Is the Liverpool mayoral campaign engaging the electorate?
One of the most common arguments made in favour of elected city mayors is that they promote both greater democratic engagement and more direct democratic accountability.
Supporters of elected mayors say that voters are far more likely to know the name of an elected mayor than a council leader (there is some evidence to support this) and that directly electing a city leader generates greater interest in local elections, driving up turnout (there is no evidence to support this).
Among those of us who have followed the Liverpool mayoral election closely, there seems to be a consensus that the campaign has been a low-key one so far.
But what do the voters make of it?
I'm trying to get some indication of how engaged electors are with the campaign so far using a very short on-line survey. If you are a Liverpool resident and eligible to vote, I'd be grateful for your feedback. The survey is anonymous, only takes a few minutes to complete and does not ask about who you might vote for.
Please follow this link if you'd like to take part. I'll post the results and some analysis on this blog when I have enough responses.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Hard to see how it could engage people. It's very much 'business as usual' with the main parties, while the lunatic fringe have been given a free pass to some easy publicity. Meanwhile, We The People look on with a weary indifference
The candidates want more votes to pander their egos. They don't actually want to tackle the underlying disenfranchisement, because if they do that then the electorate may select different people. The party apparatchiks don't want a change because then the only vote they will have is the same as the rest of us, where as currently they have an internal vote, which in a lot of cases effectively selects the MP.
Look at the lies the told to scrap AV.
With the relatively short time scale and no one other than the big party candidates having the support organisation in place and maybe not the money either then leaflets wil not be coming through the door and no one will knock from the majority of candidates. If one is leader of the council or, to a lesser extent, leader of the opposition then there is always an oportunity to get a story about yourself in the press and further publicise your campaign.
If Joe Anderson is leader now and is a 10 to 1 on shot then it is pretty certain he will get in. The only difference is likely to be that the mayors salary will be massively larger than the leaders salary plus the possibility of a leader being removed by his party is n/a with a mayor so is guaranteed 4 years no matter what.
On the other hand, should another candidate win then should not be too difficult for Joe to arrange a referendum to remove the position of mayor from Liverpool reverting back to himself as leader of the council.
A higher profile preformance by the contestants would leave them exposed and committed policy wise.
All politicians prefer an uninformed electorate to reduce the chance of being held to account if succesful.
Keeping to slanging and personalities is the safest bet for the front runners and a dependance upon static core vote turnout remains a priority.
It is a ridiculous situation being asked to vote for people who themselves have no idea what, if any, real powers they will hold, unless, during discussions, they have had 'assurances' on what delegative powers will be allowed.
Interesting thing with the local election taking place on the same day is that the big 2 are putting party literature for the local elections through the door even in wards where that are no local elections. I wonder how this effects the cost limit on a mayoral campaign ?