By: Harold Beck

Harold Beck — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:40:13 +0000

Headline above a report in The Times of a survey carried out on its behalf - “Party written off by electorate”. It conveys a “them” and “them” picture, as though the media has nothing to do with it.
A recent example shows that managing editors are certainly not chastising their staff sufficiently, if at all, and provides a good illustration that alternative sources of information are available.
In the House of Commons on 9th July the Secretary for Communities & Local Government introduced a white paper entitled “Communities in control”. The following day this was reported in The Times under the headline “Voters to get iPod ‘bribe’ to beat local poll apathy”. Headline writers have as much to answer for as contributing journalists.
The Times report started off with:-
People are to be bribed to vote in local elections by being entered for a “prize draw” if they turn up at the polling station, ministers announced yesterday.
After a series of dismal turnouts in recent elections people will be able to win televisions, iPods or supermarket vouchers once they fill in their ballot papers. The proposal is similar to schemes in America, where voters are rewarded with doughnuts and chicken dinners if they cast their ballot.
Material available on the internet gives a very different picture.
Hansard records the Minister as saying “We will allow councils to provide incentives to encourage more people to vote, perhaps entering voters in a prize draw”.
The only other references in Hansard to the incentive proposal are comments from two M.P.s, one of whom falsely said that “Rt. Hon. Lady has said to encourage people to vote their names will be entered in a prize draw” and the other that “the next proposal will be to give air miles for voting”.
In the White Paper, Item 28 of the Executive Summary states “We will give councils the power to provide modest incentives for voting – perhaps an entry into a prize draw – as a way of engaging people.” and 4.23 explains that “Voting incentives should not be construed as ‘paying for votes’ or create a major new financial burden on councils. Instead, they should be viewed as an eyecatching method to increase awareness and engagement, especially with young people who have never voted and who might view the process with suspicion”.
How on earth did a proposal to enable each local council to decide whether or not it will provide incentives and if so in what modest form get to “Voters to get iPod bribe” and “people are to be bribed”?. Why was there no reference to the association of the proposal with young voters? How did the proposal become coupled to claims about practices in the USA?
I shall not be cancelling my Times order in favour of the internet just yet for on the same page there was a commentary on the White Paper in which the proposal that power be given to local councils to provide incentives was briefly and accurately described.
The journalist writing the more considered article also included his opinion that it was a plain daft proposal. I have no problem with that but as a former councillor (mostly Independent) I would like to hear the arguments for and against in a local setting, which would no doubt include much correspondence by the electorate in the local newspapers.
Harold Beck

Comments on: Food for thought

By: Harold Beck