I’m afraid I missed out on this year’s ‘Portillo moment’. (In May 1997, Conservative MP Michael Portillo tried to hide his shock at losing his seat to Labour’s Stephen Twigg, and almost succeeded.) I would have loved to have seen the look on Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face but perhaps he decided to take a nap instead, as he famously did in the houses of parliament, and was snapped lounging on the seats, inspiring dozens of memes.
Will Labour’s success make much difference to the average person? I know a few PN readers will take the attitude ‘whoever you vote for, the government gets in’ and ‘why vote, it only encourages them’.
However, I come from a family which insisted on the right to vote, and the duty to vote, pointing out that people suffered and even died to achieve universal suffrage, and in some countries some people still don’t get that right. For example, in Guatemala, the armed forces and police cannot vote (and are confined to barracks on polling day).
Women generally appear to have the right to vote, in principle, in every country where men have that right – apart from the Vatican City where only cardinals can vote.
But in some Gulf states women can only vote in local elections.
In many countries, it is difficult for women to vote for cultural reasons. If the polling station is a long walk away, and women have family responsibilities, it may be nigh on impossible.
Meanwhile, some countries insist women are basically children who need a guardian to approve every move outside of the home.
In other countries, people who have served jail time are banned from voting, permanently – looking at you, USA.
In the UK, compulsory ID at the polling station can make some from marginalised communities less likely to be able to vote. Some might think this is a deliberate intention.
Like it or not, the right to vote is fundamental.
It is enshrined in law: Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ECHR is separate from the European Union, so we still have ECHR rights after Brexit. I do wonder if the clamour from some politicians to withdraw from the ECHR is another ploy to restrict our rights.
So, to come back the UK general election 2024: after the last 14 years of Conservative government, including the last four years of lockdown-busting shenanigans and a PM who couldn’t outlive a lettuce, we have a Labour government which at first glance appears, to this writer at least, to be not so very different to the last lot.
Maybe what they say before they get in is tempered somewhat so as to not scare off the more conservative voters? Or maybe they’re going to be ‘same meat, different gravy’?
Maybe, at the end of the day, it’s not actually the politicians in charge but the three major newspaper owners?
One thing I am convinced on, is that governments do need to have some mandate from the public. Sadly, the recent UK election had a turnout of around 60 percent. Labour’s share of the vote stands at just 34 percent.
Our democratic system seems to encourage low turnout and results in a government with minority appeal. As a nation, we turned down the idea of a fairer voting system.
If the UK used the Additional Member system of proportional representation, used for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments, Reform would have won 94 seats across the country and the Greens 42, according to the Electoral Reform Society.
The thought of 94 Reform MPs might make one nauseous, but I doubt that they’d be able to rustle up 94 competent candidates. 42 Green MPs sounds ace, though.
As it is, the four Green MPs who have just been elected might be able to press the Labour government to adopt some ‘radical’ ideas, like dropping the two-child limit for universal credit.
As my nana used to say: ‘If you don’t vote, the Tories get in.’ And that, dear reader, would be the worst of all worlds. At least by a slim factor.
Claire Poyner is the co-ordinator of the Network for Peace.