The extent of non-participation in the recent general election should worry us. Almost half the electorate chose not to vote. But as Nesrine Malik says (Hidden behind the celebration of Labour’s ‘landslide’ win is a depressing disfranchisement, 15 July), what must surely be most concerning is that participation has become increasingly concentrated among the middle classes and higher‑income brackets, whereas non-participation was highest in areas with high ethnic minority populations.
She describes an emerging political caste system: “One with a policy base fashioned in the interests of the members of a certain cohort, their votes efficiently distributed, their economic investment in the system connecting them to politics in a way that only increases their ability to shape it in their interests.”
This immediately reminded me of how Lord Salisbury constructed and introduced the first past the post voting system in 1885. His concern was that enfranchisement was being extended to working men in the counties. This would threaten the political power of the two leading political parties, Tories and Liberals, who between them represented the wealthy landowners. He recognised that a candidate and party needed only a minority of the votes to win the constituency seat, as long as it was the largest minority.
Now, 140 years later, still we have two parties who alternately share power. Despite Labour having only a small minority of votes, but a larger proportion than the other parties, they won a so-called “landslide”. Government is limited to a single party and all of the other parties with a smaller share of the votes are excluded. It is no wonder therefore, the “left behinds”, effectively disenfranchised, have understood the pointlessness of voting. To call it laziness is to not really understand.
Tim Williamson
Bath
• Nesrine Malik is right that Labour’s continued electability will depend on it meeting the desires of the “left behind”, not just the relatively “well ahead”, and will involve huge investment in public infrastructure, secure work and the spreading of opportunity across the nation. Labour could achieve this by redefining growth as the increase in economic activity directed towards rebuilding public services and turbo-charging a green transition in every constituency. This must include retention and recruitment in these sectors through adequate pay levels, and in the process also boosting the businesses connected with them.
Older people are often accused of only supporting policies that appeal to their self-interest. Yet baby boomers like myself are worried about what the future holds for our children, grandchildren and indeed ourselves in terms of the health and care system. This concern could be turned into “intergenerational solidarity”, were Labour to prioritise encouraging the redirection of domestic savings and hence positively involve millions of savers in this transition. This would involve ensuring that all new ISA funds and 25% of new pension contributions are invested in social and green infrastructure projects.
“Savers for intergenerational solidarity” could be the funding rallying cry to improve people’s lives and decrease the insecurity felt by many. This would also increase Labour’s chance of re-election.
Colin Hines
Convener, UK Green New Deal Group
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
