Tag Archives: General election 2010

Britain votes: reflections on general elections

Posted on by
Reply


A general election is a very special event. We might complaint about politicians and Britain’s unfair voting system, but I’m still humbled to have the chance to help decide who governs our country. Too many people in too many countries have no such right, or are intimidated if they dare vote for the ‘wrong’ candidate or party.

We voted in Chalfont St Giles’ village hall, which was built as a memorial to those who lost their lives during the Great War. What a striking reminder that we should never take freedom, and the right to vote, for granted.

What will be the iconic images of election night 2010? Will there be a ‘Portillo moment’?

Looking back over elections past, I remember talking to Conservative health minister Gerry Malone at a party during the 1997 campaign. He described the pleasure of campaigning in and around Winchester. “I drive from one end of my beautiful constituency to the other, passing through lovely villages.” I thought at the time it was a tad complacent, and so it proved. Malone lost by two votes to the Liberal Democrats’ Mark Oaten. (And was defeated by a far heavier margin when the Winchester election had to be re-run a few months later.)

It’s a century since the two general elections of 1910 paved the way to a modern democracy. Within 18 years women finally secured equal voting rights. Let’s hope tonight’s results help secure the final step: a fair voting system. In the meantime, let’s celebrate the greatest of civic rights: the right to vote. 

General election 2010: The Guardian asks readers which party it should support

Posted on by
Reply

The Guardian has asked readers and staff for their views on which party (if any) the paper should support in the 2010 general election. Editor Alan Rusbridger (@arusbridger on Twitter) posed the question of Friday in the wake of the second leaders' debate.

I was impressed by the paper's attempt to engage with readers. But the initiative underlines the bizarre and frankly disreputable tradition in British newspapers of telling readers who to vote for. Why should a paper tell readers who to vote for – even if they've asked their views first? 

The Guardian is far from the worst offender. The Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph are the media wings of the Conservative Party, and lose no opportunity to distort the news to encourage readers to vote Tory. But, as I posted in May 2008, the Guardian published a clumsy piece of propaganda urging readers to support Ken Livingstone in the London mayoral election. (Not that it helped Ken: he lost to Boris Johnson.) The Guardian even tried to influence the 2004 US presidential election with a similarly ill-judged operation to persuade voters in Ohio's Clark county to reject George W Bush.) 

It is simply grotesque that the media and politicians take any notice of The Sun's decision who to back in an election. Yet last week's decision of James Murdoch to invade The Independent's offices to protest at that paper's innocuous headline, 'Rupert Murdoch won't decide this election. You will.', shows how high the stakes are. The Murdoch clan really do think they have the right to influence an election. Their attempt to bully a newspaper that barely sells 100,000 copies a day shows concern that that this election could, just, be the one that breaks the political power of the media.

The response of the Mail and Telegraph to the rise of Cleggmania following the first leaders' debate was instructive. They both resorted to smears about the Liberal Democrat leader. As I posted last week, social media helped blunt the impact of the smear campaign with the clever #nickcleggsfault campaign. If the papers had been interested in genuine examination, why didn't they pursue the question why the Lib Dems hadn't returned donations from crooked donor Michael Brown? That would have been genuine journalism rather than political propaganda.  

Let's hope the people vote without being bamboozled by the media on 6 May. 

So far, so predictable: the 2010 general election campaign kicks off

Posted on by
Reply

Britain's 2010 election campaign kicked off yesterday after Gordon Brown confirmed what everyone had known for months: the election will be on 6 May.

This worst-kept secret reflected a growing trend in British politics. Everything is trailed in advance. Ministers appear on Radio 4's Today programme to talk about something they'll be announcing later. Newspapers trail speeches, including the ludicrous expression 'is expected to say', as if they've read the PM's mind. And budget measures are openly discussed - a candour that forced Hugh Dalton to resign as chancellor in 1947.

This predictability matters, as it feeds the general apathy about politics. A general election is a great moment in the life of the nation: people died fighting for the right to vote. Yet millions greeted yesterday's official election announcement with indifference, rather than excitement. There are many reasons for that, but the total lack of surprise must have played a part. Let's hope election night is more of an event.