electoral systems Flashcards
Only FTPT can deliver a strong and stable government
- gives a majority, don’t need to compromise with other parties, get policies through much easily - Blair had one of the biggest majorities. 1997 Labour won a majority of 178 seats. Blair got through many polices such as Belfast agreement, creation of sottish parliament in 1997.
2.Prime ministers with little or no majority in the House of Commons are more likely to come under pressure from rebellious MPs and will have to work much harder at securing the passage of legislation. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair suffered only four defeats in House of Commons votes in their respective 11 and 10 years as Prime Minister,
in contrast to the 34 defeats of Jim Callaghan’s minority government from 1976−79 and Theresa May’s 33 defeats (and withdrawal of other key votes to avoid defeat) in her 3 years. - government can fully go through mandate - Boris Johnson gained a majority after his snap election. was able to get Brexit policy done. ‘get Brexit done’ was the slogan he used. not intervened by house of lords due to the Salisbury convention.
against
1. FPTP doesn’t always produce a strong majority, coalition between the conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2010. liberal democrats gained 23% of the votes.
2. FPTP may lead to dominance in commons but not in lords. in 2022 - 2023 the government was defeated 128 times. even with a majority - government weren’t able to push policies through.
3.
FPTP is a failing system and needs to be replaced with a proportional system
650 constituencies for the election of MPs to the House of Commons.
- It also better reflects the development of multiparty politics in the UK, STV delivers proportional outcomes and ensures that votes are largely of equal value, as votes cast directly translate into seats
- For example, in the 2017 NI Assembly election, DUP won 28% of the vote and 28 seats
- This ensures that voters are not disillusioned by the prospect that the party they are voting for (minor party) has no chance in electoral success - easier to respond to democracy- Blair had one of the biggest majorities. 1997 Labour won a majority of 178 seats. Blair got through many policies such as Belfast agreement, creation of sottish parliament in 1997.
2.get strong and stable governments.Prime ministers with little or no majority in the House of Commons are more likely to come under pressure from rebellious MPs and will have to work much harder at securing the passage of legislation. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair suffered only four defeats in House of Commons votes in their respective 11 and 10 years as Prime Minister,
in contrast to the 34 defeats of Jim Callaghan’s minority government from 1976−79 and Theresa May’s 33 defeats (and withdrawal of other key votes to avoid defeat) in her 3 years.
3.Unrepresantative.The House of commons is made up mostly by the government and the government is elected through an unrepresentative system(FPTP). In 2019, the conservatives held 43.9% of votes, they gained extra 48 seats despite an increase of only 1.2% and 56% of votes left unansweredThe green party, lib dems, Brexit party received 16% of the votes(5.2 million) between them and yet they only shared 2% of the seats.
against
1. FPTP doesn’t always produce a strong majority, coalition between the conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2010. liberal democrats gained 23% of the votes.
2. leads to tyranny of majority, minority views won’t be heard. in 2015, conservatives won the election with only 36.9% of votes meaning 30% of votes are unanswered.
3. removes chances of extremist parties. for example, even though UKIP won 12.6% of the vote in 2015 they only won one seat.In 2014, UKIP won 24 seats in the European Parliament elections- the most of any party. The influence of the Lib Dems has increased in devolved assemblies, due to their traditional ‘third-party’ status.The most successful party overall was the UK Independence Party (UKIP) which won 24 seats and 27% of the popular vote.The United Kingdom was divided into twelve multi-member constituencies. The eleven of these regions which form Great Britain used a closed-list party list system method of proportional representation, calculated using the D’Hondt method. Northern Ireland used the Single transferable vote (STV).
Referendums are a worse form of democracy than elections
1.Unrepresantative.The House of commons is made up mostly by the government and the government is elected through an unrepresentative system(FPTP). In 2019, the conservatives held 43.9% of votes, they gained extra 48 seats despite an increase of only 1.2% and 56% of votes left unanswered. The green party, lib dems, Brexit party received 16% of the votes(5.2 million) between them and yet they only shared 2% of the seats.
