be a common, yet under-reported phenomenon in British politics. Take the party leaders, for example: Nick Clegg was born and raised in the Home Counties, went to school in London, studied at Cambridge and yet is MP for Sheffield Hallam.
David Cameron, born in London, raised and schooled in the Home Counties is MP for Witney in West Oxfordshire. Prior to winning his seat, he had previously stood for election in Stafford, which is even further removed from his home turf.
Gordon Brown does represent a constituency which is not too far from his home town; however, this is all too often the exception to the rule rather than the norm.
Quite how any MP can fairly and sensitively represent a constituency when they have little empathy with the local electorate is a bafflement frequently overlooked in our political system. No amount of research, polling or canvassing can substitute genuine knowledge and concern for a constituency.
The purpose of a General Election is not simply to choose a Prime Minister to be the face of Britain on an international stage. It is also an opportunity to choose an MP to represent the collective interests of a constituency in Westminster. Yet, I think it is all too likely that at the ballot box, the names of local candidates will have been forgotten and instead, Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg will be at the forefront of the electorate’s decision.
The leaders’ debates have added a whole new dimension to this election. Suddenly the public and the media are closer to their leaders than has ever been possible before. For the first time the electorate have been given the opportunity to question their leaders about the issues that matter most to them (well that is the theory, the “representative audience” and the questions asked are carefully selected by TV producers – a truly free debate would be a bit too risky, one would imagine).
Yet, this newfound freedom on behalf of the electorate has only succeeded in adding further confusion to the fray. Some would argue that the TV debates have allowed the politicians to be quizzed on policy and grilled on their political approach more than in any other election. However, as a swing voter and as a TV viewer, instead of concrete policy all I have heard is the same old rhetoric from all parties and nothing to really make anyone sit up and listen. It seems I am not alone: 9.1 million viewers tuned into the first debate, as opposed to only 4.9 million for the second debate, a shocking downturn if ever there was one.
The so-called “Clegg Effect” following the first debate has been churned over in the British press for weeks now. Yet, I would argue that it is not his policies that caused the surge in support but the fact that the public were able to encounter a fresh face on the scene.
It seems as though all campaigning between debates has ground to a halt. People now wait in earnest anticipation of the next debate, where they can listen to policy being made up on the spot, hear important decisions glossed and spun to the hungry media and follow snapshot popularity polls on a minute-by-minute basis.
By the time this edition is in print, the third debate will have been aired and the country will be going to the polls. It will be interesting to see if the electorate has finally decided to put policy at the forefront of their decision-making, or if, instead, they have succumbed to the X-Factor style popularity contest the TV debates have engendered.
The original online publication of this article may be found on the Palatinate website by clicking here and scrolling to the second article on the page. The opposing side of the debate, “Manifestos are an integral part of the election”, may be found following the same link to the first article on the page.
© Alexandra Bottomer 2010
Like this:
Posted in Comment, Palatinate Articles, Politics | Tags: Author: Alexandra Bottomer, general election 2010, Leaders' Debate, party manifestos