So we’re into the last week of the campaign. This has turned into the TV election – yes, internet stuff has been important but the things that have swung the campaign have all been on TV: because normal people don’t read political blogs! But they do watch the big setpieces (or at least see clips on the news), and they do hear about the big gaffes.
What I’ve found depressing about this campaign is just how willing voters are to believe the negative. I’m not arguing that any party is completely above a good old bit of scare-mongering, but outright lies about policy are going too far. And for future politicians, the interesting thing is how to deal with this in the future.
I’ve argued before for some sort of political standards authority, and I think we need that sort of independent body more than ever. In much the same way as the Institute for Fiscal Studies is trusted on the numbers, we need somewhere to go for impartial policy fact-checking. Cathy Newman and team are doing a great job at Channel 4, as Tim Harford the Undercover Economist does for Radio 4, but they are – despite their best efforts – never going to be seen as fully independent.
The underlying problem, though, is why voters are so inclined to believe these lies. I think it comes down to a huge suspicion of politicians generally, and a great mistrust of politicians who promise the moon on a stick. Voters have been betrayed by politicians over and over again. You don’t really get stories in the papers about any of the good things that politicians do – because it’s not very interesting to read good news stories. But you do get lots and lots of broken promises, weasel words and ‘we know best’, and backroom deals.
I was listening to the World at One today where they had a lengthy discussion of the machinations required towards the end of the Major government – that’s what ‘balanced’ parliaments get you. Deals behind the scenes, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Remember what happened over the 42 days legislation?
I’m hoping (obviously) for a Conservative victory, and I’m hoping that that Conservative government will actually deliver what it says it will in the (very impressive) contract with voters. If they do, that will go some way to restoring some of the trust that voters have lost in politicians over the past decades.
And what really needs to happen inside the possible Conservative government is for someone to have responsibility to say ‘no, we said we wouldn’t do that’ or ‘yes we DO have to do that, we said we would’. It wouldn’t be an easy job. It’s ideally what the Prime Minister should do. But, like all politicians, he will be overwhelmed by the need to get legislation through, and by the need to respond to tomorrow’s headlines.
So my question is, how do you institutionalise this contract? How do you make the government (of any colour) as trusted as, say, Google?
I’d say a certain amount would be achieved by more transparency – so publishing options papers, details of discussions held, and what contracts are being issued and to who. A further amount would be achieved by something along the lines of that contract – but shouldn’t that be the manifesto anyway? And more still would be achieved by a government that occasionally said, we don’t have all the answers – what do you think?
That would be a hugely radical step. But David Cameron and team give me a lot of confidence that they at least understand the problem and have started to work towards solutions.
Related posts: