On by-elections...

****

His Grace asks us to:

Consider the turnout - 28%.

So taking his exhortation I shall do just this - try to understand why nearly three out of four electors in  Wythenshawe and Sale East didn't bother to vote in yesterday's by-election.

His Grace suggests that this abstention gives greater credence to the Russell Brand argument against voting (which, I understand, is that voting only encourages them and let's have a revolution instead, so much more fun). And that the lack of public interest in voting yesterday - despite having had a waste bin full of leaflets rammed through the letterbox - reflects public disillusionment with democracy.

For my part I take a different lesson from His Grace's text, the low turnout simply reflects the wisdom of the population. After all yesterday's by-election was in a safe Labour seat, its result would change nothing for the electors and certainly not the nature or direction of government. So, given that Manchester yesterday wasn't a place to venture out into without good reason, people went about their normal day and, in the evening, chose to stop in and watch telly rather than stagger down to the church hall for voting.

Indeed, had there not been over 10,000 postal votes (much to the chagrin of Mr Farage), the turnout would have been even lower!

The point we all ignore is that people had the option. I'm pretty sure that most of the 72% not voting knew full well there was a by-election. And they chose not to go and vote. It simply wasn't something that was important to them.

This is wonderful. Really wonderful - people are comfortable enough in their lives that they do not feel the need to play their tiny little part in democracy. And when we go and ask them why they didn't bother they'll give those familiar answers - politicians are all the same, voting doesn't change anything, Labour always win here so no point in voting. Or perhaps just the simple statement - I never vote.

Some people are bothered that the act of voting doesn't really change anything (I would argue that this isn't really true but that doesn't matter for this discussion) and fret about raising turnout - hence the easy to corrupt postal voting system. They are wrong, the fault doesn't lie with electors but with us politicians. We have lost control of things we used to control. We too often raise our hands and shrug, "nothing I can do really" when faced with a real problem for real people.

So people are wise. They know that replacing one politician with another at a by-election isn't really a big deal. And they stay home in the warm doing something that isn't politics.

...

Apathy, elitism and bureaucracy - an ancient problem

Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy.

So it’s that apathy thing again. You know, people who can’t or won’t be bothered to waddle down to the village hall to vote. Apparently this is “humiliating” for the Prime Minister – or at least that’s what the FT says:

David Cameron’s hopes that Britain would embrace his vision of US-style elected police chiefs lay in tatters as the public turned its back on his latest attempt to change the way the country is run.

An inquiry was launched on Friday by the Electoral Commission into a day of apathy at the ballot box, which saw only one-in-seven voters turn out in an election the prime minister insisted would transform Britain’s policing and which cost £100m to set up.

But it isn’t really as simple as that. And neither should we be as bothered about low turnout as us political sorts say. Don’t get me wrong, I do think we should vote – early and often as the saying goes – but I don’t have a problem with people who choose not to do so. Or indeed for the many folk whose lives are liberated enough for the act of voting not to cross their minds.

Last Thursday’s election saw record levels of apathy – mostly because the government (and the Electoral Commission) lost sight of some basic marketing principles. Police & Crime Commissioners may indeed by a better mousetrap but unless you tell people about this – repeatedly until you’re bored with the sound of it – they won’t avail themselves of your improved rodent catcher.

However, this still doesn’t matter. If people want to vote they will go out and vote. Take note that in Corby where 90% of the UK’s political class – not to mention the hordes of press and TV media folk – has been camped out for the past two months, the turnout was a measly 44%. Every house in Corby had a leaflet – probably a dozen leaflets, if by-election behaviour was normal – and despite this over half the registered electorate didn’t bother.

Why didn’t they bother? Probably because the outcome (and the act of voting itself) really doesn’t matter to them very much, if at all. And why should it unless we make it purposeful? A parliamentary by-election changes nothing, all it does is find a new representative to fill a set of vacated boots. Oddly enough the PCC elections were rather more significant – at least there we were picking someone to be in charge of something!

In an unusual departure the Daily Mail spots the problem:

The reality is that the public is hugely disillusioned with a gilded, out-of-touch political elite which seems incapable of connecting with the aspirations and anxieties of ordinary people.

People really are getting to believe that “it doesn’t matter how you vote, the government always gets in”.  And this is so true – that gilded elite the Mail describes will carry on in ‘power’ even though we vote some of them out and some of them in.

