One is trying to capture the attention of the general public, while the other is trying to keep us politics obsessives occupied with something new every day in order not to bore us
One of the reasons why I think more of us bloggers and political commentator-types should stand for election and face a hustings/public cross-examination at least once in our lives is that it gives us an insight of what it’s like being on the other side when a seemingly random person can demand a huge amount of your attention – irrespective of whether they merit it or not. In part I see a little of myself in my younger days – and it also reminds me of this song from the Millennium whose video director is now my brother in law.
“Look at me! I have an opinion!”
That was me. (It still is!) It has only been in recent times that I have begun to figure out where, how, and why all this ‘brain noise’ manifests itself – hence still awaiting an ADHD referral because I think that might be what drives me. At the same time, I’ve sort of taken the view that I’ve said/blogged everything that I can possibly on the present political party in government that there’s little point in repeating myself. That’s not the same however, for political parties – as the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives said earlier.
Above – Ruth Davidson on why political parties repeat the same messages over-and-over again in the media – to the extent that it bores those that follow politics to tears and frustration
Too much advertising noise?
We know how much of an issue that being bombarded by adverts can be – whether online or offline. And this is not a new issue. Demands to regulate advertisements in public spaces date back to Victorian times, with the Advertisements Regulations Act 1907 being an early piece of legislation empowering local government to take limited action. This was followed by a further bill in 1920 – ironically for the purposes of protecting the natural beauty of the countryside and rural settlements, which ultimately led to a further Act in 1925. (But even that was not enough as numerous amendment bills were introduced)
With so many things competing for our attention, what chance politics?
Hence why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey (the former Energy Secretary in the Coalition Government) has taken the decision to go overboard (literally) with very visual publicity stunts in order to remind the viewing public that his party exists. Because let’s face it: “Man in suite makes speech about politics” isn’t going to pause the printing presses.
People only seem to take notice in politics if it directly affects their day-to-day lives
As we saw with the pandemic, and also locally in Cambridge with the road user charging proposals from the Greater Cambridge Partnership, people will take notice especially if the consequences mean disruption to existing routines. Which then brings us back to the problem of consultation: box-ticking vs meaningfully seeking out the views of the public in order to influence the evolution of your proposals, and your final decisions. This reflects why people have told me at my first series of workshops on the Great Cambridge Crash Course that they did not recognise the legitimacy of the Greater Cambridge Partnership.
Furthermore, when the public gave the politicians the chance to change the policies and approach of the GCP in 2021 by crushing the Conservatives at the county council elections, they did not take that chance.
There won’t be time to have the much-needed in-depth policy debates for this general election
Reasons for this include:
- The lack of civic education in schools and in society mean that collectively we do not know the essentials on politics and democracy. Go to your average bookshop, stationers or similar and you’d be hard pressed to guess that there was a general election looming. Publishers are not publishing books or pamphlets in hard copy, and the online guides all too often stay within specialist interest bubbles.
- Our system and culture of aggressive advertising in this consumerist society out-competes anything that politics can throw at it – unless the state uses the force of law (as in the pandemic) to promote it. Combine that with the threat of mis/disinformation.
- While people might like individual adverts, they don’t like intrusive advertising. And political/electoral advertising has to be intrusive in its nature for a public that generally does not choose to follow politics. (Otherwise, the RSPB would not have more members than every single political party in the UK put together).
- The political parties – in particular the top two – are leaving their manifesto publication dates until the last minute. This is for tactical reasons, mainly to stop other parties from pinching ‘their’ policies and also to reduce the amount of time opponents get to unpick them.
- The way the broadcast media frames politics on TV means that the in-depth debates that were regular up until the Millennium no longer take place. For example when Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson resigned in late 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appeared a few days later to be cross-examined on Sunday lunchtime TV by former Labour MP-turned-interviewer Brian Walden in an epic exchange over 45 minutes. In those days, Cabinet Ministers and their shadows on the opposition benches took part in long-form grillings on a weekly basis. I can’t think of many politicians today who would volunteer for this.
Recent policy announcements have not landed for Team Rishi
On Newsnight earlier the point was made that despite several headline-grabbing policy announcements (Eg ‘National Service’ and Levelling-Up cash-for-constituencies), the polls had not shifted in response.
…with the latest one looking catastrophic for the Conservatives.
…and you can keep track of the other polls here.
I’m more receptive to the idea of banning opinion polls once general elections have been called.
“My analysis looks at the joint impact of both factors. I find that if polls predict a non-competitive election, this is associated with lower turnout, and more so in safe seats.”
“…If the local opposition party is predicted to win at the national level, incumbents in safe seats gain more as the national poll gap widens.”
Eleonora Alabrese – University of Warwick 14 Nov 2022
That latter sentence represents a big risk for Labour and the Liberal Democrats in their challenges for the historically safe blue seats in Cambridgeshire.
What is much harder to do is to prevent the results of private polling from leaking out. And even if private polling were banned, how would the state go about enforcing it if such polls were published outside of its jurisdiction?
When I put all of that together, the prospect of having the much-needed serious and informed debates on the future of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire look unlikely in the run up to this general election.
Furthermore, there will only be a couple of weeks of post-election Parliament before the summer recess. Which means someone (or some people) have to do something over the summer to create the space to debate our shared future in the context of whatever the next government and the political balance of the next Parliament happen to be.
Food for thought?
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on Twitter
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
Below – https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/ <- Click here, type in your postcode, and find out who is standing for election where you live
The Cambridge Town Owl 