Ferocious tribal conflict

A commentator invited to speak on Sky News after the news that Tony Blair had managed to win another election, despite the hue and cry over Iraq, commented on why the turnout had again been so low, at a mere 61 per cent. He put it down to the lack of "ferocious tribal conflict" and said that many see most of the political parties as much of a muchness, with no real or substantial differences in their policies, at least not in ways that would affect the lives of ordinary people.

Ferocious tribal conflict. That, for me and other Maltese watching probably brought images of their country still largely divided along red and blue, of a country in electioneering mode almost all the time. We are still in ferocious tribal conflict but at least this has one positive outcome: a high voter turnout.

The trouble is that you a have a sort of democratic deficit when people don't or won't vote. Mr Blair is now PM with only about 37 per cent having actually backed him. It must be tough. He has overseen an incredibly robust economy and generally Britain has had a very good 10 years or so. But Iraq, or more specifically the fact that weapons of mass destruction were not found, wreaked havoc on his voter support. He now only has a majority of 60 seats, still a good one and one that other prime ministers would have been proud of, but a substantially reduced one nonetheless.

The other political parties had little to shout about either. Despite the sometimes almost hysterical, silly, personal attacks on Mr Blair, there really was less of a swing than expected. The Tories tried to stir up hysteria over immigration but common sense prevailed and they probably won very few seats with this tactic.

More surprising, perhaps, were the few gains made by the Lib Dems. They did gain 11 seats but they lost seats to the Tories too. They probably would not even have won those seats without the Iraq issue which, to be fair to them, they were consistent on from the start. They were staunchly anti-war and generally events proved them right. The Tories, on the other hand, were almost even more pro-war at the beginning and then used the flawed intelligence to try and brand Mr Blair a liar. Well, even those who believe that of Mr Blair still seemed to think he would make a far better PM than Michael Howard could ever make.

The low voter turnout was probably a disappointment to all the parties, but they are partly responsible. There is this misconception in politics, or in the minds of political leaders, that if you attack, criticise and are generally totally negative, you will not only reduce support for your opponent but increase support for yourself. This is clearly not always the case. Even here, the continuous negativity shown by political parties does not always result in support. It is actually resulting in more voter apathy or simply voter anger and disillusionment with all politicians in general.

Hence, for example, Alternattiva Demokratika must have felt very disappointed at doing so badly in the last local elections when they had done so well in the EU parliamentary elections. But then feelings were still running high over the EU following the referendum and election wins. Perhaps all political parties should consider that negativity can reflect badly on those who are negative, and not only on those who are at the receiving end of the criticism.

I can understand why AD expected to do better (as did the Lib Dems). Listening to people's moans and groans you would have thought that far more people were fed up of the PN and willing to give AD a chance. But it seems people got wise after the last EU parliamentary elections and did not want to give Labour seats by the back door.

I think we are all guilty of being a bit too negative and disparaging about everything and everyone to so with politics. It is easy to criticise but far harder to deliver. Most importantly, we should also realise that, if we attack everything, we run the risk of increasing voter apathy and disillusionment rather than having a more representative Parliament.

Our high voter turnout is something to be proud of, even though it reeks of ferocious tribal conflict. The Xarabank surveys showing many saying they will not vote should be cause for concern to all, particularly with regard to how we behave in the political arena.