Predictions, polling and coalitions. Thought of the day.
Posted on Monday, April 11, 2011 at 4:52pm
no responses
For those who know me, the description cautious would not necessarily come to mind in my attitude towards political campaigning, but when it comes to predictions and opinion polls for elections, this is an area that I differ from others in obsessing about who will win what, and what the odds are on different candidates.
Its not to say that I’m any less of a political anorak than some of those political analysts out there, its just that I sincerely believe that its best that we focus on fighting the election in hand without the distraction of what may or may not be the end result. Its a bit like when you are in school and you compare your work to the person sitting next to you all the time, constantly stressing that you are not good enough, or won’t succeed. If we spend too much time on opinion polls then we will do little else, and will suffer post election by being accused of either down playing results or over egging what was possible in the first instance.
Yes, I agree that some politicians on election programmes bat off any discussion on predictions because their own party may be faltering in the polls, but surely the media must be responsible for over obsessing about such matters to the detriment of introducing discussion on issues of policy direction, and what varying candidates have to offer for their communities?
The same must be said about the discussion that is inevitably happening about potential post May coalitions between political parties. Cue Peter Hain scaremongering as he did in 2007 about the Tory bogeyman, and the far fetched concept of a ‘Tory led’ coalition in Wales. But so what? What’s important is that every party fights the election to win, based on their own manifesto ideas. Not one political party took the option to outline what their ‘red lines’ would be prior to the election with regards to areas of no compromise in forming a coalition, and nobody took the decision to list areas of priority to facilitate working with certain political parties post May.
If it had been different, and parties had outlined upfront who they would or would not work with after May the 5th, then I could see a strong argument for discussing possible coalition make-up at this juncture. I know that coalitions under our electoral system are a more realistic outcome, but until we have a grown up debate about potential coalitions prior to elections, I won’t be engaging in any gossip or tittle tattle by individuals who purposefully scaremonger so as to undermine political opponents as opposed to offering tangible and sensible suggestions for coalition working.
To put it simply, if we discussed coalitions in a way that would assist the electoral process, and enhanced the understanding of those voting in the elections, then I would support that. Sadly as it stands, I don’t believe that the climate exists for such discussion. Perhaps this will change in years to come when coalitions are much more commonplace, and where working with other parties is not as uncommon.
This does not mean for now that any party is disingenuous in the decision not to rule anything in or out, it just means that parties are fighting elections to win, and will rightly open up discussions, should they need to be, post election when the reality of co-working kicks in, and the reality or running a government pushes aside election spin and hyperbole.