The really funny – or maybe depressing - thing about this is that it’s not new. Here’s S E Finer writing about the world’s first government, Sumer:

“Equally there was a contrast between the mass of artisans and rural labourers, and the ruling elite which comprised the rulers and their courts, the temples and their priesthoods, the scribes and accountants. This elite was very narrow; the more so since the keys to power...were so very difficult to acquire.”

Back then legitimacy – what we like to call “mandate” – didn’t come from those artisans and rural labourers but from the gods. Today, legitimacy in theory comes, via the act of voting, from the people. The thing that those apathetic Britons have spotted is that withdrawing that mandate by not voting exposes the elite for what it is – a self-selecting, self-supporting court surrounding the places where power is executed.

Thursday’s apathy isn’t a reflection on the current government but a consequence of government by the unaccountable gilded by the thinnest sheet of democracy. When I look at the areas where us Councillors are told we have no real jurisdiction (despite de jure responsibility) this becomes ever more clear – education, child protection, planning, licensing; all now so rules bound as to make the councillor’s role little more than a rubber stamp.

To give just one example – you thought, did you not, that the schools are under “council control”? After all there’s an Education Department filled with Directors and Assistant Directors. Think again. The funding goes straight from Whitehall to the schools via a formula set in London. And decisions about the management of those schools are made by a thing called the “School’s Forum” that (in Bradford) meets in private and contains representatives from the schools, council officers and so forth. Councillor’s – the folk you elect to make decisions on your behalf – have no role to play in this at all. Except to be blamed when the school’s fail.

This is where the apathy comes from – MPs and councillors stop being representatives and turn instead into guides through the castle. Our role is to handle ‘casework’ and to act as ‘community leaders’ rather than the idea of representative democracy – that we send someone to the place where the decisions are made so he or she can help make those decisions on our behalf. Today, a councillor or MP can sit on all sorts or panels, committees and boards while doing nothing other than accede to decisions made elsewhere by the bureaucracy.

....

The Guardian don't seem to know the meaning of democracy...

****

The Guardian is once again burbling about democracy, this time on the back of a report by some people called Democratic Audit. My problem with all this isn’t that British representative democracy is a little creaky or that the public not only see politicians as a bit dodgy but often fail to see much point in voting for a different set to pretend to run things. No, my problem is the things that The Guardian and Democratic Audit see as defining “democracy” – things like compliance with human rights rules, membership of trade unions, gender balance and how much we give in international aid.

I'm prepared to accept that how many people vote and press freedom - probably corruption and perceptions of corruption too - are pertinent to the debate about democracy. But none of the other things are - they amount to little more than a progressive lefty wish list.

Any way, I don't think democracy is threatened by apathy.  People have the right to vote and choose not to do so. That's entirely their business. Political parties and politicians may fret a little at these levels of engagement but they do not indicate the death of democracy or even its terminal decline. It's true that Britain's political parties are in decline - sustained only by state support and the purchasing of influence by rich people, businesses and trade unions. But I see that decline as pretty healthy, as the demise of tribal politics - unless, of course, corporatists like those nice folk at the Guardian get their way and we have state-funded parties.

Instead of these old-fashioned measures we should look at other activities - the number of writers focusing on politics and political debate, the growth of petitioning, direct democracy and the willingness of the voting public to consider support for independent and independent-minded politicians. Democratic Audit and The Guardian represent an old, somewhat discredited and collectivist attitude where democracy is defined through institutions and public compliance. That and they don't seem to understand the definition of democracy.

....

Ah, that apathy thing again...

****

Excitement at the discovery that more English 18 year olds are on Facebook than registered to vote.

Officials expressed concern yesterday after figures revealed that Facebook has 1.08million 18-year-old users in Britain, compared with just over half a million who have reached voting age in the past year and registered on the electoral roll.

Lots of chatter - some of it relevent, some nonsense about making it easier to register (how about via Facebook - now that's a thought) and about "engaging" with young people via social media. No-one asks whether this discovery is either new or much of an issue. After all, if voting becomes something of concern, something people are concerned about, something that will make a difference, then rest assured that people will not only register to vote but will queue up outside the polling station to exercise this democratic liberty.

