Do we vote for a party or a person?
With the general election right around the corner we have seen the party leaders in the news more and more. Since January they're presence in our day-to-day lives has increased as they have taken as many opportunities as possible to get out and meet people in an effort to sway voters in their favour on May 7th.
However, when you look at the coverage of these events on the news, one thing stands out – It's all about the party leader, and not necessarily the politics. There is of course an inclusion of whatever policy is the meaning of that particular visit but there is definitely a heavy focus on the person and not the policy.
It's the same thing between the party leaders and the parties they represent. There's too much of a focus on the man (and woman) and it just doesn't seem to make sense. There are different ways of deciding how to vote and who to vote for, you would hope that no-one would decided based solely on the leaders and who they like. Having said this there is en emphasis on who would you like to see in Number 10, and it's not always which party.
The televised debate between all seven prime ministerial candidates highlighted this really well. The debates have always tended to turn into an all out catfight between the politicians and this was no different. Those who came out best were undoubtedly the women, particularly the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon. The day after the mass debate Sturgeon was one of the two leaders that had received a noticeable bump in the polls; the other being Nigel Farage of UKIP. David Cameron did come out on top as the person, and both of these points illustrate how much the leader makes a difference. They should too, because they are important, it just feels like too much emphasis is placed on them.
Despite Cameron's consistent position on top of everyone else, it was the SNP that trumped all the competition coming out of the big debate with 28% according to YouGov with UKIP following on 20%. These results would have been almost entirely determined because of the leaders performance the night before.
The media doesn't help by framing the news. This happens with every story we see on the news so it's really no different, but it draws focus onto the leaders. We are constantly bombarded by news of Cameron and Miliband criticising each other and retorting to one another. In a restaurant these two would be the main meal with Clegg acting as the breadbasket or side dish and the others as optional additions.
The only way around this, as we can't guarantee people will vote based on their opinion of party policies, would be to get rid of the leaders altogether. Instead we replace them with manifestos that represent everything the party would wish to achieve should they get into Number 10. However, the difficulty with this concept is that we would eventually need a singular leader to arrive in order to create a hierarchy within the winning party and prevent chaos from ensuing. What this idea would achieve though is a removal of the focus on leaders as the representative for their party, who would then have to rely on their ideas to get them into power. That seems a much better way of electing a party.
The underlying polices do of course matter and are ultimately what will decide who people should vote for those who aren't partisan to one party or already have their minds made up. However, it is hard to see that sometimes because the leaders take so much time and attention. If you ask Joe public who is in each party, with the exception of the party leader and a few obvious figures you'd probably find that few people really know the party. That's just what's wrong with the way things are.
Share This Article
