Voter apathy: Was the general election a turn off ?

A record low number of viewers tuned into television coverage of this year's general election campaign, according to the Independent Television Commission (ITC).

Of 3,000 voters surveyed 70 percent said they had little or no interest in the coverage, compared with 56 percent in the 1997 election.

Turnout in the June election dropped to its lowest since 1918, with fewer than 60 percent of the electorate voting.

The Electoral Commission announced a range of proposed measures to counteract voter apathy including voting over the internet or by phone, polling over several days and increased funding.

What measures should be taken to create interest among an increasingly apathetic electorate? Why was voter turnout so low? Would you like to see changes in the format of election coverage?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

What no politician dare admit is that the domination of public affairs by "mass" parties which have dwindled to a few thousand active members is hopelessly out of date. These cumbrous Victorian inventions survive on the donations of rich men and the taxes of those who don't support them. Parties no longer speak to the finely discriminated and variegated concerns of individuals. Each is obliged by the rules of the adversarial game to pretend that it has a monopoly of wisdom and virtue while the other parties are all fools and knaves. Real people despise such childishness, and the Punch-and-Judy coverage which it produces on TV.

We all have too large a stake in national prosperity to overthrow the system, so the need for parties to divert the energies of the enfranchised proletariat into Parliamentary activity is obsolete. Portents such as Ken Livingstone's mayoral victory and the crushing win by a single-issue independent at Kidderminster in the last general election show that broadcasters must have the guts to defy their Westminster paymasters and regulators. TV must devise a style of political presentation which grows upward from the voters who pay their wages, not downward from the Westminster clique.
WJ Phillips, UK

Neil, Matt, Tim etc. I am disappointed. Living free from torture by your rulers does not automatically mean that you have democracy - it's a human right whatever that is. Your right to criticise your government is born from paying tax (income, local, consumption), not from having voted last time. I guess I must be stupid since I have trouble seeing the differences between Tory/New Labour, Haig/IDS - they all feel the need to lord it over a population of 60m+ people which suggests a serious personal imbalance and they all tell lies for a living. And corporate culture reigns supreme not because the people let it (though many are guilty) but because successive UK governments have sold off state (your) assets in corporate form. The decision makers of today are shareholders and CEOs. i.e. the un-elected rich.
LM, UK

Get rid of the spin-doctors and start some honest debates about some real issues with real people taking part

Thom Leggett, UK

The people on this board who slate those of us who didn't vote as lazy couch potatoes who couldn't be bothered to think about the issues really make me angry. They miss the point that politics and politicians are meant to deal with issues that affect the people in a way that the people can interact with. The politicians are no longer ruled by the people (or the people by the politicians) but rather both are willing slaves to the media, and there lies the problem - how can the media, with its own political agenda, accurately debate the issues that matter? They can't. Instead we get mangled sound-bites and broken promises. Solution: get rid of the spin-doctors and start some honest debates about some real issues with real people taking part.
Thom Leggett, UK

Judging by most of the comments on this forum, one would imagine that no one in the country voted Labour. The most important fact is that Labour won again by a landslide. That's why turnout was low, everybody knew it was going to happen. And I have to say that it seems many of your "voter-apathetic" correspondents find it easier to write messages on the Internet than they do to get out and change something at the polls. If I had a pound for every time I've read "I didn't vote because they're all the same.....they don't listen to us.....nothing ever changes...blah blah blah". Piece of advice: if you want change you've got to stop whingeing, get off your behinds, and do something.
Andy H, UK

There is so much apathy shown during elections these days because the average person does not see much difference between Labour's and the Conservative's manifestos. There is very little on offer to stimulate the man-in-the-street into voting. Britain has not had many good politicians since the early days of Margaret Thatcher. I ask you, who in their right minds would vote for someone like Portillo or Cook? It's not the election coverage format that should change it's the politicians who should go.
Phil T, Oman

In answer to Tim U.K. My mother voted for the Labour Party in every election since she reached voting age. She did not vote in the last election as she did not consider Tony Blair worthy. When one reaches the grand old age of 90 and makes an educated decision about not voting it says something about the Party not about the voter. My mother is not lazy and never has been. Can you figure out how many times she voted over her 90 years? Better still can you understand why she didn't vote in probably the last election of her life?
Marg, Canada