2Higher turnouts for recent referendums; especially amongst younger voters shows a sense of encouragement about democracy in the UK.2017 UK general election -60% turnout while for the EU referendum 72.2% turned out - 64% of registered young people (18-24) turning out. Scottish Independence 2014 referendum - 97% of those who could register to vote with 10% of those being ‘first-time’ voters. 109,000 16-17-year olds also voted with 97% saying they would vote again. The overall turnout was 84.6%.
3.people are directly affecting policy -A referendum was held on 11 September 1997, with two questions. 74.3% of those who voted on the first question backed a Scottish parliament, and 63.5% of those who voted on the second question were in favour of it having tax-varying powers. The turn-out was 60.1% on the first question and 60% on the second question.
against
1. it maybe what the people want - labour and conservatives are seen to be more stable and trustful than other parties. for example, Lib Dems failed to put through removing tuition fees in their manifesto, Nick Clegg. it raised unto 9250 pounds instead. losing nearly all of their seats in 2015 general elections.
2.tyranny of the majority -For example, in the 2016 Brexit Referendum, 48.1% of voters still voted ‘Remain’, yet the simple majority means that 51.9% of voters can dictate the course of the future.
3.government can control when the referendum takes place and how they word it. lead to governments favoured results -The parliament and the government also decides the wording of the question - eg 1997 scottish parliament referendum asked voters two separate question - whether why wanted a scottish parliament and whether scottish parliament have tax varying powers - both passed- they did this to increase chances of parliament
FPTP entrenches the two party system and limits the voter choice
1.Labour and the Conservatives—the only two parties to have held majority governments in well over 50 years. This can be seen by the 2001 general election, in which Labour secured a 40.7% majority of the vote, the Conservatives 31.7% and the Liberal Democrats with only 18.3%—this shows the nature of the two-party system that is in the UK, with the Conservatives and Labour parties being the two parties near a majority.
2.due to electoral system we use -In 2019, the conservatives held 43.9% of votes, they gained extra 48 seats despite an increase of only 1.2% and 56% of votes left unanswered. The green party, lib dems, brexit party received 16% of the votes(5.2 million) between them and yet they only shared 2% of the seats. Lib Dems were also more disadvantaged; they lost a seat despite increasing the overall share vote of 4%.
3. labour and conservatives are able easily gain positive party image through being
against
1. However, this is not reflected in the two latest general elections in 2005 and 2010—with support for Labour falling to 29% and support for the Lib Dems rising to 23% by 2010. The 2010 general election also resulted in the need of a coalition with the third party, which shows that it is not only the two larger parties being involved in active government, as the Lib Dems now have a share in government. This shows the influx in support for the third party, being only 6% behind one of the big two parties and gaining seats in the ruling government.
2. UKIP won one seat with 12.6% but still go there manifesto through. completed what they created their party fro. They completed Brexit.
3.through technological advancements in media, easier for party to get a positive public image.2010 live tv debates of labour, cons, lib dems. Had over 10 million viewers. Lib de leader Nick Clegg won the first debate - reaching an approval rating of 68%. - national vote increased - but turned into a unreliability - support plummeted for lib dems after the party broke its manifesto pledge to oppose increases to university tuition fees - losing nearly all of their seats in 2015 general elections
class is the most important factor in explaining voting behaviour
6.
In addition leaders are still not so factor in determining the success of political party as popular leaders have lost elections signifying that leadership me be the decisive factor.
In 1979 James Callaghan was 20 points ahead of Margaret Thatcher in the opinion polls.
The public saw him to be a better Prime Minister than Batcher.
Despite this, Callaghan Went into lose the election showing that the focus was on policy and events rather than personality.
1.
