It's a pantomime. The second polls close in the local elections, parties lampoon one another across the airwaves, lamenting them for their failures, celebrating their own triumphs. 'You should have won that council', 'we've made great gains elsewhere', 'Your party has failed!' Before any substantial results had been declared, spokespeople, carefully reading out lines from Conservative/Labour/Lib Dem/UKIP (remember them) HQ, were desperate to make their party's results look spectacular, sensational, the other parties doomed to the closet of criticising, instead of implementing, policy.
I shouldn't really be surprised. As I stayed up to watch the local elections coverage until 2am, witnessing the three people spokespeople, I was certain there would be disagreements, contradictions and a twisting of facts to suit their own agenda. Now there has been time to analyse results, it looks as though Labour has done well in remain supporting areas, the Conservatives better in leave constituencies and the Lib Dems gradually beginning their revival. Ok, I am trying to be as impartial as possible. But all of us, whether we're the greatest Momentum supporter or a fair, non-partisan broadcaster, will analyse the results and draw conclusions based on our own biases. It's inevitable. The broadcasters are regarding Labour's inability to gain control of many London councils as a failure. Was this really the case? Was there any likelihood, realistically, that Labour could sweep across the board in Westminster, Wandsworth, Barnet, and to top it off, Kensington and Chelesea? The Tories effectively made it look as though this was the case, both increasing expectations of Labour performance and incentivising their supporters to vote. Only towards the end of the campaign were Labour spokespeople openly doubting the predictions of huge success wafted around the media. On the other hand, Conservatives were trying to make the elections seem an impossible mountain to climb. By hugely playing down their expectations of victory, any success could be talked up as a triumph, a huge amount of support of them, a mandate to continue their version of government. Though the result for them hasn't been a calamity, their share of the vote similar to last year's general election, I highly doubt every vote for the Conservatives, or any party for that matter, was an endorsement of all their policies. It’s well known that secondary elections receive lower turnouts than general elections. Sadly, many people believe they do not matter, are insignificant compared to changing the Prime Minister, despite councillors handling budgets affecting many local services. On the BBC, I recall a reporter saying one count had a turnout of 47%, an extreme high. How depressing. In a general election, this would of course be regarded as a disaster. Yet few – the elderly, party political and politically interested – bother to turn out in local elections, even though they are the people affecting day-to-day changes in society. This low turnout affects the validity with which these results can be linked to wider electoral performance. Though Lib Dems may feel happier, an increase of 75 seats and gaining four councils, they had an unbelievably low base to start with. The only way was up. Yes, their gains across the country, in leave and remain voting areas, is impressive. But this does not mean they will do amazingly well come 2022. In both the BBC and Sky's prediction of the composition of the House of Commons, were these local elections on a national scale, the Lib Dems would gather less than 30 seats, far below their pre-coalition levels of support. I haven't been watching local election overnight coverage for many years, so it did amuse me to see how broadcasters try to link local elections to a future general election, especially when that poll is four years away. Given that no elections took place on Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or over half of English councils, these results, forgetting a significant amount of the electorate, can only be used for a bit of fun. The main suggestion is that nothing has really changed. Yes, some councils have switched hands, but broadly, things are a lot similar to four years ago. In the same breath, one could argue that everything has changed. With the collapse of UKIP, their support mostly going to the Conservatives, it is clear they are the party of leave. This will mean, according to the electioneering superstar John Curtice, that they have to deliver Brexit. Any deviation could massacre their level of support. For Labour, how do they win over leave voting areas? Well, unless there's enough election, they can just wait to see what Brexit turns out like and adopt their position accordingly. Oh, the joy of opposition. Time and time again, it is reported how minimal the changes were for both parties in terms of results. Yet the situation at Westminster couldn't be more different. Theresa May remains weak, losing her key ally Amber Rudd, struggling to get Cabinet unity on Brexit, let alone EU support. Labour is engulfed in the anti-Semitism scandal. As I have always said, people should be allowed to mock, criticise and laugh at all religion and none. However, the deliberate targeting of individual Jews by some fringe loonies in the Labour party is beyond the pale. If both parties were facing such weaknesses, why was there so little decisive change? Linking to the low turnout, probably because most of the public are busy and have too little time to care about some party disagreements that may affect their lives. Maybe they should care or perhaps politics needs to be more accessible. I was trying to persuade two friends to vote, reminding them that knowledge of all the great political philosophers of the 19th century was not required to make an informed, rational electoral decision. I was half successful. But if people feel politics has no impact on their lives, why should they feel compelled to take part? This raises another issue. Of those that bother to turn out at local elections (bravo to them), what influences their decision? How different is this from a general election? Clearly, a general election campaign is wider, on a broad range of issues, where bigger promises can be made due to astronomically larger budgets, but do the fundamentals change? If someone has an unfavourable view of the Tories because of Theresa May, that is not going to change whether the election is local or national. In contrast, if somebody didn't like Labour simply on a local level, because bins weren't being collected, that suggests they may consider voting Labour on a national level. Parties, polling organisations and broadcasters must look at these factors and bring them to the electorate's attention. On the immediate horizon, party leaders remain safe. They can all say they have done just enough to remain in charge. The next elections aren't for another year, we've got plenty of time to build on these results! However, crucial Brexit votes in the House of Commons await. If there were anything that needed to divide the parties more, it's been handed to them on a plate. The endless debates, tight votes and public reaction may – or may not – have Britain's electorate returning to the polls sooner than they think.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|