This is, according to some, the result of the UK media being slow to see the benefits, both for democracy and for commercial broadcasters advertising revenues, of live televised debates. These prime-time televised debates, they argue, would give modern UK politics the kind of exposure it has been lacking with the "couldn't care less" X-Factor watching audiences of which hardly any are voting.
It is, certainly, a tragedy that people aren't taking an active part in politics anymore, but hardly surprising. Even the most dedicated follower of UK politics must get tired of the endless sleaze and spin seen by all sides of the house of commons, now imagine trying to sell that to someone who had no interest anyway.
In my opinion these people have no interest because they've been having it so good under a government which is happy to have a full-time unemployed demographic on benefits (it's not wrong, it's just one way of doing things).
Voting for the Conservatives would likely give that demographic something to get involved about as their quality of life would go down, either forcing them back to work (and becoming a taxpayer) or compelling them to fight for the kind of benefits they've been receiving under Labour (by, heaven forbid, voting).
Which poses a couple of pretty serious questions... With it's generous (and widely regarded as excessive) benefits scheme seen over the last 13 years, has Labour intentionally or unintentionally bought insurance against a Conservative victory? And how much will the Conservatives benefit long term by opening up to the Saturday-night prime-time, assuming that traditional class-party relationships are still relevant?
Has this country's right leaning press done enough to convince the non-voting layman to vote Conservative and how long will that last?
No comments:
Post a Comment