Being the assiduous Observer reader that you are, you will have read today’s leading article on the general election (OK, you may have glanced at the headline and made a mental note to return to it. We understand). However, you may not be aware of the open process of consultation that contributed to its conclusion that you should consider voting Labour.
Perhaps uniquely among Sunday papers, at election time the editor invites all staff to a gathering to contribute their ideas to help inform the editorial that appears before the vote. “Everyone is welcome to come… to talk, listen, heckle etc,” he said in an email. Journalists from all sections of the paper turned out to do just that and, while they didn’t exactly heckle, the discussion was often heated and surprisingly passionate.
The editorial’s recommendation that readers should support the Labour party is hardly a bombshell – the left-leaning instinct has a long tradition here – but there were those who were wary of endorsing the party and others who felt strongly that the paper shouldn’t be supporting anybody, evoking the editorship of David Astor, who, it was claimed, believed it demeaned the paper to attach itself to a party.
Discussion ranged over the social and economic problems facing the country, the wealth gap, executive pay, housing, how the “recovery” meant little to those on low incomes and why it was that as many as 10 million voters claim to be undecided. There was general agreement that many of those felt disenfranchised by a small elite who were “gaming” the system on behalf of a wealthy minority, and there was much scepticism over what one speaker colourfully described as “deficit fetishism” and the austerity policies of the coalition government.
Political experts in the room reminded us that the polls, if they were to be believed, pointed to no party having an overall majority and the likelihood of feverish dealmaking after the vote. The leader should take account of this and examine the smaller party “dancing partners” that Labour might have to court after the election, particularly the Scottish National Party.
Reservations about the leadership of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls and their apparent inability comprehensively to counter the austerity argument of the Conservatives made some wary of offering an endorsement, but others would have none of that.
There were good reasons to be positive about Labour this time, they said. In 2010, the Observer felt that Labour was exhausted after 13 years in power and Gordon Brown had little to offer the nation. This time, the choice was much clearer: the paper should endorse Miliband’s vision for a fairer, more equitable Britain.
Scottish staffers warned that Labour’s support collapsed north of the border during the referendum campaign when Ed Balls backed George Osborne in denying an independent Scotland the pound. Many now believed the SNP would give Scotland a more powerful voice at Westminster.
There was a strong feeling that, as a paper that is instinctively pro-European, the dangers of the Conservative promise of an in-out referendum should be spelt out, coupled with a determination that the benefits to Britain of immigration should be emphasised.
There was also alarm that the environment has played only a small part in any of the main parties’ campaigns.
But do leading articles in newspapers make any difference to election results and policy changes? Last week, the Sun endorsed the Conservatives in England and the SNP is Scotland. At the last election, the Observer, keen to see the introduction of a new, fairer voting system in this country, said this: “There is only one party on the ballot paper that… can claim to represent an agenda for radical, positive change in politics. That party is the Liberal Democrats.”
reader@observer.co.uk