Well, not long to wait now. I'll soon be heading off towards Bradford's red-light area. There, even during the daylight hours, ladies of negotiable affection stand on many of the street corners offering friendly greetings, among other things, to passing gentlemen. Nowhere is the free market more enthusiastically embraced. There's a good chance that I'll be asked if I want 'business'. This will not be a request for my thoughts on private investment in the public sector.

I wonder what'll happen if I reply:
'No, but could you direct me to the polling station?'

Yes, of course: I'll be going there to vote.

For reasons best known to the local authority, the polling station for my particular part of Bradford is to be a temporary office cabin placed at the fringe of the local flesh-for-finance zone. Some might say that this association between politics and prostitution is singularly appropriate. Others might argue that it's grossly unfair to compare those who dedicate themselves to public service with politicians.

There is a serious side to this, though. In truth, if my suspicions about the route I'll have to take in order to reach the polling station are correct, then the sights that greet me on the way to the ballot box are likely to be more pitiful than alluring. I'll be on my guard, not because of the women on the street corners but because of the other unsavoury types who tend to inhabit such areas. If I weren't a fairly large male, I might well wonder if voting was worth the risks involved in having to visit such a dubious part of town. I have to do so because I live in a commercial area of another kind - a city centre, and there are far more shops and offices than homes nearby. The next area out beyond any city centre is the inner city; and Bradford's inner city areas are lively, to put it mildly.

But I am determined to vote. I've never missed an election in the 23 years since I reached voting age, and I don't intend to start now. Although I know that this puts me in a small minority, I am actually excited about the General Election! I'm looking forward to watching the results coming in with a kind of nervous anticipation - and I'm uncomfortably aware that my enthusiasm is not shared by many.

Especially, it seems, among those of us who are enthusiastic Internet users.

I talked about the reasons why I think it's important to vote in last week's column, and I didn't intend to return to the theme of voter apathy this week - but one statistic I saw the other day showed a disturbing new side to the problem. Surveys have shown that 56 per cent of the UK electorate definitely plan to vote - a worryingly low figure. But when it comes to that section of the electorate that regularly uses the Internet, the figure actually falls. Only 51 per cent of regular Internet users who are eligible to vote plan to do so.

Now that stunned me. I liked to think that people who communicated via the World Wide Web tended to be people who were interested in the world, and who would therefore naturally be likely to take an interest in politics. Ah well, another illusion shattered; we Internet users are actually even more apathetic on average that your average Joe or Joan who's never logged on in their life.

Why on earth should that be? The political parties have all provided comprehensive websites, and there's been some excellent election coverage online, not least at BBC Online's 'Vote 2001' site. Look around online and you can find out anything you could reasonably want to know about the parties, the candidates, the issues and the statistics. If you want to discuss any of it, there are chat rooms and message boards where you can do just that.

You can even trade votes online for the purposes of tactical voting. I've done it myself! Via a website, I've pledged to vote tactically (I was planning to do so anyway) against the party with which I have most sympathy, in order to try to ensure the defeat of a party I heartily despise. In return, I've been 'paired' with a voter in Devon, who has promised to switch her vote in the opposite direction to me. So I'll vote for her favourite party and she'll vote for mine - and that way we'll both cast useful votes, for candidates who have a good chance of winning in our respective constituencies, against candidates from a party we both abhor. The Internet can be a great help to democracy! The political information is all out there if you're interested - but it seems as though that's a big 'if'.

So what can the problem be? Are lots of 'Net users too busy in chat rooms or playing computer games to go out and vote? Do those of us who are used to computers find the process of making a cross on a piece of paper too primitive for comfort?

In fairness, the h2g2 community would seem to be an exception. There was a rapid outcry when we thought, wrongly as it turned out, that any mention of the election would be banned from our site. The 'Life, the Universe and the Election' message board set up to allow us to rant away about politics to our hearts' content has been pretty well used; and a fair bit of light politics has filtered through on to h2g2.

But beyond our community, it seems that online often equals off politics. I find that saddening, partly because it suggests that the rumours about young people being particularly apathetic about the election are true. A disproportionate number of 'Net users are young, so that could explain the unusually high level of apathy among those online.

I really don't want to believe that - but can anyone think of an alternative explanation?

Are there some occasions when losing an election is the best thing in the long run? Britain's Conservatives may have wondered about that in recent years. After Margaret Thatcher's long reign as Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader came to an end, her replacement John Major was widely expected to lose the 1992 General Election. Opinion polls during the campaign showed the Conservatives narrowly behind the Labour Party. But come election day, a late swing brought a narrow victory to Major's party.

