Advertisement
Rick Edwards: I did a TED talk about getting young people voting and spoke to quite a lot of young people over the course of researching that. I realized that one of the big problems was a lack of simple, clear information. They all wanted it, but didn't know where to find it. So I said, "Maybe I'll try and write it down." And I did. I do touch upon what Russell's been doing and I think he's had a really positive effect on the political conversation.But he refuses to vote, and you disagree with that.
I do disagree with that. What he was saying is, "if there's no one worth voting for, then don't vote." But, as the title of the book strongly suggests, I'm in favor of a "none of the above" option. At the moment, spoiling your ballot is a kind of "none of the above" option, but I think people don't really realize that this is a valid thing to do. It's a way of saying, "Actually, what I'm being offered isn't good enough." And it will be counted.
Advertisement
56 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds didn't vote in 2010, and I don't think anyone took those non-votes as a protest. This time, if a similar number don't vote, it's not going to be attributed to what Russell has said. And that's the problem—if you just don't vote, it's easy to get written off as apathetic and you get ignored.But if, say, three percent of people spoil their ballot, that's a lot of people [about 1.4 million, based on the size of the electorate in 2010]. At the very least, that would tell the political class that something is seriously amiss, because you can't write all those people off. It would be a wake-up call.Spoiling your ballot is a more active expression of dissatisfaction than not voting. Look at the reasons people give for not voting: feeling their vote doesn't make a difference, thinking all the parties are the same, not having enough information, not thinking the parties represent their views; only a small proportion say it's because they're not interested. In my view it's important to break up that group of people who aren't voting and not just lump them into one homogenous mass of apathy. I don't think that's right.You went to private school, then Cambridge. You lead a manifestly privileged life. You're also 35—so the vast majority of the people you're speaking to aren't like you. Why should they listen to what you've got to say?
I guess there's no particular reason that they should. Except, in terms of not being informed, that used to be me. Up until two or three years ago, I wasn't politically engaged. I voted, but I guess it was out of a sense of duty and because it was just a thing that you did. Hopefully that has helped me to come from a perspective that's not too dissimilar from the people I hope will read it.
Advertisement
Yeah, but I don't think it necessarily will follow the same pattern. If you look at Spain with Podemos, that was formed in 2011 or 2012 [although the official launch of the party was actually just four months before European elections in October 2014] and it won a significant amount of votes [eight percent]. And look at the Italian fella as well.Beppe Grillo?
Yeah, again it started from zero and went on to win a lot of votes within a short space of time. [Grillo founded Movimento 5 Stelle in 2010. In 2013 it was the single largest party in Italy's lower house with 26 percent of the vote.] That can happen now with social media. But you're right, it's not like you can say: "Start your own political party and then at the next election everything will be fine."
Advertisement
The Natalie Bennet example is interesting. Obviously that interview was quite difficult to listen to—and I'm sure for her to be involved in—but the problem she had was that she wasn't as polished as we're used to seeing politicians in those situations. That's unlikely to change, they'll always be good talkers, good at arguing, but there's no reason you can't have people who are adept in those situations from very different backgrounds and with very different viewpoints.Whatever the background, politicians will still be people who avoid questions and don't give straight answers. Do we just accept that? Is that the media's fault?
Occasionally you'll hear that the media is somehow to blame for the obfuscation of politicians—I don't really buy that. Obviously it would be amazing if it was a Liar Liar setup where they constantly told the truth, or at least had to give direct answers to everything, but realistically you just have to accept that is unlikely. Anyone who came out and started doing that would be very brave, but that's not to say it couldn't happen.
Advertisement
I tried very hard to be non-partisan. I have no interest in telling people who to vote for because it's clearly not my place to say. Any time I say, "Those on the Right would argue that…" I balance that with, "Those on the left would say this…" All I can say is that I've done my best to be neutral and hopefully people won't read it and think, "Ah, but he's subtly telling me to do this!" That's certainly not the idea.I'm sure it's not, but subconsciously you might have let your own views seep through.
Because I work for the BBC doing a political program [Free Speech on BBC3], one of the main focuses when me, my editor and my colleagues read through the book was to make sure that it felt even-handed. I'm very happy that it does, to be honest.When the General Election rolls around on May 7, are you going to do what the title of the book says and spoil your ballot?
No, no. I think I know who I'm going to vote for. I think I know who represents my views most closely. So I won't need to spoil my ballot.But you won't reveal who that is?
No. No. No.That's a politician's answer…
Yeah… No, it's actually just an I-don't-want-to-get-fired-from-the-BBC answer! [laughs]Okay, thanks Rick.Follow Edwin on Twitter.