The problem we have (and remember that half of UK adults didn't vote in the 2010 election) is that loads of people simply don't see the point of voting - it doesn't seem to matter much to them or make the slightest bit of difference to their lives. So they don't bother.

And we (that is the politicians) don't care either - or we'd be hanging around at student digs and taking registration forms to sixth form classrooms.

...

A comment on Spanish local elections and British apathy!

There are local elections in Spain this weekend - elections which are likely to see a thorough trouncing for the ruling Socialist Party:

According to the election polls, the center-right Partido Popular (PP) will handily defeat the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) that may be left without control of any major Spanish city.

But this comment isn't about who will win but about how many of the 370,000 foreign residents in Andalucia will be voting - with the answer being 'not many'. Here are the numbers:

The number of foreigners registered to vote around Andalucia on May 22 stands at 82,483. This means if all the registered foreign voters turn out on the day they would certainly change the political map. The degree of influence however depends on the municipality.

Interestingly, nearly half of the foreigners registered to vote – 40,410 – are resident in Malaga province alone, where there are an incredible 152 foreign candidates hoping to become local councillors.

And half of those voters are British, which means that Spanish politicians are - for perhaps the first time - actively targeting these voters:

In my local town, I believe for the first time ever, one of the major Spanish parties is actively looking to entice non-Spanish residents to vote for them.

The PP candidate sent this message (and arranged a meeting):

The party wishes to present their candidate at the municipal elections, Francisco Góngora Cara, who will stand for mayor of El Ejido, to the foreign residents of El Ejido.

Francisco Góngora in his meetings with local residents appreciates the participation and understanding of the party´s electoral programme for the next four years; he is also calling this meeting in order to know at first hand the worries, needs and aspirations of the foreign population here in El Ejido.

The problem is that - if past form is a guide - most British residents won't be voting either because they're not registered to vote or from apathy. However, not all are so apathetic.

....

Welcome to the Slowburn Revolution

I am convinced of the need for Britain’s (in fact Europe’s) polity to change radically. Not for some kind of Blairite “constitutional reform” – tinkering with the voting system, setting up processes and systems of control, burbling on about transparency or accountability. This is a nonsense – it does not change a thing and merely acts to reinforce the current oligarchic arrangements. And radical change is not, surely, about replacing one set of oligarchs with a different set- however much I may prefer the cut of the new lot’s gib.

It’s OK you can sit down, folks, I’m not about to decamp, to head off into the strange world of minority politics. That’s not going to work – it’s not going to provide the revolution. However much people in such little revolutionary groups may wish for it, the world around them is not suddenly going to get up from its armchair, turn off the telly, pick up its pitchfork and overthrow the evil government. However much you shout and swear, it’s not going to happen that way.

So – given I’m not heading off into the wilderness, embittered and muttering about badness or cursing about the evils of politicians – what’s the deal? How does the revolution happen? And will it be televised (presumably with Iain Dale and Paul Staines giving the blogger perspective as it unfolds before us)?

This is a slowburn revolution not a forest fire. By this I mean that the conditions needed for radical change will come about because people become gradually less tolerant of the behaviour their lords and masters (or indeed ladies and mistresses) display. Today’s expenses reports are another hairline crack in the edifice – members of our ruling oligarchy appearing before the courts with the prospect of a time inside.

Other cracks in that edifice are creeping in – the public has long doubted the climate change story - rather seeing it as a means for Government to nanny them, lecture them and tax them. I happen to think that man does contribute to climate change but not many of the ordinary people I represent share that view. The wealth-creating section of the population (for my Liberal Democrat and Labour friends I would say that this does exist despite your best efforts – it’s just you never meet any of them) is royally fed up with being taxed, nannyed and annoyed by better paid, better pensioned, more job secure and more sanctimonious public sector workers. A word of advice to those public sector workers – you’re not liked you know.

The biggest crack is the good idiots (who the oligarchy like to call – completely mistakenly – “apathetic”). There will not be any increase in turnout at the coming general election – unless labour decides its only chance is to stuff the ballot boxes. People are fed up – people of a left wing persuasion just as much as people on the right. People who care about politics will sit at home, stick two-fingers up at the leaders’ debate and say; “not voting for any of you, you’re all a shower” (or something choicer for some folk I suspect).