His reward was to struggle through five years of government during which his party became bitterly divided, and was hit by a seemingly never-ending succession of scandals. Meanwhile, Labour regrouped and repositioned themselves in the centre ground, and the 1997 saw them win a record-breaking landslide victory that left the Conservatives with a massive task in the current campaign.

Might something similar now happen to George W. Bush and the Republicans in America? Even Major had a longer honeymoon period than Dubya has been allowed. Stumbling into power after the most hotly disputed election in history, in office when most voters had opposed him, he promptly alarmed commentators around the world with policies that horrified environmentalists.

Now he's been hit by a ferocious double whammy. First, Senator Jim Jeffords' resignation from the Republican Party has handed control of the US Senate to the Democrats, ensuring that every piece of legislation Bush tries to introduce will have to pass through a hostile Senate.

As if that weren't enough, the US Commission on Civil Rights has delivered a damning verdict on the conduct of the infamous Florida election that (along with some help from his friends in the Supreme Court) handed Bush the presidency. Their report, leaked this week, singles out the President's brother Jeb Bush for particular criticism, along with Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Both stand accused of gross negligence in the conduct of the Florida election. The report accuses them of ignoring 'mounting evidence' of likely problems with outdated voting equipment in the months running up to it, and of failing to heed requests for help and guidance from local election officials.

This negligence, the report suggests, introduced an element of racial bias into the election. Because many African-American voters lived in poorer areas with outdated voting equipment, African-Americans were far more likely than whites to have their votes disallowed. The report goes on to note that an 'overzealous' campaign against voter fraud led to many eligible voters being denied their votes - and guess what? Again, African-Americans were disproportionately affected. The report concludes that officials in Jeb Bush's Florida
'...simply permitted the unequal distribution of quality voting equipment ... without the public being aware that an electoral disaster might be approaching.'

Bush's position as President thus looks even less legitimate than before. I can't help wondering if, just as British voters savaged the Conservatives in 1997, American voters will take a resounding revenge on the Republicans the very next time they get a chance.

I have been reminded this week that I belong to a section of the community whose civil rights are not always equal to those of other British citizens. I am a soccer fan. This, it appears, could make me eligible to have my passport confiscated even if I have committed no crime.

Now, being treated as a criminal just because I like watching soccer matches is nothing new to me. The Thatcher government tried to introduce identity cards for fans without which it would have been impossible to attend matches, dropping the idea only because the practical difficulties of implementing the scheme proved to be insurmountable. When attending matches as a supporter of the visiting team, you have to expect to be searched on the way into the ground and to be detained after the match until the home fans are out of the way.

However, in the run-up to England's World Cup game in Greece, things have gone further than ever before. Under the Football Disorder Act 2000, more than 450 people have been ordered to surrender their passports until after the match is over. If all of these people had convictions for violent behaviour, I'd be all in favour of this action. Hooligans spoil the fun for all of us who just want to cheer our teams on and enjoy the games in peace.

But the 450-plus fans aren't all convicted criminals. Some have merely been labelled as 'known hooligans' by the police. Under the new Act, all they have to do to get a passport confiscation order is to apply to magistrates, who are unlikely to refuse.

Much as I despise the thugs who give all soccer fans a bad name, this goes far too far. I've been attending soccer matches since 1968, without ever getting in trouble with the police. But I have had opposing 'fans' trying to start fights with me for no reason at all. After one game the season before last, a Southend United supporter crept up behind me and spat at me from close range, then asked me if I wanted to make something of it. I didn't, but he decided to try to attack me anyway. Fortunately, other decent fans intervened. Had I reacted to the spitting like John Prescott reacted to that egg-thrower the other week, would I now be classed forever as a 'known hooligan'?

The principle that one is innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of basic civil liberty. It should apply even to those of us who enjoy watching soccer.

Finally, bookmakers William Hill have drastically reduced the odds on galactic hitch-hikers being given official recognition. They have reduced the odds they offer against a British Prime Minister officially confirming the existence of alien life-forms from 100-1 to 50-1.

This is not because they think Tony Blair might have encountered something particularly strange when out campaigning, nor because they think William Hague might have thought he saw something odd while drinking his 14th pint one day. They have been impressed by pictures taken by two photographers, Mark Runnacles and Alexander McCallum, showing what appear to be UFOs flying over Glasgow. The UK's Ministry of Defence is to examine Mr. Runnacles' pictures, and it'll be interesting to see what they make of them.

In the meantime, the fact that a Prime Minister's announcement would be needed for a bet to be paid out conjures up some wonderful images. What might be needed to convince a PM? I have a delightful mental picture of a spaceship swooping behind the gates into Downing Street, and Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged emerging clipboard in hand and striding towards the door of Number 10, determined to deliver an insult with which millions would agree.

Ormondroyd

07.06.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page