No one can be bothered to choose between these middle of the road drips, so I’m going to look for policy

Letters from a Swing Voter

As part of my new life as a Swing Voter, last week I had a heated debate about whether or not elections were won on personalities. My sparring partner asserted that she had only ever voted for the party, for its ideas and ideals, and that the front-man had nothing to do with her decision. I politely implied that she was in the minority, a fanciful basket-case, and that if the personal is political then it must be vice versa.

However, this week I’ve revisited our conversation – like exes, it’s advisable not to – and it pains me to concede that she might have something. How on earth can this election be fought on personalities, when none of the main contenders have got one?

The bloggertariat insists this coming election is all about the charm offensive, like it’s some good-mannered military coup. To be honest, we’re talking more about offensive charm if the derriere-kissing Tories can only scrape a 2% lead over a man who accepts he is universally loathed. I feel a bit embarrassed for our party leaders, desperately mimicking a far more powerful, persuasive and charming man in the US who showed us in 2008 how inspirational politicians are when they become the face of uncomfortable truths. Obama could carry that; our motley crew can’t even carry their own discomfort, let alone shoulder the burden for the rest of us.

We sods are partly to blame for this persona-renaissance. Maybe it’s because Cameron’s a PR man – he knows how to sex-up a story – that we fan the fires of the cult of personality by plugging ourselves into the internet and churning out haikus of petulant drivel about what so-and-so said about so-and-so, on whichever socially networked site we’re current minions of. Chatter doesn’t change behaviour – look at the past week alone, from lapel-grabbing madness and tears with Piers, to RADA-esque speeches, two of our party leaders made half-humans of themselves and we all rushed to the nearest market researcher to make it known we wanted That Man for the job. Oh no, wait; we didn’t. An Opinion Poll requires that you have one, and quite frankly no one could muster the energy to make a decision between some occasionally hyperbolic but utterly middle-of-the-road drips.

And yet they continue. PMQs has turned into some comedy panel quiz show full of puerile put-downs, Twitter vomits out gossip and lies from dawn till dusk, and newspapers pledge allegiance to the man least likely to offend the greatest number of people (I’m looking at you, Sun). I must have missed the memo on how this wins elections. I assume it came with an attachment elaborating on what it means for me.

We need to stop flogging these emotionally dead horses. I’ve been told there were political golden days, when progressives and idealists triumphed, but I’ve not lived long enough to know if that’s ever been the case. I was born into three-day weeks, miners’ strikes and rubbish piled up in the streets – when personalities weren’t winning elections, they were sure as hell losing them.

So yes, my fellow raconteur was right, the only way out of this mess is to look to parties for their ideas and ideals, not to how personable their showmen claim to be. If you haven’t got it, don’t flaunt it – where character flails, let your policies do the talking. This is what I will now be listening more carefully for.

It still remains that we need a human warmth to politics, and I fundamentally believe it is possible for just one person to create ever-lasting change. The difference is that these are the traits we should celebrate in every single voter, not just a handful of parliamentary candidates.