The media talk of "creating interest" and of apathy amongst voters, yet seem to fail to accept that the electorate have shown their deep mistrust of all politicians. The previous Tory government was laden with sleaze, New Labour have shown themselves to be, at best, as bad. Voters will not vote for people that seem to have more interest in lining their own pockets than fairly representing their electorate. Of the 41% of people who did not vote - maybe 41% were saying that they had no confidence in any of the "options" they were presented with at election time? It's time that we had a "no confidence in any of the above" box on the ballot papers, then we could see whether it is apathy, lack of interest - or lack of trust!
Graham, UK

I voted Monster Raving Loony Party. It seemed to make sense in the absence of a 'None of the above' box on the ballot paper. So, aside from a new box on the ballot paper, perhaps it should be compulsory to vote. Then again, I don't think the politicians would like that too much. Democracy seems to become more irrelevant at each general election. But, wouldn't it be fun if 'None of the above' actually won a seat somewhere?
John Bennett, Berkshire, UK

Rebuttal to Tim about 40% needing to grow up: Have you made a careful analysis as to how one can influence political opinion in ways other than voting at General Elections? Well, I have, and I came to the conclusion that the BBC website, writing to newspapers, talking to my relatives' children and acting out my life consistent with my principles is NOT apathetic, it being far more effective than voting in General Elections. What IS, however, apathetic, is believing that 1 vote every 5 years in a safe seat is anything more than being an Orwellian sheep. Grow up yourself!
Rhys Jaggar, England

The reason that the vote in 2001 was so low was not contentment but disillusionment with politicians and New Labour in particular. The electorate is slowly realising that politicians are more interested in promoting their own careers than serving the public. Anyone who thinks this is not the case and has a back-bench Labour MP - ask them to fight their own Ministers on your behalf and see what happens! The other reason for low turnout is that all the big western political parties are converging around a centre right position with no real ideological alternative to managing capitalism and facilitating the progress of big international corporations. And interestingly, we have heard very little analysis of who didn't vote and why. I am sure the Government knows why but it isn't telling us. But ultimately, it doesn't matter to the politicians how many vote as long as they get a majority.
John Slater, UK

Since the age of 18 I have avoided voting in general as well as local elections, due to my belief that there is no party that supports my views. However, at the last general election, I decided I would vote for the first time (I'm now 30). During the so-called "campaigns" by all the parties, not once did I receive a manifesto/pamphlet through my door. How am I supposed to vote when no information is provided? Is this intentional?
Iain, UK

No point voting if, as now, policy is announced during the party conference instead of in parliamentary session where full and proper debate can be done.
Robert, U.K.

In days of yore the Returning Officer would give not only the counted votes for each of the individual contestants but also the sum total of all the "spoiled votes", e.g. spoiled votes 20,000. This indicated that people wanted to vote but not for those particular candidates. I believe the practice became frowned upon as it showed just how little the local electorate thought about all of their prospective MPs.
R Harman, England

Apathy? No, Antipathy would be a better word. I didn't vote because, like many others, no one stood who I could count on to represent my views. There's also the FACT that there is no difference between the two main parties on issues of major importance e.g. GM crops; road-building (we don't need any more - use the water and rail systems to their full potential first) to name but two.

When the politicians actually do what they are supposedly elected to do (represent OUR views) without being influenced by loads of money from this company or that organisation, then I might consider voting again - until then, forget it! (And as to the media - that's another can of worms!)
Paul, England

Until an elected party actually carries out what its manifesto says, why should the public bother voting?

Sandra, UK

When any party gets a leader that the public can believe in, and pledges and carries out plans to run the country for the silent majority - not the minority that gets listened to far too much - then people may actually start caring. The way it is broadcast makes no difference. We all know that every party's manifesto is a fairytale, and until an elected party actually carries out what its manifesto says, why should the public bother voting?
Sandra, UK

I lost interest in the TV coverage because it just couldn't compete with the euphoria of the 1997 Election when one self-satisfied Tory after another lost their seats. Sadly New Labour has been a great disappointment and for the first time ever I didn't vote Labour. But I certainly didn't fool myself that not to vote was a sign of my disillusionment and used my vote to choose a fringe candidate - the only true protest. Had everyone done that it would really have given Blair something to worry about.
Gill, UK