A majority of seats in UK Westminster constituencies are safe seats, due to the requirement for only a simple majority, and the ability of larger parties to concentrate support in defined geographical areas.
media is a bigger factor - influence how people vote by creating a positive image fro a party -the press can express their political opinion, with papers like the Sun and the Telegraph supporting the Conservatives, and the Guardian and the Mirror supporting Labour. This can be demonstrated through the 1992 general election, in which the Sun wrote a headline stating, “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights,” alluding to their preference against Neil Kinnock (leader of the Labour Party). Following the Conservatives’ victory at this election, the Sun published a headline “it’s the Sun who won it.” This demonstrates the influence that media endorsements can have on voting behaviour, ultimately affecting the outcome of general elections. Taken in parallel to the 1997 general election, when the Sun switched to backing the Labour Party, and a similar result can be seen, with Labour winning a huge majority
2.Eg voters in social classes of DE are more likely to vote in labour as in a Scotland general election (2017) 47% of the DE voters voted Labour
As for class AB 47% of them voted for conservatives in the 2017 general election
One reason to explain this is because of the policies of both parties
Conservatives have traditional values giving low taxes and reduced welfare support. These policies appeal to the wealthier people
The data show that the Conservatives massively increased their Facebook output in 2019 (see Figure 1). In the 2017 campaign they made an average of around 3 Facebook posts per day, but this rose to nearly 21 in 2019.On Facebook Jeremy Corbyn and Labour achieved 86.2 million views on campaign videos, compared with only 24.5 million views for Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.Labour favour policies that redistribute wealth and provide greater support. Eg higher taxes on wealthier people and more spending on the welfare state
3. united/ divided party
John Major lost the 1997 election as his party was divided on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Both pro and anti EU conservative MPs lost their seats which shows the public voted against the divided weak party.
Eg of a united party - Tony Blair won the 1997 election by a landslide as reshaped ‘new labour’ with strong discipline and therefore created a united image of the party for the public- success
against
1.Despite their online presence, young people do not get their news from newspapers and newspapers have a declining readership. Most people who do read newspapers choose the one that most reflects their existing views, rather than the other way round. Supporting evidence: Newspapers were, in general, highly critical and dismissive of Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, yet he nearly won the election. AO3 judgement: This shows that newspapers do not have a real or significant influence on voting behaviour. This year the Conservatives won 48.9% of the seats with 42.4% of the popular vote, giving them a seats to vote ratio of 1.2. Labour, however, won 40.2% of the seats with 40.0% of votes meaning their seats to vote ratio was 1.0.
- 2010 general election - conservatives got 44% of 65+ and labour had 31% of 18-24 more than conservatives. The older you are, the more likely you are going to vote for conservatives.
Younger voters - more in favour of equality in spending and supporting social issues
Older voters - more sceptical of creating equal society - greater interest in taxation and property - still pretty close for class - Skilled working class 37% voted for conservatives and 39% voted for labour - 2010
not really a huge factor anymore - more to do with leadership as there leadership gets easily presented through media -Leadership, a clear sense of direction will see a positive response from voters. The ability to take control of an issue will also lead to party success.
boris Johnson won the 2019 election through his clear “get Brexit done” campaign, as it was clear
thatcher won the 1979 election due to her tough response to the issue surrounding strikers, who she subbed ‘the wreckers in our minds’
Eg of failed leadership - Boris Johnson faced criticism through the handling go COVID-19. As he faced opposition from his own party after putting England into a second lockdown
The NHS and education services were in decline and he promised more spending
Evaluate the view that reforms to the UK democratic system have not gone far enough.
The use of FPTP to select members of parliament to the House of Commons is a very significant indicator of the UK suffering from a democratic deficit.
FPTP is pluralist system which he was larger parties with concentrated support.
Smaller parties who win a large amount of the vote or disadvantage by FPTP.
In 2015 UKIP 3,000,000 votes, due to the flawed nature of the votes recorded they were only rewarded one sear under FPTP.
FPTP for the benefits larger parties by providing them with a winners bonus.
