Have we stopped caring about politics? With voter turnout at elections decreasing and politics moving to the right, we need urgently to find ways to bring voters back to the ballot box, and also address some wider questions regarding market influences on government policy.
There has been a steady increase in support for right-wing parties with numerous explanations being proposed for this drift to the right. One of these is the disillusionment of voters with the mainstream parties and an ever-increasing feeling that, no matter which government we have, nothing changes and that engaging with the political and democratic processes is a waste of time.
This can be seen in the levels of participation in general elections in the UK. Partipation varied between 57.2% (1918) and 83.5% (1950) but turnout at the 2024 general election was just 59.7%.
On this turnout of 59.7% Labour won the 2024 election with just 33.7% of the vote. This means that the current Labour government was only supported by 20.1% of eligible voters. This disillusionment has been further exacerbated with the new government apparently reneging on manifesto promises and not living up to the expectations it set during the election campaign. The Labour Party campaigned on a programme of change but many people now feel that the only change delivered has been the colour of the flag above No. 10, Downing Street (albeit from a dark Conservative blue to a lighter shade of blue).
Local versus national issues
The UK’s First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) method of electing MPs is one in which candidates often campaign on local issues whilst at the same time promoting a national party agenda. However, at the booth, voters are both voting for a local representative as well as a party to govern the country and sometimes a voter’s preference for their local representative is not a member of the party they wish to form the government. This inherent potential conflict can lead to voter disengagement with the democratic process.
The current alternatives
Lack of participation has also been linked to views such as ‘they are all the same’, ‘my vote is wasted as I live in a safe [fill in the party] seat’, and so forth and it is this declining engagement and associated trust with the political process which is possibly the single most serious challenge to democracy.
To date, only two possible solutions have been talked about: the introduction of Proportional Representation (PR) or compulsory voting. The debate around PR is often quickly sidelined into a debate on the various systems of PR that are available. This has resulted in no progress being made towards the introduction of any form of PR.
Compulsory voting also has its challenges as it does not address the question of “local representation” versus “national agenda”: there is no gain to be made by forcing people to vote as they could simply deface / nullify their voting paper if they do not support any of the candidates or parties. Having the option of ‘none of the above’ would be pointless unless these votes were in some way used as part of the result rather than just being counted.
Changing our responsibilities
Under the current FPTP voting system, or in any PR or compulsory voting system, the onus is still very much on the individual to participate. However, what if we were to change the rules and place the onus on the political parties and pressurise them to engage better with their electorate?
This might be achieved by setting a minimum turnout figure (say, for argument’s sake, 75%) and should turnout at the general election not reach this figure, the entire election would have to be re-run. Whether this should be a full re-run of the national election or solely those constituencies failing to meet the threshold would be open to debate. At present, the outgoing government stays in office until the polls close at which time the elected government takes over. Waiting for re-runs would be a post-election ‘moment’ similar to the pre-election period of ‘heightened sensitivity’ (known in the past as ‘purdah’) just before elections are called.
Under such a system, not voting becomes a positive action (in effect ‘none of the above’) but with the consequences, particularly financial, falling on the political parties themselves, together with the pressure to improve their offering to the country, to engage better with the electorate, and to motivate the country to vote.
What do the markets think?
However, even the above proposal does not address the fundamental conflict in our socio-political system between what voters want (nationalisation of essential services, for example) and what the markets are willing to allow governments to deliver.
Markets have enormous influence over government policy which can be seen in two clear examples: in 1992, George Soros forced the British government to withdraw from the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM); similarly, the impact created by the sale of government bonds during Liz Truss’s premiership caused the markets to demonstrate their displeasure and lack of confidence in her government and policies.
Time for change
Yes, it is time we changed our electoral system to address decreasing turnout and restore voter confidence in politics and political parties, perhaps by one or a combination of the suggestions above. But we also need to address another fundamental issue which is what happens after the election?
At present markets through their ownership and control of the mainstream media and of the money supply, particularly government bonds, are able to exert enormous influence over what an elected government can and cannot enact. If voter confidence and engagement in the political system is to be restored, we must ensure that a manifesto for which people voted in the expectation that it will improve their lives, can and will be delivered. Debate and discussion needs to start, not only on how governments are elected, but also on the fundamental question of who controls governments. Is it the voters or the markets?
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
