Right To Reply #5: Election Special

(If you’re wondering what this is all about, click here.)

Yesterday The Girl pointed out that this has been a bit of a boys' club, and so in an attempt to address the inbalance I've invited her to join the party - everyone make her feel welcome! There are a few sausage rolls and Wotsits left, but I'm afraid Jez has polished off all the booze...

The participants:
Ben - your host
The Girl of Girl With A One Track Mind
Jez - likes Stereolab, dislikes Margaret Thatcher
Jonathan of Assistant
Jonny B of Jonny B’s Private Secret Diary
LMT of Between The City And The Deep Blue Sea
Lol - likes the high seas, dislikes last orders
Mike of Troubled Diva
Paul of 1000 Shades Of Grey
Pete of The Whole Wide World Of Fat Buddha
Phill of Danger! High Postage

Part Four: Media influence and public apathy

How influential are newspapers in the run-up to an election? What effect (if any) does a paper coming out in favour of one particular party have?

Mike: I find this very difficult to ascertain. Is it truly ever The Sun wot wins it? Perhaps so.

Jonathan: I don’t know. I don’t think the papers can swing an election unless it’s very tight indeed.

Jez: Hugely. "It Was The Sun Wot Won It!" And it may well have been. We only have to see the sycophancy with which Blair treats Rupert Murdoch and in turn Murdoch’s insatiable desire to enter more and more homes by different means.

Pete: Despite the Sun's claims to the contrary, I don't think that the media has too much influence. I might be wrong, but I think most people have already decided, whatever newspaper they read. There may come a scandal which can tip the balance and papers like the Mail and Sun will certainly reinforce existing prejudices, but I doubt they will change many minds.

Jez: The power of the printed word is huge. Almost 10 million newspapers are sold daily in this country. At a rough guess I’d say that a single newspaper is picked up by three other people. That’s a massive coverage and a massive influence. They may not change a diehard’s mind but they can reaffirm views and alter norms.

Paul: It’s obvious that the media play a massive role in influencing the voters, and some papers in particular carry large chunks of their readership with them.

Lol: Newspapers do make a marginal difference to some undecided voters but I think broadly speaking they tend to reflect the hardened opinions of their core readership. The Daily Mail for example is read predominantly by Conservatives and therefore focuses on asylum, tax, crime etc. The Sun famously said in 1992, following their backing for a re-election of the Tories, that is was "the Sun wot won it". But this is arguable given the "Kinnock factor" within southern England. Over the past 30 years The Sun has tended to back the winning party, and I believe it overexaggerates its influence. This time around, the Sun has said it is going to wait and see before it makes its mind up. You won’t get good odds at Ladbrokes but my guess is that if the opinion polls still look good for Labour this time next week, expect the Sun to support them again (albeit grudgingly and with editorial caveats). [They have indeed come out today backing Labour, with the headline "One Last Chance".]

Paul: Anything supported by the Mail or the Express is unlikely to curry favour with me.

Jonathan: Obviously the Daily Mail and Express are travesties masquerading as newspapers, and I detest everything about them.

Phill: Any reader of the Sunday Express over the past few years could be forgiven for thinking that Kilroy was a serious political force, such is the amount of press he gets in there. Likewise other papers can manipulate the vote. If you are unsure of who to vote for, then you could be influenced, definitely.

Jonny B: Clearly [newspapers] must have some influence in the run-up. But this is negligible compared to a daily drip-feed of opinion over the lifetime of a government.

The Girl: I think newspapapers do have some influence on the way people vote, though not necessarily in the run-up to an election; more that over time the ideology and political belief system that the newspaper (proprietors) support is fed through to the public in the way that the news is reported. I believe this propaganda is much more powerful than a newspaper coming out and saying to its readers, "support this party". Let's face it, no reader wants to feel like they've been told how to think, which is the most likely result of a newspaper overtly taking electoral "sides". I think that most of the electorate are not likely to be influenced one way or another by the media debating the election: their minds have been made up a long time before the election was declared...

