Why voters will give Cameron a clear victory
General elections are like annual general meetings: there’s no point voting if the outcome is irrelevant or obvious and every reason to vote if you want change.
Chairman and government ministers complain about ‘absentee landlords’ who own shares but don’t vote. But why should shareholders worry about re-electing the auditors when they know the accountants will continue to do their job regardless, and when it wouldn’t matter if another firm was appointed anyway. But when the board proposes an overgenerous bonus plan, investors come out in force.
So will the 2010 UK general election continue the trend to falling turnouts? The 61 per cent of voters who bothered putting their cross on the form in 2005 was certainly less than the 84 per cent who voted in 1950, but give the public a real choice and they will vote.
When the government passed legislation in the 1980s allowing building societies to convert to banks it demanded that 75 per cent of customers vote. One society’s chief executive complained to me that this was an impossible threshold: no more than 5 per cent of his savers had ever voted. I pointed out that he had never asked them an important question. Approving the accounts wasn’t worth filling in the form; the prospect of a windfall bonus got voting levels above 90 per cent.
The same is true of political elections. It is true that the population’s propensity to vote has shrunk over time, but when it matters, people do vote.
In 1950, Britain had just fought a war to preserve democracy: it is hardly surprising people used it. But in February 1974, when the call was so tight there was a hung parliament, turnout rose seven points to 79 per cent because the electorate realised every vote counted. By the October 1974 election, when the outcome looked clearer, the turnout slumped back to 73 per cent.
Again in 1992 when the Kinnock-Major choice was so close the Labour leader mistakenly assumed victory, polling rose to 78 per cent.
People vote when it matters, as in 1992. And they vote when, despite the outcome being clear, they want to have a hand in that victory – like the liberated Communists or Iraqis who gladly pulled down the statues of former dictators. But they don’t bother or withhold their vote when they know their party will lose.
So Major’s tired supporters stayed at home in 1997 while Blair’s backers eagerly voted to ensure change, giving a 71 per cent turnout, well down on 1992’s close result. By 2001, Blair’s supporters had tired but the Tories had still not mustered their vote so the turnout collapsed to 59 per cent. The 2005 turnout was little better for the same reasons.
In 2010, some past Labour supporters will switch to other parties but many will simply not vote, unable to support a loser but unable to back a rival. However, Liberal and Tory supporters, sensing victories, will be out in force.
I have already forecast in this blog that, like it or not, David Cameron will be the next prime minister because voters will polarize to the Conservatives as polling day approaches. And – still writing as a commentator, not as a lobbyist for any party - I will now predict that enough people will vote Tory for Cameron to form a government without needing a deal with the Liberals.
Further, I reckon that now the public has an issue worth voting on, the poll turnout – despite the public’s reaction to the MPs’ expenses scandal – will rise from the lows of the last two elections. That would be a victory for democracy – even if an outright Cameron will defers voting reform.
General elections are the same as shareholder meetings: if the issue is important, people will vote.
