What price apathy ?

There has been much discussion and dismay over the low turnouts at the recent UK elections. Much of this has centred on a belief in a 'crisis of democracy', suggesting that it represnts an alarming degree of ignorance, as well as disillusionment among voters. I'd like to offer an alternative perspective. I'd like to suggest that the electorate has, in fact, acted with great intelligence.

Obviously ignorance, apathy and alienation have played a part, but the low turnout may well be a logical reaction to the reality that local government and politics are irrelevant. Local government has very little freedom of action, possibly as little as 10% of its activities are determined by the policies of elected councillors. The rest lies in the hands of central government or local permanent officials. Why should we bother to vote for candidates who will have virtually no power. At the risk of opening up old wounds, Margaret Thatcher was quite right in claiming that the problem of local government is its lack of accountability. Of course her solution - the poll tax - was a disaster, but she underatood the nature of the malaise.

The stay-away voters perhaps understand the futility of voting - they are not even holding local councillors to account by voting them in or out of office because the results of local elections are universally seen as a verdict on central politicians. Why bother, therefore, if those politicians ignore such voting ?

The Liberal Democrat leadership was right when they apologised to the hard working councillors who had lost their seats as a result of ther poor performance of the coalition. How frustrating an experience it must be to work your socks off to improve the state of local communities, only to be thrown on the political rubbish heap because their political masters are so inept.

More to come in some, hopefully thoughtful, pieces on the real crisis and its causes