2005, Blair’s new labour won 35% although, they were awarded 65% of the seats in the House of Commons - undemocratic so the continued use of FPTP to elect MPs is a strong indicator of a democratic deficit.
Despite this, the use of proportional system for devolved bodies is a strong positive democratic feature in the UK.
The additional member system is used for elections to the Scottish parliament and the wash assembly, was single transferable vote is used for the Northern Ireland assembly.
The proportional system is a more democratic then FPTP as they proportionally reflect votes a party receives in the bodies and FPTP has been failing to provide a strong and stable government.
Devolved bodies are also strong indicator of a good democracy as it means decision-making is made closer to the people.
Overall it seems that FPTP will be the preferred electoral system for Parliament at 60% of the public voted to keep it in the 2014 AV referendum.
Labour, following sweeping victories in 1997 drop their pledge for electoral reform.
Even though devolved bodies use proportional systems, the unlikeliness of FPTP not being used is strong indicator of a democratic deficit.
2
UK is very clearly suffering from democratic deficit as the House of Lords remain un- elected.
The other house is made up of life peers, 92 hereditary peers and bishops.
Please have the power to block proposed bill of elected MPs despite being an elected and therefore an accountable.
Furthermore the appointment process to the House of Lords is increasingly becoming politicised - evident by the cash for on a scandal of 2006: peers being appointed on their ability to fund the Labour Party, opposed to grounds of merit and expertise.
The cash for on a scandal and the Prime Minister appointing on party political grounds demonstrates that the House of Lords is still largely undemocratic and will continue to contribute to a democratic deficit until further reform.
BUT, The House of Lords has improved since reforms me by new labour.
HoLs act 1999 made up a house more democratic by removing hereditary peers - reduce the number of peers from over 1300 to under 700 and instead of appointment by birthright, individuals are appointed on Mary and expertise in an area for the sample Lord sugar.
1999 has rules and also improved democracy by removing an overall party majority in the Lords - encourage greater scrutiny of the bills and insures rights are protected.
The Lord is now an active and a professional body that maintains a check on government.
The presence of the 92 auditory peers and it’s an elected nature means the other has continued to strongly contribute to the democratic deficit.
3
BUT, it should be noted that independent and neutral judiciary is good positive feature of the UK democracy.
The 2005 constitutional reform act created the Supreme Court and created a separation of powers.
Previously, the highest court of appeal site in the House of Lords - this meant that the law lords were part of the judiciary and legislature thus compromising notion of separation of powers.
As an independent body, did you Distri is fully able to uphold rule of law and scrutinise human rights.
The intro of the human rights act allowed to registry to act as a check on the very powerful government.
This act incorporated the ECHR into UK law, so right to a fair trial and right to privacy were protected.
The act allowed to do 3 to issue a declaration of incompatibility on legislation incompatible with the HRA.
This is democratic as peoples rights can be protected by the judiciary.
BUT, the sovereign nature of Parliament to bypass the judiciary undermines the independence of judiciary and points to democratic deficit.