Those non-voters – of all shapes, sizes and persuasions – will grow in number. Those good idiots will start (as they already are with the endless lectures on smoking, drinking and eating) to ignore what the oligarchy says. They will carry on driving, flying, eating stuff flown in from New Zealand or Chile in refrigerated air freight containers, using the wrong sort of light bulbs, smacking their children, telling slightly dodgy jokes to mates down the pub (assuming the health fascists haven’t closed it down), giving their kids a bottle or two or lager or a glass of wine and generally living the ordinary decent lives they want to lead. And they’ll start to insist that their politicians share those views, that they stop hectoring, that they take their hands from out of the till and that they start to give attention to the things that matter – including allowing people to get on with their unhealthy, early-death-inducing lifestyles unmolested by a bunch of overpaid busybodies.

That’s the slowburn revolution – and I’m blowing on the fuse. Care to join me?

...

Glasgow North East: 29,639 majority for don't care, can't be bothered, angry, annoyed or drunk!

Over two thirds of the voters in Glasgow North East didn't vote in yesterday's "crucial" by-election. So if you walk out there today and speak to folk most of them will not have taken part in what was hailed as a "dramatic victory" by the Labour Party (who clearly are enthusiasts for dull and worthy theatre).

The real winners yesterday were not any political party but "none of the above" - a disparate group consisting of good idiots, folk who can't be bothered, subscribers to the view that "I'm not bloody voting because you're all a shower of useless troughers" and (this being Glasgow) a few who were too drunk to care.

The adjusted result therefore:

Not Voting (various): 41,870 (67%)
Labour: 12,231 (20%)
SNP: 4,120 (7%)
Conservative (2%)
BNP 1013 (2%)
Solidarity 794 (1%)
Lib Dem 474 (1%)

Majority for don't care, can't be bothered, angry, annoyed or drunk: 29,639

In praise of idiots

The ancient Greeks used their word for ‘private’ as a derogatory term for someone who took no part in “public affairs”. That word ἴδιος (idios) is the root for our term for a stupid person – idiot. Today – in the Greek sense – most of us are idiots and I think this represents progress rather than a problem. That barely more that a third of Bingley Rural electors took the opportunity to vote last time I stood isn’t a disaster and those people are well aware of the purpose and value of voting - which I guess is why most of them don’t bother.

So let’s look at our typical idiots. Round here they’re probably in their thirties or forties, employed at a middle management level in business and industry. They worry about how well their kids do at school, they concern themselves with making their family safe, they grumble a bit about paying taxes but have enough cash afterwards for it not to really matter. Such folk are ordinary, hard-working and inherently conservative. But they also see little or no link between the act of voting in a politician from one party or another and the significant things in their lives.

To the political classes – and especially those on the left – this apathy is a terrible thing – to the point of demanding compulsory voting. The process of the election sits at the heart of our polity, voting defines us rather than the exercise of choice or liberty. As our good friends at the Guardian put it back in 2004 following one or other survey:

“… most people do not know who their MP is. Most are also mainly ignorant about basic political facts. Just one in seven considers themselves to be politically active. Only 51% say they would vote in a general election, and only half of all potential voters say they are interested in politics. Just 27% have trust in politicians generally (and this in one of the least corrupt and most transparent political systems on the planet). The media, local councils and business are all seen as more important than Westminster and the prime minister. For most people, politics is something that is done by and for others, in a system with which the majority feel little connection.”

Now the good left-wing liberals at the Guardian think this grumpiness, this disengagement, this disinterest is a problem. And that’s where I disagree – the core consideration is the extent to which we are able to live as Greek idiots. Quietly, privately, without bothering our neighbours with our problems – and when such people want change they will get up from their armchairs, walk away from the telly and vote. The idea that not being bothered with voting most of the time makes them bad people is a misplaced idea – they are the good folk.

Above all we should listen quietly to what this “apathy” calls for – it is less bothersome, less interfering, less hectoring and more effective government. Such people want government to be conducted at their level not to be the province of pompous politicians with overblown and lying rhetoric. And they want the language of common sense, freedom, liberty and choice to push away the elitist exclusivity of modern bureaucratic government.

Above all today’s idiots want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. For me that’s the essence of politics – I praise these idiots and applaud their apathy.