abour landslide supported by only 24.2% of the population, while Clement Attlee's less than 50 years previously was backed by 72.6%, (an election where a significiant number of potential voters lay dead on battlefields across the globe, imprisoned in POW camps or merely waiting in all four corners of the world to be demobbed)? And why was George W. Bush brought into power with a turnout of 49.8% of the American electorate, while President Kennedy 40 years previously was elected after a similarily close contest that inspired 62.% of voters to go to the polls? Are we and the Americans operating political systems where the President and Prime Minister are victorious only in the sense of doing less badly than their rivals?
             But why is apathy such a problem? Some commentators have blamed the result being somewhat of a foregone conclusion, with the media annointing a victor on the basis of the countless opinion polls, the result of the real election merely a formality in preceedings. Although this was the case of Blair in 1997 and 2001 and President Clinton in 1996. The 2000 presidential election, could hardly be deemed a foregone conclsion, infact it was one of the closest in America's history. Yet this idea of a foregone result was also the case to a certain degree with Macmillan in the 1950s and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Yet the turnout was approximately twenty per cent higher on both of these occassions than in 2001. Historically turnout in the UK has depended most on the closeness of the contest. Turnout was low in 1983 (73%) despite the strong Thatcher versus SDP-Liberal battle, because everyone knew Labour would be annihilated on polling day. But it was high in 1951 (83%) as people expected a close contest between Attlee and Churchill. More recently turnout has bucked the downward trend in 1974 and 1992, with speculation of about hung parliaments being rife preceeding the election. The impact of the media has grown significantl...