And we’re off! Election 2010

Having spent most of the last month in London has been rather tough at times, however feeding my ongoing interest of British politics has been one of the bright spots. Dad is a Daily Mail reader, previously he got the Mirror untill that paper got caught in the race for the bottom a few years ago.

Historically my family is a center voting, concentrating on issues that matter to us (less about immigration and more about the economy). Dad has some sympathy with UKIP, but in what used to be one of the safest Tory seats around (Guildford) he’s typically voted Lib-dems (or Lib, or SDP and so on as appropriate). After 91 years of Conservative representation in Westminster Guildford returned a Lib-Dem MP in ’01. The Lib-dems only narrowly (by 347 votes) lost the seat to the Conservatives in the 2005 election.

The good news today is that Gordon Brown will have finally done the right thing and called an election to get himself a genuine mandate to lead, rather than the backroom deals that allowed him to replace Tony Blair. Having said that indications are that Gordon will not get than mandate from the electorate next month.

That doesn’t mean I think the Tories would be inherently much better than the incumbent in No. 10 marvelous either though. To me it seems they may be the least worse option on the table. The party is making lots of promises (it’s election time after all, promise the earth and hope the voters buy it) but under it all seem to understand that the solution to the country’s problem do not lie in ever increasing spending and spiraling debt.

While Parliament does not actually dissolve for another week, this was the start of a month of what may be some of the fiercest and perhaps most spun campaigning for many years. The conservatives are desperate to show that they are a good choice, but have yet to really gain any traction on Browns handling of the economy. I think Labour really see this as a winnable election.

The one thing all the parties should be most concerned with this time is voter turnout. The ongoing expenses scandal along with the lobbying busts over the last few weeks have lowered how people feel about politicians even further (and the existing bar was set comically low), this could mean that a lot of people really can’t be bothered to vote. If the turnout is lower than during the 2001 and 2005 general elections (about 60% in round numbers) then serious questions need to asked about how the electorate view Westminster overall.

The answers may not be pleasant for the career politicians, but if they wish to make Westminster relevant once again they had better take notice.