evaluate the view that FPTP should be replaced by a proportional electoral system
PR voting systems tends to be more representative of smaller parties as voters cast numerous votes (AMS) and are able to rank their preferences (STV)
- It also better reflects the development of multiparty politics in the UK, STV delivers proportional outcomes and ensures that votes are largely of equal value, as votes cast directly translate into seats
- For example, in the 2017 NI Assembly election, DUP won 28% of the vote and 28 seats
- This ensures that voters are not disillusioned by the prospect that the party they are voting for (minor party) has no chance in electoral success
HOWEVER it could be argued that an advantage of FPTP is that whilst it excludes smaller parties, it does effectively keep out extremist parties such as UKIP and the BNP
- Parties on the far right and far left in British politics have not prospered in the UK due to FPTP making it difficult for smaller parties to gain consistent electoral success
- For example, whilst the support for UKIP in 2015 was strong - they received the fourth most votes - they failed to win any seats in the HOC
- Therefore it may be argued that FPTP is better than proportional representation alternatives
HOWEVER it is important that minor parties are not excluded from the political system in order for a pluralist democracy. Despite this, it could be argued that it is more important to protect the principles of democracy by excluding extremist parties from positions of governance
2.STV results in a government that has at least 50% of the votes, meaning that the actions of government have greater legitimacy, which is essential for a representative democracy
- STV also promotes coalition governments, which is important in areas such as Northern Ireland due to permitting a power-sharing government in the traditionally conflicted country between unionists and nationalists
- The likelihood of the formation of a coalition government, which is less likely under FPTP (there is the exception of the 2010-2015 Conservative and Lib Dem coalition), could be considered a positive feature of proportional representation as it allows for a pluralist democracy where minority views are included in key decision making
Multi-party government (Against PR)
- HOWEVER FPTP favouring the established parties and giving the winning party an additional bonus of seats (winners bonus) tends to result in a strong and stable government
- Single party governments with majorities can exercise significant control over the legislative process and they can fulfil their mandate by enacting the policy commitments they made in their manifestos and can decisively act during times of crisis
- For example, COVID, in which the governing party had a majority that allowed them to act decisively
3.Voters have greater choice under PR than FPTP. AMS allows for split ticket voting, when voters can select a candidate of one party to vote for, and a different party for their party list vote. In STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference
- This means that votes for minor parties are not likely to be wasted under PR systems, and this also eliminates tactical voting, which arguably is an undemocratic process and a symptom of the UK’s democratic deficit
Voter choice (Against PR)
- HOWEVER the complexity of these systems and their mass of choice may make them difficult to understand for the average voter at GEs
- For example, the design of Scottish ballot papers were changed after the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections when nearly 150,000 ballots were filled out incorrectly
- Also, the constituency link under FPTP is more suitable for representation purposes, as one MP can effectively represent the interests of a single area. STV’s multi-member constituencies weaken the constituency link, and under AMS, representatives are categorised into two. One has constituency duties and the other doesn’t, which could create tensions in the legislative assembly
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH FPTP IS NOT LONGER FIT FOR PURPOSE
FPTP most definitely fit for purpose as it tends to deliver strong and stable government which can deliver on manifesto promises e.g. Tony Blair was able to defer constitutional change after winning in 1997, this includes the House of Lords reform and evolution.
FPTP presents voters with a clear choice and therefore strong majority is a highly likely.
AND, governments can be held accountable and removed at the next election in voters disapprove of its record - Following economic crisis of 2008, labour was removed at the 2010 general election.
BUT, systems like STV 10 to deliver unstable coalition government which can abandon their manifesto commitments by working deals out beyond close doors e.g. there has not been a functioning government in Northern Ireland since 2017.
They may also give smaller parties under influence as they could hold the balance of power.
FPTPE is Fit for purpose as it provides a clear majority to a government to establish their mandate.
BUT, it should be noted that FPTP has failed to deliver a strong one party government in the last 2 out of three most recent elections.
AND, in Scotland AMS has delivered stable government in Scotland which shows that an alternative system like AMS might be able to deliver stable government.
Ultimately despite recent blips in recent elections, FPTP has proved its worth and on the whole delivered strong government which is vital for the passage of legislation and therefore should be kept.
2
The ease of voting and choice of candidates under FPTP is strong indicator the FPTP is fit for purpose.
FPTP is simple and quick to use with voters having to place a simple cross in the box.
Result is discovered fairly quickly and allows for a quick transfer of power.
The ease and familiarity Of FPTP helps explain why there is public support for use of the electoral system.
2011 AV referendum, 68% voted in favour of keeping FPTP showing it is fit for purpose.
Voting systems like STV are more complicated and may lead to confusion and ‘donkey voting’.
The outcome would be determined by bargaining which would take time.
After the 2010 Elections in Belgium, it took nearly 18 months for a government to be formed.
Despite this it should be noted that FPTP offers vote as little choice - each party put up one candidate so there is no choice between individuals representing different shades of opinion in the party - could result in voter apathy.
