What about the issues that don’t figure in the election campaign, but matter ?

The ways in which the formal election campaign and its associated conversations miss out the issues that touch most people, are ones I will come back to over the coming weeks.

It’s important to start though by recognising that the shared conversations between the politicians and the media rule out a whole series of voices and experiences.

The impact of welfare reform, which will be a centre piece of the next five years if the present Tory-led Government retain power, is ruled out of discussion by ministers.

And yet whilst the media may press them on the issue, the headlines focus not on an absence of an answer, but on the skill of avoidance.

All three of the major UK based parties are in favour of education and all three have a shared commitment to maintaining the new status quo on the roles of academies and trusts rather than local schools.

Indeed all three are also in favour of the status quo on how the NHS is organised.

However, they do differ on some things. But it is the shared consensus which is rarely up for discussion. Why? And why aren’t the voices of  those that rely on the services (not those who work in them) heard?

On May 7th local elections will take place too. Here, the absence of a rich and diverse debate is very evident. But does this matter? I think it does. Whoever wins nationally on May 7th will be putting in place spending plans which directly impact on local communities.

It will be City Hall making many of the cuts and therefore we do need to try and make the connections between the local and the national. Accountability only works if those that make decisions are open to challenge and are willing to engage with that challenge.

 

Why we need a different ‘conversation’ before May 7

As the General Election campaign shifts into a different gear – the wall to wall coverage, the on / off TV debates , the post debate analysis and the stage managed events in local high streets for the cameras  – the gap between the politicians and their reference group and the rest of the country will get wider.

The big questions:

  • what was / are the causes of the austerity measures?
  • what has been the immediate impact of the cuts?
  • what is the likely impact over time?

are all ignored and re-framed to meet the particular needs of the mainstream parties.

There are two aspects of this silence or consensus between the parties which should be of concern to all of us.

Firstly, the discussion is almost entirely based on the idea that there is or was no alternative to the austerity measures. The circumstances leading up to the banking crisis of 2007/2008 have been rewritten or reordered. Both mainstream parties shared a view that there should be minimal regulation of the banks. It was a view that was common across the international networks of politicians and financial interests. The Clinton Administration in the US was an enthusiastic supporter of deregulation, as were New Labour and the Conservatives. So there is an important point here: The crisis was not solely New Labour’s nor was it caused by excessive public spending. And as the events of 2007 ( Northern Rock) or 2008 ( Leaman Brothers) slip into the past we are likely to miss-remember what happened and why. 

Secondly , the popular discussion is almost entirely devoid of international comparisons or examples. So that the new Greek Government are presented as unreasonable for wanting to change the deal with the EU, or the demonstrations in Spain are seen as peculiar to  the country rather than illustrative of a different response or a different way of seeing the austerity crisis.

It is this lack of a different conversation which is is of concern. On May 7 in many places there will be local elections too. This is a chance to link the two events. And yet that discussion is not happening. But for a brief moment in the polling station the two will be handed to us to act on. Symbolically we will hold separate ballot papers: one for local councillors and one for the MP. And yet we don’t bring these two together and within a few seconds they are separate again.

How we might link them and what that might mean in framing a different political conversation will be an idea I will return to next week.

Predicting results.. what works and what doesn’t

Predicting election results is a mix of art and science.  We can all think of polls and pundits in the past who have got it wrong.  But there are some signs observers can look out for to make at least a partial judgement.

Yesterday (March 5th) I attended an excellent event at the BBC in Media City which looked at the North West (the region with the joint highest number of marginal constituencies) and attempted to make some predictions.

This got me thinking about what we should be looking for as indications of potential political success at election time.  So I’ll be writing a few pieces about the various measures and what they might mean.

Yesterday’s predictions, which only involved four seats in the North West region changing hands, used a number of factors including financial donations, polling data, local election results, incumbency factors and so on.  Audience members raised other potentially significant aspects such as levels of activism, key campaign issues and the personalities of the various contenders.

The aspect I am concentrating on today is local election results.

It is easy to look at a constituency, look at the local election results in the run up to a General Election, and make a party-based judgement on those figures.  In fact, in isolation, local election results are among the weakest of predictors of GE success.  Let’s take Edge Hill’s local constituency, West Lancashire.  In the run up to 2010 there had been Conservative local victories in Skelmersdale.  (If you don’t know the area, think in terms of Labour suddenly winning Surrey).

These were unexpected and many felt this pointed to a growth in Tory support that would turn out the incumbent Rosie Cooper.  In fact , although there was a small vote-share increase for the Conservatives, in line with the national trend, Ms Cooper is still the MP and had a 2010 majority of more than four thousand.

The thing is, local elections are simply different.  Firstly the turnout can be considerably lower than in a General.  Secondly, party allegiance can be weaker.  Finally the personality and activity level of a local candidate, particularly one running on an “us against them” ticket can be significant in a way that simply does not transfer.   This becomes apparent on those polling days when a General Election and Local Election take place on the same day in the same area.  Vote-splitting can be very common.

So what do local election results tell us?

Well they give some indication of party organisation.  A badly organised party will not  usually manage a large number of victories.  They give some indication of activist levels as volunteers need to be found to stand and again found to campaign. And they give some indication of local roots and knowledge.

But what they don’t do is tell us who will become an MP.

In 2001, had local election results been an indicator of national success I would have become an MP in Liverpool.  This on its own should be a warning to those who put too much prediction weight on the colour of the local council.