A minority interest

There's one fact about the English council elections that, so far, has not been mentioned - turnout. Taking account of this changes things.
It's likely that roughly three voters in every five stayed at home. To take a few examples, turnout was 46% in Chesterfield, 39.7%  in South Somerset, 36.7% in Norwich, 40.1% in  Telford & Wrekin, 30% in Easington and 36% last year.
This means the Conservatives got the support of just 16% - one in six - of English voters. Labour got the support of just one-in-nine voters.
Of course, turnout is always low in council elections, partly because local government has so little power.
But doesn't it say something about the state of politics that Cameron can describe as "stunning" an election in which five-sixths of people chose to withhold their support from him?
Doesn't this suggest that conventional politics is a minority interest?

Comments

[mat]

Sure, conventional politics is a minority interest. But this makes perfect sense.

People vote when the benefit from getting their choice (b) times the probability that their vote is pivotal (p) is greater than the cost of voting (c). In short: b * p > c. Since the probability that one person's vote is pivotal is tiny, it isn't worthwhile for most people to vote. In fact, in a country like the UK, if people were rational and followed the above criteria, only something like 25 people would turn out on election day.

Also, if you don't know much about what you stand to benefit from each choice, it's obviously better if you stay at home and let more informed people make the choice for you.

So who's to say whether turnout is too low? Maybe it's too high.

[Laban Tall]

One key factor is that "local democracy" isn't very local. As central government provides more than half the funding that local government receives, there's a disconnection between how you vote and what happens to council tax levels. Not only that, but there's a disconnection between how you vote and the policies that are implemented. School governors in Conservative county council areas sit and discuss how to implement Labour's idiotic "Every Child Matters" policies - because he who pays the piper calls the tune.

[pseudoymous.com]

What difference does it make who you vote for in a council election?

Probably hardly any of the people who did vote know who their councilor is or whether thay are doing a good job.

The press regard a council election as a poll on the goverment in Westminster - and who goes out of their way to tell an opinion pollster what they think?

The surprising thing is that anyone bothers to vote at all.

[dsquared]

I mentioned it! It was the central point of my pre-election piece on the Guardian blog!

[Laurent GUERBY]

Latest french election had 85% participation, about 80% of voting age population did cast a vote.

[jameshigham]

...five-sixths of people chose to withhold their support from him...

I hold no candle for Cameron but this logic doesn't seem to wash, Chris. They just decided to stay home and watch the tele, that was all.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Turnout was not mentioned, neither was the share of votes of minor parties (expressed as a %age of those who did vote).

That psychopath N Sarkozy just won in France, it serves them right "Ooh, we've had a centre-right Président for 12 years, that hasn't worked, let's try again"

[mat]

1. Chirac, the former Communist, was not an effective center-right president.

2. Royal was the status quo candidate; only Sarkozy is promising to actually change anything. He is promising to liberalize the French labour market, which reduce France's socially devastating 12% unemployment. If that means turning into an anglo-consumerist culture, it's worth it.

3. Sarkozy isn't a psychopath. He's actually rather inspiring: http://www.sarkozy.fr/video/index.php "Ceux d'entre vous qui voudront avoir des meilleurs salaires en travaillant plus, pourquoi les empecher de le faire?"

4. Well, with the Scottish and French elections now over, I guess I can now turn my attention to the politics on my own doorstep... Ron Paul 2008!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/05/highest_positiv.html

[Bob B]

The election turnout percentages quoted by S&M look something of an improvement on the usual low turnout compared with previous local elections - we really need to see what happened last time round to take an informed perspective.

Local councils have the crucial function of deciding local policy and spending priorities and there are wide differences in their administrative efficiency. The Audit Commission makes regular annual "Comprehensive Performance Assessments" of councils in England - the latest, published last February, is here:
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Products/NATIONAL-REPORT/1ECBC9FA-6F4A-471c-82D2-E087437925CC/CPATheHarderTest2007.pdf

There is certainly a huge difference in the quality of schooling between the best and worst local education authorities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6250433.stm

With the recent news about the increasing numbers of parents opting for private over state education for their children, I'd like to know how it is that three maintained schools in the London borough where I live, including one just down the road, got better A-level results last summer than Eton:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6250419.stm

[Mark Wadsworth]

S&M, good article by the way. Have you tracked down where it says what the smaller parties' share of the vote was in the constituencies where they stood?

Mat - if only Sarkozy were a neo-liberal, he's not, he's a protectionist nationalist who is going to bluster and waffle and not achieve much. At least under Sego, we'd know why things went wrong, under Sarko, there will be arguments for ever more - did he fail because he went too far or because he didn;t go far enough.

[Sam]

Don't know about A-levels, but our local public schools always used to point out that the GCSE league tables under-ranked them, because the tables were based on GCSE score per pupil aged 16, and the public schools had a significant number of bright pupils who were a year ahead, so didn't figure in the GCSE rankings when they sat their exams (too young) and scored no points the year later (in the middle of their A-level studies).

[Gregg]

If Sarkozy is the French Thatcher, and France is about to go through what we did in the 1980s, it'll raise some important questions for British politics. Like, what do we do with all the jobless French workers who'll come over here, as unemployment there triples and benefits are slashed to the bone over the next few years? Will we benefit when their trains become as bad as ours? And how will our politicians cope with being ridiculed in the French tabloids?

[Alex]

France did go through what we did in the 1980s. In the 1980s. They actually did something far more like Michael Heseltine's vision of following up the shake-out with heavy investment in industry.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Gregg, the French are welcome to come to the UK and drive up standards in catering.

We've coped perfectly well with 100,000s of young French people working over here because they simply can't get jobs at present; if Sarko were brave enough (which he won't be) to repeal those laws that discourage French employers from taking on young people, perhaps they'd all go back?

[dave heasman]

"I'd like to know how it is that three maintained schools in the London borough where I live, including one just down the road, got better A-level results last summer than Eton"

Because they didn't have to admit idiots like Harry "Wales"?