BUT, other systems of the vote has more choice - AMS allows split ticketing and STV allows for ranking of candidate meaning one of those preferences is likely to get into government which might not happen under a pluralist system like FPTP.
Voters are familiar with FPTP and this reduces the possibility of voter confusion.
Well more choice is available under other systems, voters like FPTP as shown by the failed AV referendum in 2011.
3
It is important to consider that the number of wasted votes FPTP generate can make it unfit for purpose.
Votes are we sit on the FPTP if they are cast for the losing candidate or if they are in excess of the priority needed for a candidate to win.
The electoral reform society concluded that nearly 75% or votes were wasted in 2015 and 68% in 2017.
Other proportional system is provide a much closer relationship between the percentage of votes cast on the number of seats one and so within each multiplier constituency, Candidate with significant vote share will be elected and votes are not wasted.
Despite wasted vote under FPTP, ultimately, the person with the most votes in a constituency wins.
Other systems like STV risk electing people that did not win the first preference vote.
Therefore, The least unpopular candidate may win rather than most popular candidate. In terms of wasted vote, it should be noted that the systems are better at reducing this problem.
Beauty, this feature is less important than the formation of a strong and stable government as FPTP does.
Subsequently, it is fit for purpose.
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH LEADERS ARE THE CRUCIAL FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF A POLITICAL PARTY
Leaders are most definitely not crucial factor in determining the success or failure of a political party as events are pivotal in shaping outcomes and events rather than leaders themselves.
Worldwide events such as economic crash of 2008 and largely beyond the control of party leaders.
Despite this they can have a significant impact on the fortunes of a party.
This was evident following the 2008 financial crisis that damage leavers reputation as a responsible party with the economy.
Even though Gordon Brown arguably go to the full effect of the crash by nationalising failing banks like northern rock, labour were punished heavily for the financial crisis in the 2010 general election.
Similarly the Conservatives Gained a poor reputation for economic competence after Black Wednesday in 1992 - Following this event, new label were able to implement their ideology and win sweeping majority of 418 seat in parliament.
Therefore leadership alone cannot be a key factor.
Nevertheless, the impact external events have a party success is undeniable.
Labour I thought trying to change the image of being reckless with the economy following the 2008 financial crisis.
2
However, importance of strong leaders has to be recognised as they can ensure party unity and hold various factions in the party together.
How leaders perform under the spotlight, such as PMQs matters in securing their electoral success.
Leaders need to perform effectively to carry the authority and give the impression that they can manage their party and subsequently the country e.g. David Cameron was successful at mocking Jeremy Corbyn at PMQ that’s protecting the image of a strong leader.
In contrast, weak leader struggle with divisions and rarely win elections and are less appealing to voters.
This was evident with Theresa May after she lost her majority in the 2017 election and her authority as the leader of the Conservative party and as prime minister.
Leading a party divided on Brexit, May has faith the largest a B in history of commons with 250 boots on her Brexit deal.
Therefore a strong leader is necessary for the success of a party.
3
In addition leaders are still not so factor in determining the success of political party as popular leaders have lost elections signifying that leadership me be the decisive factor.
In 1979 James Callaghan was 20 points ahead of Margaret Thatcher in the opinion polls.
The public saw him to be a better Prime Minister than Batcher.
Despite this, Callaghan Went into lose the election showing that the focus was on policy and events rather than personality.
This shows that party leaders do not have to be a really popular strong or charismatic to influence their parties success.
However in recent times the media has evolved and campaigns are increasingly presidential.
Leaders influence on the success of the party is increasing as leaders are the brand image of the party and can attract wavering voters to vote for the party e.g. in 1997 election, Blair appeal beyond the traditional Labour base by inspiring 19% swing in CI and winning the white vote from Conservatives.
Leaders of minor parties like Nigel Farage have made significant differences in their parties electoral appeal e.g. When Farage was leader of UKIP he was a charismatic individual who many ordinary people could relate to.