I did not vote in the last election. I found the whole thing to be a non-event. The politicians and the majority of the pubic obviously do not have the same priorities. I would suggest that if the government is in any doubt on subjects such as immigration, the age of consent for gays, single parents, law and order, identity cards and so on then the answer is simple: hold referendums. Let the people vote - then they can blame us when something is disliked by a minority instead of the usual cow-towing. The trouble in this country is that the law-abiding majority fume quietly at the total lack of control. Give us a Prime Minister with the guts to stand up and say enough is enough. Then you'll get the people to vote.
Kay, UK

There is no choice because neither the voting system nor media coverage is proportional. If you can't reach the people though the media then how can you reach them? Public meetings? If you can't get people to turn up for five minutes to vote, you're hardly likely to get them to come to a serious debate. The main parties have it all tied up. They have all the resources and all the contacts and they are not going to change the system to let that advantage slip. That is why there is apathy.
Clive, UK

I have always voted in elections because I like to make some difference not because of a duty to get out and do it. However, I don't think I'll vote anymore primarily because of the way this government has taken forward all the privatisation legislation that the Tories peddled and added more for good measure. Yet when Labour were in opposition they voted against every single privatisation proposal. Those who complain about voter laziness probably like the fact that Labour are now the establishment's puppet and not harming their own self interests. See: Old Labour philosophies.
Andrew, UK

We want honesty, not spin and half-truths

Jo, UK

Politics: boring, boring, boring. None of our politicians tell the truth or have Britain's interests at heart (just their own). They won't answer any straightforward questions with straightforward answers that reflect what they REALLY believe in. Any politician who truly speaks his/her mind and dares to go against the party line is instantly vilified and disowned by the spin doctors. I would even vote for a politician who had the courage of his convictions even if I didn't personally agree with them. We want honesty, not spin and half-truths. Maybe then we would vote.
Jo, UK

Voting in an election is like visiting the dentist - necessary but we don't have to enjoy it!
Ian Marlow, England

Like many others, I voted for the "least worst" party on the basis that democracy comes along once every five years. I long for the day when a government is OBLIGED to put major constitutional issues to the popular vote, which will be easy with the penetration of electronic voting. Even public polling booths could easily be provided with the required connectivity. Results would be immediate, transparent and binding.
John Atkins, England

The best way to raise the voting numbers is to introduce proportional representation. That way every vote counts and the Parliament that gets elected more accurately reflects the feelings of the whole population. It is generally poo-pooed by the two main parties as it would remove forever the ridiculous majorities they enjoy under the current non-democratic voting system.
Shaun, Teignmouth UK

The problem is that only a minute proportion of constituencies are anything approaching marginal. There are many seats that will always be Labour and quite a few (less now) that will always be Tory. Therefore, winning over a ridiculously low number of 'marginal' seats gives you a thumpingly disproportionate majority in the Commons. How Blair can claim that he has a 'popular' mandate when 75% of the population voted for someone else or disliked the political system enough to not bother voting is beyond me!
Ben, UK

Let's have some revolutionary fire again

George, UK

The trend of all politicians to look the same and sound the same has created voter apathy. Let's have some revolutionary fire again, or someone you can really despise like Thatcher. There was never much apathy when you had someone like that to vote against.
George, UK

People are not voting because we are at the end of a century-long process of social change which has produced a very wide consensus. One hundred years ago the policy differences between conservatives and radicals were stark, but a hundred years of social progress has left the parties with very little to argue about. We've discovered that socialism doesn't work, that free markets do work, and that social services, which includes universal education, are necessary and worth- while. All of these issues, which seem so obvious today, were the topics of fierce controversy for much of the twentieth century.

The bottom line is that people don't vote because the parties are reduced to arguing over tiny details compared to the vast social and economic changes of the century past, and people who get excited over tiny details end up looking a bit silly and pedantic. The only people who can get excited about politics today are the sort of people who go out train spotting and get excited about one sort of engine or another.
Jon Livesey, USA

The knockabout antics of MPs in Parliament on the radio and TV puts people off. Why vote for a bunch of juveniles? Parliament used to blame voter apathy on local authorities and invented all sorts of ways to increase turn out. Now Parliamentary elections are going the same way who will they blame now? When will they realise that their own petty squabbling and confrontation in Parliament and the inability to answer questions when interviewed as well as the perception that the two main parties are barely distinguishable are the real causes?
Paul Thompson, UK

