Engagement

So, did you see it? What do you mean you were out at work? Well, so was I, actually. But I bet everyone else tuned in. I imagine the streets of London were deserted as families and colleagues huddled round their TV sets to watch the keynote conference speech by the Leader of the Opposition.

Well, perhaps not. Political disengagement is the watchword, nobody cares, our politics is going to hell in a handcart. Certainly, that's the narrative in the broadsheets. And it's clearly true that people are disengaged from politics - turnout in every election for twenty years has been lower than in every election for the preceding thirty. The result is that it took Neil Kinnock 11.5m votes to come second in 1992, but David Cameron was able to top the poll in 2010 with 10.7m. Apathy rules - what are we going to do about it?

Before getting too panicked, however, should we just ask ourselves whether it matters? Perhaps political disengagement is a sign that, deep down, the public knows that the system works OK. High levels of political engagement, after all, are generally negative. The Jarrow marchers did not come to London to congratulate the National Government on its outstanding performance; the Peasants' Revolt was not a marque of acclamation, while neither French nor Russian revolutions were a vote of confidence in the ruling aristocracies.

After division and oscillation in the 1970s and 1980s, the last two decades have been characterised by consensus. Both parties are offering market economies, but with high levels of public spending on services. Unlike the vicious oppositionism that now defines American politics, the British parties tend to adopt and adapt the legacy from the previous Government. Mrs Thatcher curbed the unions and privatised those elements of the state that could join the market economy. Tony Blair kept the economic legacy but modernised our attitudes to race and sexuality. David Cameron has accepted the social change, but is seeking to cut spending on welfare. Ed Balls this week acknowledged that many Tory spending cuts would stay. A virtuous circle, perhaps?

When people complain that they're "all the same", it might be because the parties have become good at understanding the instincts of the population and adapting policies to suit. This doesn't mean that the public are not fearful of our economic position, and frustrated with our institutions. But it might mean that they temper their frustration with a recognition that, broadly, the parties are delivering sane and sensible policies. This may seem a strange thing to say on the day of the great Virgin Trains fiasco, and it is certainly true that sometimes Governments get it badly wrong (invading Iraq and dismantling the NHS, for example) and in these cases you see large protest movements emerge very quickly. However, on the key objectives of Government (keeping us safe and money moving), people are perhaps content enough to devote their energies to raising their families and keeping their jobs. Greece shows what happens when that ceases to be the case.

Most people ignore things that work. Every few years, I become very engaged with our kitchen boiler, but only when it stops working. My current disengagement with the boiler, and comparative engagement with the dishwasher, should not be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the dishwasher.

Turnout in the last US election was the highest since 1968, as the American system showed dangerous signs of instability. If I'm right, turnout this time will be higher still. By contrast, perhaps we should hope for a bit more disengagement. The opposite may be a symptom of suffering, and that's sadly all too likely given the upcoming cuts.