As elections are becoming more presidential they portance of leaders is likely to continue.
Whilst this is true, following disastrous policies like a poll tax from thatcher or external events like financial crisis for brown and Iraq war for Blair, popular leaders have been weakened, Just showing how factors outside a leaders control can be more significant than a leaders brand so the leader is important.
4
With the rise and significance of the media, leaders are becoming crucial to a parties success as a media focus is on the leader.
The leader is the figurehead and brand image of the party and much attention is given to their behaviour.
Leaders gain more Positive press an appeal more favourable to the electorate.
Whereas week leaders are marked by the press which damages their credibility with the public - Brown and Ed Miliband face negative ability before their respective general elections - this can thus explain them not running those elections.
In particular, the live TV coverage of brown in Rochdale where he labelled Gillian Duffy a ‘bigoted women’ - This undermines his credibility and damaged his character.
BUT, The media is crucial as this is how the electorate can obtain information and have a decisive effect on the success of a party.
The media has backed every winner since 1979.
Their influence was evident in the 1992 general election when John Mayer won a surprise victory.
The Sun claimed it as ‘it’s the sun wot won it’ following A relentless campaign against Neil Kinnock.
Therefore the media can strongly influence voters, not just leaders.
Nonetheless the media places heavy focus on party leaders which reinforces the idea that leaders are crucial to success.
Evaluate the view that newspapers are now having a less of an impact in a general election than social media
Newspapers lack impact
Circulation has declined by at least 50% since 1997 but social media has risen
Over 70% of 18-24 olds rely exclusively on SM for news
Twitter reports on political news extensively
Politicians use SM for their own marketing and to reach to constituents
Social media provides much more immediate comment on general elections such as 2010 leadership debates being reposted
Newspapers have always just reflected readers views not influencing them
Social media more impact
Newspapers still important in forming a leader image eg red ed in 2015 vs favourable coverage for Boris Johnson in 2019
Newspapers mainly pro conservative which has helped 2010-2019 election results
79% of labour votes read the guardian , 73% of conservative read telegraph- show impactful of newspapers
Newspapers have huge online teach - guardian 125 million online visits (Dec 2021)
Older
Voters most likely to read newspapers and high turnouts
Evaluate the view that the campaigns of political parties are more important in determining the result of a general election than the competence of government
Agree:
Tony Blair 1997 advert ‘Things can only get better’ and positive/media friendly
Charismatic leader-Blair
Parties use their campaign to criticise the government of the day eg Thatcher attacking Labour-”Labour isn’t working” and Winter of Discontent
2019 Boris Johnson got Brexit done appealing voters
Disagree:
Labour 1997 win also due to perceived incompetence of 1992 Tory government and there was a recession+Black Wednesday
2010 election Labour lost due to handling of the Great Financial Crisis in 2008
Perceptions of competence or lack of eg Miliband and Corbyn can turn off voters
Since 2019 Conservative reputation for competence through partygate, Liz Truss mini-budget which led to very low poll ratings
Evaluate the view that newspapers are now having less of an impact in a general election than social media
Agree:
Social media
Newspapers have gone to social media
Lots of politicians are now on social media eg on Twitter/X
Over 70% of 18-24 rely exclusively on social media for news
Circulation has declined by at least 50% since 1997 but social media has risen
Newspapers tend to reflect views not influencing the
Disagree:
Newspapers have huge online reach-Guardian 125 million online visits Dec 2021
Eg 2019 General Election 73% of Guardian Readers voted Labour and 79% of Telegraph readers voted Conservative
Aged 65+ typically read newspapers and had the highest turnout in 2019 approximately 70% which suggests that newspapers influence high turnout and impact elections. Aged 65+ typically vote Tory
Newspapers still significant in forming a leader’s image eg ‘Red Ed’ in 2015
Newspapers mainly pro-Conservative which has helped 2010-2019 election
