Good evening, they keep telling us the election, now less than a month away, is the most important for a generation, several generations even.

But the polls seem to show a confused picture with a lot of apathy, confusion, disenchantment mixed in.

Not to mention those who are saying, as many did during the last American presidential election,

if democracy is so wonderful, how did we end up with these choices?

It's undeniably true that old tribal loyalties seem to be breaking down. When I first voted in the

60s, more than 80% strongly identified with the political party. Only half the voters in the last

three elections voted the same way each time. A moral question here,

is that good or bad? What is better? To vote for ideas or for outcomes, out of ideological fealty

or utilitarian consequence? People are being urged to vote tactically, not so much for who we want,

but against who we don't. Even some MPs are saying we should vote for their

party's opponents. Is that right? When we're alone in the booth, is it okay to vote for self-interest,

or should we have the wider interests of society at heart? And why should we vote at all if we

despise the lot of them? Is abstaining a moral position? After all, if you continue to vote for the lesser

of two evils, things should get better, shouldn't they? Or at least not as worse as they might have

done. The morality, not the politics of voting. Our moral maids tonight, the panel, the former

Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo, the libertarian author Ella Weillan,

Nazir Afzal, a former chief prosecutor, and the priest and palamacist Charles Fraser.

Michael Portillo, not like this in your day, I dare say, but the moral principle is the same.

I don't think it's my place or indeed anyone else is to tell people whether they should vote or on what basis they should decide whether to vote or how they use their ballot.

So as far as I'm concerned, be tribal, altruistic, selfish, tactical or an abstainer.

It's fine by me.

Ella Weillam.

...