John Hayward Posted: 5 May 2010
Keywords: Government & Foreign Affairs,
A survey published today suggests that almost one in three people (28 per cent) say they have already changed their mind about which party they will support during the election campaign and almost two in five (38 per cent) think they might still change their minds before they actually vote tomorrow.
Given that more than one in seven are estimated to have a postal vote (seven million, out of a total estimated electorate of 46 million) and have therefore most likely already voted, I find this figure all the more remarkable. Personally, I feel that reporting surrounding the televised leaders' debates has completely distorted the campaign so that the focus has been on opinion polls and 'What if' discussions about possible coalitions in a hypothetical hung Parliament, rather than on party policies. As I wrote to The Times last week:
There is a ban on exit polls being published before polling stations have closed so that those still to vote are not unduly influenced when they cast their ballots. Now that in some areas up to 30 per cent of the electorate has a postal vote, shouldn’t opinion polls be banned during the whole election campaign?
Perhaps then we would hear more about parties’ policies and less about pollsters’ predictions.
According to monthly polling, the top three concerns to voters have for some time consistently been the economy, race and immigration, and crime. Given recent trends, this should come as little surprise:
Economy
The national debt now stands at 62.0 per cent of GDP, the highest since 1970; the UK is forecast to have the largest budget deficit of any major economy this year at 11.4 per cent of GDP, higher than the 8.7 per cent of Greece and Portugal and Spain's 10.4 per cent; and some regions in the UK are virtually completely dependent on public spending.
Race & Immigration
Annual net migration has increased from an average of 41,000 in 1991-1997 to 180,000 in 1998-2008, peaking at 237,000 in 2007, of which 128,000 (54 per cent) was from within the European Union.
Crime
The number of people found guilty at all courts in England and Wales for offences of violence against the person has risen from 34,562 serious offences in 1997 to 41,519 in 2008, while those guilty of common assault rose from 20,636 in 1997 to 52,319 in 2008, increases of 20 and 153 per cent, respectively – or 70 per cent overall.
As I say, without serious analysis of manifesto commitments by independent commentators, many people are left not knowing which party might be best placed to address their concerns. One set of newspapers wants to see reform of the electoral system and urges us to vote for the Liberal Democrats (e.g. The Guardian), while others insist this debate must come after the election as 'Britain needs a stable and legitimate government to navigate its fiscal crisis' and tell us they believe the country needs a strong Conservative government (e.g. the Financial Times).
Once again, for the still undecided, I point you to this seven point summary of some of the biblical principles highlighted in Votewise Now! and Jubilee Manifesto that can help us evaluate the spectrum of issues and candidates, priorities and parties that we must choose between: Biblical principles by which to evaluate policy – And if any of you still lacks wisdom, then ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. (James 1:5)
It's the economy, stupid!
Freelander 5 May 2010
The 'choice' between electoral reform or the economy is a false one. The worst outcome as far as the economy is concerned would be a Labour Government without any electoral credibility, and even a Conservative Government will struggle. The Conservatives seem to be the party most intent on addressing the budget deficit and doing some of the necessary; but radical things will need to be done: the pension age will need to be raised even more and sooner, the basic rate of income tax will need to be raised (there is no way around it). It will also need considerable streamlining of ththe public sector (including addressing the disparity in pension provision between the pulblic and private sector) -- something the Conservatives will be best placed to do. Probably the best option for the economy will be a principled Conservative-LibDem alliance, but for such an alliance to be credible, it will need to have electoral reform as part of the package. Any government which addresses what needs to be done will be very unpopular (a bit like Greece!) and for this reason, should not have hanging over it the 'swingometer' of the first-past-the-post system. Electoral reform is the best option for long-term stability, including economic stability.
Jeremy Ive 6 May 2010
I am not really in favour of PR (such as they have it in South Africa), for the reasons you give. The basic representation should be individuals chosen by STV in constituencies comprising existing local entities (such as counties or unitary authorities larger than, say 150,000) with one or more members representatives elected according to a national quota. However, there is a place for top-up lists supplied by the parties to balance out the variations in size of the local consituencies. These top-up list could comprise people of national prominence (such as the party leaders themselves) as well as those not represented fully at local level (for example, it could be a requirement that the top-up lists alternate women and men). But it would also allow the parties to put up people with the specialist expertise.
If the Upper House (clearly no longer a House of Lords -- perhaps a Senate) were elected by PR, that would make it a very different animal. It might even claim greater legitimacy on the ground that it more closely reflects the popular vote than would the House of Commons.One possibility would be to have an Senate of say 100 members. Each Senator would sit for up to 10 years and then be subject to re-election. They would be broken down into 10 cohorts of 10, with one cohort of 10 elected every year (there could be a transitional period of 10 years, when the Senators simply sit as members existing of the House of ... See moreLords, after which the existing House of Lords would cease to exist. No further members of the House of Lords would be created from the beginning of the transitional period). The Senators would be relatively independent from the start from the party machines, since the members of the House of Commons would elect them by secret ballot by STV
Jeremy Ive 9 May 2010
Just to clarify the above -- I am not advocating PR for the Upper House, for the reasons hinted at. Instead I am advocating an alternative possibility which preserves the House of Lord's status a as a reviewing chamber with relative independence from eiher the party machines or popular pressure.
There is a small element of PR in the proposal for the House of Commons, but only as a balance to absorb, pro rata, the 'extra' votes from the constituencies which otherwise do not result in the election of local representives because they fall short of a full quota.
Jeremy Ive 9 May 2010