Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Slight shifts in public knowledge of and interest in politics, nothing tectonic. "Key findings" in the poll for the fifth annual Audit of Political Engagement, now produced solely by the Hansard Society, show that just over half the public report an interest in politics (down 4% since last year) and rather more (55%) say they know nothing or not very much about politics (up 4%). More than half the public feel that they don't understand any of 11 "key constitutional issues."
Peter Riddell, the Times journalist and chair of the Hansard Society, comments on the need to increase public understanding, but I rather fear that many in the political class will take comfort from the prominent view that constitutional reform matters only to the 'chattering classes.' The degree of disengagement evident here and in other recent polls and events reveals the long-term dangers in such an attitude. People may not know much about royal prerogative powers, as the audit shows, or may not respond positively to particular proposals for this or that reform, but as with art, while they may not know much about the constitution, they do know what they like, and mostly don't like, about the way they are governed.
Firstly, a great majority of people (75%) agree that a strong Parliament is good for democracy; that MPs are essential in representing the views of their constituents (72%); and that they need sufficient resources to properly represent and inform their constituents (66%). This is of course an ideal which the 'present system' fails to live up to and which the Governance green paper will not change (and could even make worse). Secondly, there are other findings with a bearing on constitutional reform that are not presented as such. Less than a third of people believe that "when people like me get involved in politics, they can really change the way that the country is run"; three quarters think more attention should be paid to the views of individual citizens. Further, when asked how well the "present system" of governing Britain works, three fifths of the public (62%) say that it could be improved quite a lot or a great deal. This level of diffuse dissatisfaction has broadly persisted since the early 1970s when the question was first asked.
The trouble is that the changes that are required to create a strong Parliament that represents the people and make the present system more responsive and participatory are not understood; indeed, so real is public ignorance that it hardly makes sense to ask people, as Mori Ipsos does, whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with (say) allowing the government to decide the date of a general election, or how votes cast in that election translate into seats in the House of Commons.
The Rowntree Reform Trust's "State of the Nation" polls seek to get round this problem by asking people how constitutional arrangements should be organised in principle; i.e., they are asked whether the voting system should give political parties seats in the Commons in proportion to their votes, or what rights should be in a Bill of Rights. The difficulty here lies in giving people sufficient information to make their response meaningful without creating leading questions. But at least you get meaningful replies which reveal where people's principles lie, and even valuable new information. The alternative is to ask people questions that they are not qualified on their own admission to answer - and to get more or less meaningless responses.