Ben: I see things rather differently. As traditional voting traditions are eroded, as was suggested is the case in Tuesday's installment, the newspapers and the media in general become all the more important in the run-up to an election in persuading floating undecided voters to go with one party or another. That's not to deny, though, that there is also a gradual and constant "drip-feed" effect, as Jonny B argues above. Furthermore, there's a danger of overstating the influence the media has in general and thereby understating the capacity of the electorate to assess and digest the available information and make up their own minds regardless of what different sections of the media might be telling them to think.

Jonny B: Local newspapers can often have a big influence in a region such as mine where there's a more cohesive local community – a far bigger influence than either the resources or the talent of their editors.

Ben: In many ways local media sources are able to stir up passions one way or the other more effectively than national newspapers because they can highlight issues of specific and immediate concern to the local community, issues that would most likely be overlooked by the national media, rather than talking in general terms about tax, immigration, health etc.

Jonathan: I’m not sure that sensible newspapers aren’t shying away from giving a clear call on voting these days.

Phill: There has been talk that blogs can influence the election. Bloggerheads' Backing Blair campaign makes sense, but I fear it will mean nothing. Likewise the Conservatives' pathetic attempt to jump on the blog bandwagon, Conservative Home just makes me cringe. Duncan Smith praises blogs and saying they can address the left wing media bias, but he doesn't even have his own blog. And surely even those in the Tory Party don't believe the left wing press bias myth that the Republican Party in the US has been spinning for years.

Ben: Personally I resent this appropriation of blogs as a marketing tool, whether for political parties or commercial products - and I don't think I'm alone in this.

Phill: Blogs aren't developed well enough in the UK yet to have an impact. Maybe next time they will.

What will the turnout be like?

Jonathan: I think the turnout will be poor.

Jonny B: Higher than last time, I'd guess, as it's being fought on emotive issues.

Pete: I think turnout will be low, people just can't be arsed anymore.

The Girl: I think the turnout will be very low - down on the last general election. I'd be surprised if the UK gets even a 40% turnout this election, such is the apathy right now.

Lol: Turnout will be low (under 60%) and I’ll bet it's lower than the recent election in Iraq! I have a view that people only vote when disaffected – "they get out when they want to get them out".

Mike: There is a general assumption that Labour will win, as well as a general lack of the sort of fierce ideological debate which might stir people's passions at the ballot box. It feels as if we're merely squabbling over whether one form of stewardship would be more efficient than another.

Jez: Turnout is generally low when people perceive there to be an easy victory. So this will be another low turnout. However, with vote-rigging a danger due to postal voting the turnout may be unusually high. In fact it may even be as high as a football manager’s 110%.

Lol: [Another] issue is Labour's concerns that voter apathy traditionally affects their support. This is not borne out by the facts. Over the past 50 years Labour’s biggest majorities have come following the lowest turnouts in history.

Paul: Depressingly I expect [turnout] to be low. This only plays into the hands of minority parties. Living in a constituency that will inevitably feature candidates from UKIP, Veritas and the BNP this is incredibly frustrating. What annoys me more is that people think that by not bothering to vote they are making some kind of statement. If they really wanted to show that they were frustrated with the system then they should spoil their ballot. That way it shows they care, but equally that they are rejecting the options currently available to them.

Ben: People need to made more aware that spoiling their ballot paper is a perfectly legitimate option. In fact, your right NOT to vote is as important as your right to vote, but who knows that you're exercising the former and not just being lazy and apathetic if you don't turn up to the polling station and quite deliberately spoil your ballot paper?

Phill: There should be a "none of the above" box like in the film 'Brewster's Millions'! In some countries like Australia, I believe that voting is compulsory, but i'm not sure what this really achieves. It is entertaining and fun to spoil your paper by writing naughty words, but believe me, it's just cheap thrills and the elation won't last. When Blair wins a third term, the fact that you called him a twat on the ballot paper will mean nothing.

Who’s to blame for apathy?

Jez: Although there are differences between the parties there don’t seem to be ideological chasms. If there were I’m sure we would see the rebirth of a widely politically active society. Conspiracy theorists may suggest this is all part of the plan.

Jonny B: Frankly, politicians' attempts at engaging with the electorate are like watching your dad dance at a wedding.

Pete: There is most definitely a feeling that all politicians are the same and I also think that people now believe that politicians are creepy careerists whose sole interest is in getting re-elected.

