Voter apathy grows as homelessness rises

With less than a month to go until the Scottish Parliament election, there are growing signs that the public is not especially engaged with the campaign. Party insiders themselves are acknowledging the problem, with one source bluntly suggesting that voters are “not really arsed” about any of the parties on offer. 

This is not simply anecdotal. Polling experts such as John Curtice have pointed to the absence of any clear or compelling message from the main parties. Campaigns so far have focused on relatively narrow, piecemeal proposals rather than setting out a broader vision for the country. The result is what one insider described as a “political campaign without the politics”.

Turnout figures suggest this may translate into real disengagement at the ballot box. Professor Ailsa Henderson has warned that turnout could fall to the low-to-mid 50 per cent range – a significant drop from the unusually high 63.5 per cent recorded in 2021. That election, however, took place under exceptional circumstances during the pandemic, when the role of government was unusually visible and immediate. 

A return to lower turnout might therefore be seen as a return to ‘normal’. But that risks missing the point. If large numbers of people feel no strong incentive to participate in a democratic process, it raises questions not only about engagement but also about representation and relevance. 

At the same time, there is no shortage of serious issues facing the country. One of the most stark is homelessness. Recent data shows that more than 18,000 households – including over 10,000 children – are currently in temporary accommodation in Scotland, the highest figure since 2002. A quarter of Scots report either experiencing homelessness themselves or knowing someone who has.

Public concern reflects this reality. Around 70 per cent of people say they are worried about the scale of homelessness, and the same proportion believe ending it should be a national priority. On the face of it, this suggests an issue which should be central to any election campaign.

Politicians, for their part, are not unaware of the problem. Leaders across the political spectrum have described homelessness in stark terms. John Swinney has spoken of “fear,” Russell Findlay has called it “preventable,” Alex Cole-Hamilton has described it as a “moral outrage,” and Gillian Mackay has highlighted its fundamental unfairness. Even Malcolm Offord has expressed “sadness” at the situation. 

There is, in other words, no shortage of language recognising the seriousness of the issue. There is even broad agreement that homelessness should be ended. And yet this has not translated into a campaign which feels urgent or focused. Nor has it produced a clear sense among voters that the election offers a meaningful choice on how to address the problem. 

This points to a wider issue in Scottish politics. There is often consensus on the existence of major social challenges, and even on the broad direction of travel required to address them. But that consensus can produce a flattening effect in political debate, where differences between parties are reduced to matters of emphasis, timing or scale rather than substance. 

The result is a campaign which can feel technocratic rather than political – a series of policy adjustments rather than a contest of competing visions. For voters, particularly those most affected by issues like housing insecurity or homelessness, it may not feel like a meaningful choice at all. 

It is also notable that where political energy does exist, it is often focused elsewhere. International events, internal party disputes and relatively minor policy announcements can dominate attention, while structural issues such as housing receive comparatively less sustained focus.

This creates a disconnect. On the one hand, there is a public which clearly recognises the severity of issues like homelessness. On the other hand, there is a political campaign which does not appear to be organising itself around those concerns in a way that captures attention or builds momentum. 

Disengagement, in this context, is not simply apathy. It may instead reflect a judgement that the political process on offer is not addressing the issues people consider most important in a sufficiently clear or credible way. 

That has implications for the outcome of this election. Lower turnout tends to favour parties with older, more consistent voting bases, potentially skewing representation further away from young people and more precarious groups. It also reduces the pressure on parties to broaden their appeal or develop more ambitious proposals.

More fundamentally, it raises questions about the effectiveness of the political system itself. If there is broad agreement that homelessness should be ended, and clear evidence of public concern, but limited political urgency in response, then the issue may not be one of awareness but of delivery. 

Campaigners have already warned that the next parliament will need to be “much more ambitious” and act quickly if it is to make meaningful progress. That implies a step change from current approaches rather than incremental adjustment. 

Whether the current election campaign is laying the groundwork for that kind of change is less clear. If voters are disengaged, it may not simply be because they are uninterested in politics. It may be because politics, as currently presented, does not appear sufficiently interested in them. Nor is it helped by a political culture which too often reduces serious structural challenges to a cycle of attack and rebuttal, rather than sustained focus on solutions.

Until that changes, it is difficult to see why many voters would feel compelled to engage.