Live TV debates between leading figures in each of the main parties would surely liven up election coverage, and the campaign itself. Such debates, free from party spin and manipulation, would provide more of the "Sharon Storrer" element - the general public putting the politicians on the spot. My preference would be for a series of party leader debates - three maybe, shared between the major terrestrial channels - plus supplementary debates involving the parties' candidates for Chancellor, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary.
Jim Washer, UK

The general election wasn't a turn off, Mr Blair and his cronies were.
Steve McCoull, UK

Anyone who didn't vote is a lazy, irresponsible citizen of this subject. Of course they would disagree saying; 1.) All politicians and parties are the same - Er, no! Anyone with any intelligence can spot wide differences between the parties. 2.) Things never change - People who think this must go around with their eyes closed - Politicians are cynical, liars blah blah blah - Well if these moaners could do any better, why don't they come forward. We get the politicians we deserve.

Quite frankly I am fed up with this apathetic brigade. They are smug, annoying and aloof and the type of people who thinks it's clever to go on to Question Time and throw incoherent, mindless and inaccurate abuse at the panel. Grow up 40% of you!
Tim, UK

The low turn out is the result of two things. 1. Relative contentment. 2. No real opposition. As the Conservatives seem to have decided not to seriously compete in the next election we will have more of the same. Nothing will change unless things go badly wrong for the Government, the Conservatives decide to rejoin the real world, or the Liberals become the main opposition.
Alan, UK

Just get a box marked "none of the above" on the ballot paper and watch my apathetic behind shoot off that couch
Jimmy, UK

How many of us live in a marginal seat? Very few. How many of us believed for one second that Tony Blair wouldn't have won by 2am? Almost none. How many of us believed that a single real issue of any substance was the subject of an adult, informed debate? Not too many.

And how many of us were allowed to register our apathy, disdain and disillusionment on the ballot paper? Absolutely none. So why should we waste a fine Thursday rubberstamping a group who we'd like to see reformed on our terms, not theirs?
Rhys Jaggar, England

When the politicians of the UK actually start to listen to the voters people might just take an interest. As it happens they do their own thing, cover their ears, and blatantly ignore the wishes of the electorate. From my own point of view, when a government who REALLY gets tough on crime actually has the nerve to do it, I'll give them my vote. Drug dealers for example. Push drugs abroad and you will go to some evil jail with appalling conditions. Here we give them colour TV's and watch over all their human rights!
Keith Simpson, UK

As some replies point out, the regime here could be worse. But my apathy is nevertheless down to feeling that no UK politician represents or listens to what I want. How many people want GM crops? Or to join an American "war against terrorism"? When they start asking the populace first, and only then acting, I'll take an interest.
Ray, UK

I think Britain should adopt the Australian way of fining people who don't vote and don't have a valid reason (ill on the day is an excuse, but not I couldn't be bothered isn't one) about £20. This will make the turnout 85%.+
Helen, UK

I was going to write a comment on the issue of apathy, but I really couldn't be bothered...
Wesley, UK

You pass up the freedom to vote as if it's like choosing Coke over Pepsi

Matt, UK

I wonder how many of all those who complain about the structure of democracy and say there's no one who represents what they want - so they are choosing not to participate realise how they've let the corporate culture win. You've listened so long to adverts and consumerist speak about the culture of choice that you pass up the freedom to vote as if it's like choosing Coke over Pepsi. So? Well you just let someone else (but not everyone else) decide ahead of you.
Matt, UK

I voted, but only because I wanted to register my total apathy for the two main parties, and my opposition of the Lib Dems. I voted for the party least likely to win (excluding racist parties) just to make a point. Once I had voted, I returned home and watched videos. I didn't care about the result, since it was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Even if the competition was closer, the phrase 'between a rock and a hard place' came to mind. I shall vote again at the next election, but am likely to do the same thing again.
Kevin Graves, UK

It's not the coverage that's turning people off -it's the endless cycle of broken promises, the inability or unwillingness to deal with any thorny issue and the fact that our politicians are more concerned with presentation and spin than with anything that actually matters.
Simon Morgan, East Grinstead, England

