We seem to live in rather bizarre political times. There was a time when a politician could sensibly say that the polls should be read with a huge pinch of salt. Even though you knew the politician was a dedicated pollster (usually a Tory who was humbled by poor ratings), you knew the politician was basically right. Through the Thatcher years where no-one outwardly claimed to be a Tory, but then went on to give the Iron Lady the mandate, polls were an expression of the snapshot mood of a bunch of people (a large chunk who were undecided), not the electorate's opinion on parties' proposals.
Fast forward to the present and we find the polls doing a roller-coaster dance. And more amazingly the polls having the most incredible impact on politics. No longer are they swallowed with a pinch of salt, but they are changing our political terrain.
Just a few months ago I was thinking of writing a polemic of how Brown has assembled an astonishingly impressive cabinet (for example... Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, who's greatest achievement, and this is truly a great achievement, has been to not be in the news that much; David Miliband, foreign secretary, whose penchant for debate is re-engaging our spurned global partners; Ed Balls, education, who has sought to temper the worst of New Labour's policies and extend the best and, of course, Brown himself with his unfussy politics of performance over show). But now, with a nod to tax cuts by the Tories, and a wobble by Brown, how passée that seems. And with Ming gone due to LibDem diving opinion polls, it seems that a new found respect for the opinion polls has entered politics and the media's analysis of it.
Even BBC's Newsnight has endlessly used Frank Luntz, the American pollster, to get people's mindless and incoherent views on major political speeches in real time (have you seen these votometers? wtf?). Luntz's techniques are only valid (read: popular) as our politics continues its managerialistic phase (as I've commented previously). Pollsters' craft is revered when the only difference between the left and right is who can find the policy (whether it sits traditionally on the right or the left) that will secure them another ladle of middle England votes.
In these confused times, where the electorate are nothing more than consumers of their own experiences through spin, TV and newspapers, we seem to prefer make-overs rather than principles. So suddenly Cameron does a "no hands" speech and Osborne plays the goddamn-it's-so-obvious tax card and they jump ahead in the polls, Brown plays the whole game poorly and collapses in a pile of his own sombreness. And Ming's dynasty is determined by sinking polls that go down as quickly as the public perceive his age to go up.
But is this the true story? What is going on? Who are these people who are changing their minds with such regularity? The simply truth is that polls are snapshots for a feeling about how politicians are thought about at that time... ie they are bollocks descriptions of the electorate's views. But, they are hugely powerful momentum builders or breakers for parties, with currently the Tories riding the wave and Labour and the LibDems washed up in the new democracy of constant polling.
The polls do not represent the true story. The polls do not represent the electorate, but instead infantalise the electorate and create mutual cynicism between voter and voted. Instead of trust building from the supposed communication of polls, it creates disgust at an imaginary fickle public and an actual spineless politics.
The respect given to these polls are such a poor reflection of our political times. Times that are defined by managerialist, target driven, number crunching, low input, high output, what-works policies that has swept aside big debate about how we should live and how best to get there. Even when it comes to huge issues like the environment it is all about a minor tax shifting in a shifty way. These are times that see pollsters' graphs with red, blue and yellow wobbly lines as the holy grail.
To our political and media leaders:
"Please save the electorate, please save us. Because whilst our views should define the political landscape in deep and meaningful ways, we really only need to be asked every four to five years for each set of our representatives. Forget these endless 'representative' polls and just stop asking us so much what we think, because if you sit back and look at it all we just become zombies that you increasingly have less respect for and, vice versa, because you respond to us, we have less respect for you.
If we have a really strong opinion we'll tell you. Remember February 2003? We'll tell you when you don't like things, so listen then. When you ask us endless questions, we just become performing monkeys playing to the internalised political narrative that is not of our making. We both know that this is a mockery of democratic voice.
Leave us alone, and listen."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Save the electorate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Yes, Cameron's great and lauded policy comitees came up with the bleedin' obvious pub pleaser. Inspired. They must have thought there was going to be an election or something.
People need to be told what to think. Democracy is so flawed.
ed
Spineless politics, I couldn't agree more. The lib dems abandon a perfectly good leader not because he's not doing as good a job as any other but because they as a party are too afraid of the electorate to actually announce the policies liberals (which must surely be at least 30 not 12 percent of us?)agree on - proper protection of civil rights/freedoms, smaller government, the reining-in of the nanny state and a genuinely ethical foreign policy. While they fear their own shadow it matters little who leads them.
Caine
Shiraz...
For once, I completely agree with you... huzzah!
(and I particularly liked the line referring to Menzies' age and poll ratings)
I suspect 99% of people will agree with you, as I do. I guess this is another symptom of rolling news requiring constant new stories. Even a 1% change in poll results is news. And like idiots we suck it all up.
Briefly on the Lib Dems... Has anyone else noticed that they've become the most evasive party of the lot? Charles Kennedy was an honest and opinionated guy who commanded respect from the electorate, me included. Since Ming arrives it's all "well that's a matter for the individuals concerned", or "I'm here to discuss A not B". The Lib Dems are the one party who could actually play the polls to their advantage by being that little bit more radical. Look how it appeared to boost the (presumably short term) perception of the Tories with their diverting yet insanely unfair proposed change to inheritance tax. But the Lib Dems are now too insular and boring. That's the main reason Ming had to go, and is also why they'll continue to flounder under his successor. Unless a dramatically different contender enters the leadership contest and wins - which they won't!
And finally... can we make this the last time Menzies Cambell's time in office is referred to as the Ming Dynasty? It inaccurately makes it sound almost interesting.
Tom
Its silly season here -elections are on the 5th November. What I find interesting with the media: what they defended as news before - murder, kidnapping - no longer counts as news now; rather, 'who is leading whom in the polls' makes for a better cover story. I'm just tired of it all, and I can't wait for it to end. After I exercie my civic duty, I'm on a plane to where the only news I want to here is the weather!
Thanks all, I'll try and be more controversial next time!
Post a Comment