Jonathan: People have come to understand that so much of politics is about power and ambition, and it’s a turn-off.

Pete: I don't think there is any sense of mass participation in something great and momentous; politicians appear so slimy, so grubby that people have a difficult time motivating themselves to go out and cast a vote on their behalf. Politicians only have themselves to blame for this as they seem incapable of giving a straight or honest answer to even the simplest of questions. They seem to be squirming as they search for an answer that will cause the least offence. Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and unless politicians start breaking a few eggs they will never get any respect back.

Jonathan: I do think that British politics is absolutely drowning in boring, unimaginative men whose language, demeanour and approach is thoroughly unappealing. It’s shameful that we still let this boys’ club atmosphere dominate.

Ben: Personally I don't think disillusionment with the democratic process and politics in general would be at anything like the level it is if we weren't repeatedly and cynically lied to by those who then implore - or rather expect - us to trust them with our vote.

Jonathan: I guess trust is the keystone issue, but I don’t think politicians are necessarily less trustworthy now than they were in the past. I just think that we hear more about them and their failings.

The Girl: People have been frustrated by the supposed lack of democracy this present government has ruled by and this will show itself by the low turnout at the polls, where (amongst others) Labour voters will sit at home in protest.

Phill: The fact of the matter is that most people's votes aren't that important, as most people live in safe seats. It's only those who live in marginal seats that can really influence the way the election will go.

Lol: People are much more aware these days of how the political system works. If you live within a safe seat and are broadly content that "your man" will be re-elected, you are less incentivised to make the effort to vote, knowing that your constituency will return someone you broadly support.

Jonny B: We live in an apathetic, disinterested society in general, in which many peoples' stock response to anything difficult is "It's all shit, isn't it?"

Ben: I refuse to believe that Britain has become a politically apathetic nation. Disillusioned yes, but there's a world of difference between apathy and disillusionment. The truth is that the major political issues continue to engage the vast majority of the population.

The Girl: I don't believe the apathy is with politics in general - if that was so, we wouldn't have seen so many politically diverse people getting on the streets and demonstrating against the Iraq war.

Phill: Low turnout doesn't necessarily mean apathy. Even if you do vote, there are many things that you will not change. The fact that the UK is the second biggest arms producer in the world for instance. Many people now choose to register their dissent outside the ballot box, through direct action, protests and a rejection of the political system. This is labelled as apathy by mainstream politicians and media, but this is merely because they seek an endorsement of their power by the masses.

What can be done to combat apathy?

Jonathan: I don’t know if apathy can be combated, to be honest. If people don’t come out to vote down the Government over Iraq, then you wonder what it will take to get people involved. But then I feel apathetic for the first time in my life now, too, and all my old fury about people neglecting to vote is largely dissipated.

Ben: All those eligible to vote (especially the young, in whose hands the country will be in the future) need to have it impressed upon them that politics impinges upon every aspect of their daily lives. All too often it strikes people as being a distant world, removed, rarefied, nothing to do with them. It's easy not to care about things that seem to have no connection to you - it needs to be made clearer how the braying and squabbling over wording and figures in the Houses of Parliament relates to the lives of the ordinary citizen.

The Girl: If government was seen to be fully representing the general populus, rather than just being a dictatorial machine, run by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, I think we would find more people coming out to vote on the day. Without a change in the style of government, we cannot expect the public to be enthusiastic about replacing one party with another.

Ben: Of the measures proposed to combat apathy, postal voting has proven problematic and controversial. Perhaps it won't be long - whether rightly or wrongly - before you can vote for your preferred government by text, just as you can vote John McCririck out of 'Celebrity Big Brother'.

Jonny B: Combating apathy is a double-edged sword. We need people to feel that they have a stake in the country. But personally, if somebody can't be arsed to pop down the road to cast their vote once every four or five years, then I don't want them to have a say in who runs my country, thank you very much. The idea that it'll somehow make democracy "better" if we make casting a vote as simple as ordering a pizza seems to be perverse. We want people to take it more seriously, not less.

Links:

Guardian article about the fact that there's apparently been less media coverage of the election than there was four years ago.

Not Apathetic - people explain the reasons they don't want to vote (via Hobo Tread).

Tomorrow’s topic: The result