The Suffragettes fought for the right to vote, not the obligation

DF, UK

I voted with my feet. I've heard the argument that as a woman I have a moral obligation to vote, as women had to fight for it. I believe the Suffragettes fought for the right to vote, not the obligation. So, if there is no party that I think deserves my vote, I won't vote. And I still have the right to criticise those in power, just as a Labour voter has the right to criticise Tony Blair!
DF, UK

The reason for 'voter apathy' is that there are some people in this country that feel we have no say in the decisions made for us in our name. We need to decentralise the process of political decision and create a responsible, technologically advanced political system that would hand the control back to the people and reflect the true will of the country. This is the age of communication, we have at our fingertips the technology to create a state of pure democracy.
James, Wales

There are a hell of a lot of complacent and intellectually lazy people in this country

Neil Halliday, UK

I'm a little puzzled by those who keep proclaiming that we don't live in a real democracy. Having seen so much of the Middle East in the news over the last few weeks, where you can be nailed up by yours thumbs for dissent in certain areas, it's pretty obvious that there are a hell of a lot of complacent and intellectually lazy people in this country who have nothing better to do than whinge. 'Nothing changes', 'they're all the same' etc. For god's sake, grow up. If you couldn't see the difference between Labour and William Hague's Conservatives at the last election then you must be blind, and if you can't tell the difference now Ian Duncan Smith is leading the Tories then you must be stupid. If you don't vote you have absolutely no right to complain about anything the government does.
Neil Halliday, UK

The best way for the Electoral Commission to improve voter turnout would be to include a "None of the above" option on the ballot.
Pete, UK

Pete was absolutely right with his idea of a 'none of the above' choice on the ballot. I voted for what I considered the 'least worst' party. Most people think of politicians as lying, self-serving hypocrites. Do you really think there would be much difference if the Tories got in last time? I think not.
Shane Larkin, England

Political spin has killed politics. Sadly, it's a natural progression of democracy because politicians are so desperate to get votes they will say anything. Add to this a tabloid media so desperate to sell newspapers they'll say anything (and usually with their own political agendas too), then it's no wonder we get a distorted view. Given that political policy of the last 20 years has been entirely economics-driven, where the only 'right way' is the way that produces the most money, what exactly is there to talk (or vote) about any more?! Hopefully our current apathy may lead to a more honest political future - and one where social policies are as important as the economic ones.
Richard, UK

I'm not going to get out of my chair to go to a polling station (or in my case the post box) to vote for someone I don't want.

Alex Banks, UK, living in Ireland

I completely disagree with Simon Feegrade. I didn't vote not because I was too busy (I was abroad at the time yet could have voted by proxy), rather that there was no real choice. I didn't want any of the three main parties. I'm not going to get out of my chair to go to a polling station (or in my case the post box) to vote for someone I don't want. It would appear that millions also had the same view, that's why the voting figures were so low.
Alex Banks, UK, living in Ireland

I went out canvassing all the way through the election and on the day. The real problem was that people knew the result! Tory supporters were friendly and defeatist. Labour supporters were friendly but couldn't motivate themselves to vote. If it had been closer in the polls then we might have had a higher turnout.
George, Slough, UK

Obviously the apathy can be attributed to a lack of a credible opposition party with a real chance of winning the election. Any other explanation is self-serving nonsense from Tory voters and Socialists amongst others who rightly believed that no party represented their views. They wring their hands over apparent apathy and suggest that we are seeing the death of democracy. We're just seeing the death of 'Toryism', slow and painful as it is.
Randy, UK

Guy Hammond, if what you say is true (Brussels governing Britain), why is it that parties who propose for the UK to leave Europe (BNP, UKIP) or parties who advocate redefining and restricting UK ties with Europe (the Conservatives) did not win handsomely the elections?
Pascal Jacquemain, UK (French)

It's not a matter of voter apathy; it's a matter of voter contempt for politicians, and the realization that no matter who is elected, Britain is governed from Brussels. The only way to get people to vote is to convince the electorate that voting actually matters. Sadly, it's mattering less and less every time.
Guy Hammond, England

There is no point whinging about the system if you're too lazy or stupid to stand up and have your say.

Simon Feegrade, England

I totally agree with John, UK. "Apathy" = "can't be bothered to think about the issues." Don't kid yourself it's due to "disillusionment" or "contempt".

We've lost the ability to make reasoned judgements about genuinely important things, our heads are stuffed full of celebrity trivia, and we are so intent on perpetuating the myth that we're all "SO busy", and the result is we can't be bothered to consider where to put a pencil X on a bit of paper, or even to go down the road to do it.

There is no point whinging about the system if you're too lazy or stupid to stand up and have your say.
Simon Feegrade, England

Voter "apathy" really means voter laziness. If you don't vote, you forfeit the right to criticise your elected politicians and government. If you don't like any of the major parties, vote for someone else. There's the BNP, the UK Independence Party, the Greens, the Socialist Alliance, the British Communist Party, etc..... If you think we're governed from Brussels, vote in the European Elections for a party who seek decentralisation. If you STILL can't find a party worthy of your vote, form a new party and convince us to vote for you. That's what democracy is all about!
John, UK

I'm only surprised the turnout was as high as it was. How many of us voted to get involved in the "war against terrorism"

Eileen, UK

Democracy? What democracy? The chance to vote every five years for the least worst option which will then proceed to do exactly what it wants until election time comes round again and another pack of lies called a manifesto is published. I'm only surprised the turnout was as high as it was. How many of us voted to get involved in the "war against terrorism"? Looks like we are going to be, though nobody asked our opinions.
Eileen, UK

The problem with the last general election was that nothing of substance was debated, many MPs were kept out of the way by the party spin-doctors, and the whole thing was reduced to four weeks of sound bites and carefully stage-managed events. At a general election we want all MPs to be brave enough to stand up and give an account of themselves. The only time things got interesting was when things got out of control and MPs accidentally came face to face with the electorate.
Colin Mackay, UK

I got thoroughly bored by the coverage. Night after night we got groomed-for-the-media greasy politicians with their television smiles and polished teeth, trying to bribe us into voting for them by promising us the earth, the heavens and the life hereafter. If the election broadcasts had been an edition of Soap Stars, not one of them would have got my vote (and in fact, none of them did). It would help enormously if they just realised that we want hard facts about the their manifestos and future policies, not personalities vying with each other on the screen. And I still want to know the real truth about what happened to Humphrey The Cat!
Kate, UK

People didn't vote because they finally realised that we do not live in a democracy

LM, UK

People didn't vote because they finally realised that we do not live in a democracy. HM Government, HM Treasury, HM Armed Forces, HM Inspector of Taxes etc. The UK is owned by the House of Windsor, and the "non-Royal" population are mere subjects. If the monarchy has no real power, then get rid of them immediately and let them earn their keep like the rest of us.

These isles have enough heritage without the need for royal pomp and ceremony and it is a complete myth that they bring in more money than they receive. Being Royal simply means that your ancestors enslaved and stole from occupying people to satisfy their incredible greed. Until the constitution is overhauled and we rid ourselves of our "masters", nothing will really change.

And worse still are the grovelling politicians. When this society does finally change for the better, it will be the action of the general population, not the lords and ministers who make the improvement.
LM, UK

Given the choices of parties, politics and politicians available I think the turnout was quite amazing.

Martin, England

Given the choices of parties, politics and politicians available I think the turnout was quite amazing.
Martin, England

"Voter apathy" isn't anything to do with the format of election coverage. It indicates a serious disillusionment with the quality and content of politics, and the underlying belief that it doesn't matter which way you vote (or if at all) because all you get is a shower of sleazy dishonest career-orientated self-serving individuals who are in the pay of privatised big business and global capitalism. That, and the fact that "New Labour" policies are no different to those of their Tory predecessors.
P, UK

The trouble with the last election was that, with the Tories in such a state, it was a forgone conclusion who would win. You wouldn't bother to watch a one horse race, or to watch a football match with just one team on the pitch - so why bother to watch six weeks worth of politicians gasbagging the usual lies and half-truths?
Steve Chiswell, UK

Politicians arguing, backstabbing, fighting for things unimportant. I lived through the transition of conservative and labour and I really didn't notice much change. I suspect having a far-right Tory party with its new leader may get some closet anti-fascists out to vote next time!
Andy, UK

TV presenters who looked as uninterested as the public

David Lane, Leeds, UK

A complete turn-off - irrelevant discussions on personality and spin by TV presenters who looked as uninterested as the public. No election issues were considered or discussed. It's not just about Europe - there's a vast array of problems that need tackling, but no political parties are willing to tackle our disintegrating society, preferring instead to squabble about irrelevancies.
David Lane, Leeds, UK