VOTER BEHAVIOUR Flashcards
bullet point factors which influence voter behaviour in elections
- media
- stances on current affairs
- scandals
- the shape of the economy
- personalities involved / leadership
- record in government
- manifesto
- election policy
define class alignment
- the commitment of a specific social class to a specific political party (because they protect the interests of that class)
- voting for a specific party allows you to establish your identity
- a correlation between class and party identification
- this is the idea of political socialisation and inherited partisanship
define class disalignment and explain its increasing occurance
- social evolution is causing voters to disassociate from a specific political alignment - class rigidity has declined
- this could be due to deindustrialisation, which erodes a sense of community, which often impacts political affiliation and voter behaviour
- class no longer dictates voting behaviour as much
explanation:
- there has been a rise in other factors which influence voting behaviour, of which class is sidelined as a factor
- party identification has recently decreased
- the change in the dynamic in the social and political arena has allowed for class boundaries to be dissolved, and has sidelined them in influencing elections
- there is much less of an attachment to a specific party, partly due to political apathy, but also due to the range of parties and the character of their leader
define valence voting
- valence voting is when nearly everyone votes the same way on specific issues, and there is a degree of public consensus, with only a minimal number of people adopting a different position
define triangulation
moving policy and values to a more moderate end of the spectrum to be more inclusive and less radical - impact more people
what is the butler stokes model
the idea that parents influence the political alignment and affiliation of their child through their class and political belief, with short term influences only marginally impacting voting behaviour
give a list of factors which shape class alignment to a specific party
- religion
- age
- gender / sex
- occupational class
- occupation and career
- social location / who you surround yourself with
describe the change in valence voting in recent years (analysis)
- previously, the parties were less ideologically polarized, and were much more moderate, meaning issues which were voted on typically showed a level of public unity and consensus on specific votes
- however, now, there are many more parties and options, as much larger parties feel the need to radicalise themselves to differentiate themselves, which creates an ideological gap and level of polarization in their stances (this means parties continuously shift their ideological standpoints, which may erode voter identification)
what are the causes and consequences of valence voting
causes:
- moderate and ideologically similar parties with a lack of policy differentiation
- lack of political interest / apathy (simplification of voting) - 35% don’t know what party to vote for
- decline in party identification and affiliation because of the moderate nature of parties
consequences:
- reliance on the incumbent (know what they will do and their policy stance) (ie 42% of people felt Cameron was more capable than Miliband in 2015, only 27% of people thought Miliband was capable)
- parties must actively try to differentiate themselves
- creates a degree of polarization - people will strongly dislike the opposing stance (those who voted for Cameron, are 10x more likely to vote for him than others)
- focus on party leaders and their personality, because their policies are the same, but the leader is the only point of differentiation, which increases scrutiny and the need to be more appealing
- portrays public opinion (49% were satisfied with Cameron in 2015, and dissatisfied at 58% a year later)
- party popularity may fluctuate much more
- less scrutiny on policy, but much more attention toward the government and their party performance
what is the alford index
an index used which ranges from positive and negative figures to display a level of party affiliation and correlation between class and voting behaviour
- a more negative number = strong class association
- more positive number = idea that class association is now diluted
define triangulation
- parties taking an ideological middle stance in order to appeal to the median voter, distancing themselves from radical parties
factors which led to the outcome of the 1979 election
- the conservatives / their policy stance
- the policy of labour itself
- party identification of labour
context to the 1979 election
- callaghan missed an election opportunity in october, when the economy was more stable
- he later lost a vote of no confidence / the government already had no trust in him
- he was also on holiday (no credibility) - ‘crisis, what crisis’ idea - the winter of discontent of 1978-1979
- lower enthusiasm and economic flexibility
- caused various strikes
- labour was perceived to be a disconnected party
how did policy of the conservatives give them a general election victory
- the tories had moderated and triangulated their policies (ie 6/7 manifesto objectives were approved of by a majority of labour voters)
- the conservatives knew what issues were most important to the electorate (ie they prioritised taxation and reducing income tax)
*the conservatives were 61% points ahead of labour on tax- 20% of voters thought taxation was the critical policy
- the conservatives presented that they were in control of their politics (for example, taxing social security benefits)
- because of this presentation of control, conservative supporters trusted the government
- 1979 conservative manifesto = straightforward, reduce tax + refuse union power
how did the policy of labour influence their loss
- labour policy let many voters feel isolated and have minimal party identification with labour (lost this entrenched and concrete support base)
- labour policy was not in line with what their voters wanted
- labour had the opportunity to reform taxation policies, and it was fully within their control, but they refused (despite taxation being a salient issue)
- perception that change could only occur under the conservatives
- on issues which were regarded as most important, conservatives led by 7.1% points
- labour’s 5% policy - labour would not let wages rise above 5% to combat inflation, but wages in the private sector rose by 17%
- labour was unsure about how to commit to change (moss evans)
- labour tried to implement sanctions and were blocked (weak)
- satisfaction with callaghan dropped to 33%, thatcher boomed to 48%
- budget deficit by labour in 1976
- unemployment rate rose under labour from 3% to 6% (control)
how did party identification of labour lead to its election loss
- the labour government soon stopped co-operating with unions (this was the core image labour had)
- friction of labour with its critical support base
- there were lorry strikes and oil tank drivers led by the national union of public employees (minimal support)
- trade unions were not committed to labour
- 51% of voters by feb 1789 said strikes were a critical national problem
describe the idea of a loss of party identification
- when voters no longer associate themselves with a specific party anymore
- causes loyalty to be eroded, and to lack any class alignment
- it means that there is a significant number of voters who are not associated with a specific party anymore
- these voters are also completely unresponsive to the party, so the party lacks influence
- less attachment of groups (ie unions) to a party = minimal partisan alignment
KEY stats from the 1979 election
- the labour share of the vote was only 36% and win 269 seats
- conservatives win 44% of the vote and win 339 seats
- swing of 5% of votes to the conservatives, highest swing since 1945
image of thatcher in the 1979 election, but how did her lead narrow in the election
- presented as a docile, caring and loving woman
- keen to avoid any presentation of her being snappy and bossy, as this would deter from original stereotyping, and support would erode
- her lead narrowed from 11.9 points to 7.2 points
use of media in the 1979 election
- thatcher refused to appear in media / TV programmes (ie weekend world) bc she was less experienced
- images of thatcher with children, or supporting local tea businesses
- wilson (labour) admitted his wife was keen to vote tory bc thatcher was a woman
- the campaigns organised by saatchi, claiming that “labour wasn’t working” (front page media newspaper)
- edward heath used papers to amplify how over 1 million people were unemployed
record in gov in 1979 election
- passive - refused to change the taxation system, which labour was more than capable
- “crisis, what crisis”
- economic issues (ie employment steadily rose)
voting behaviour pattern for 1979
- more women vote for thatcher bc she is a woman (ie harold wilson wife)
- 6.5% of swing of unskilled workers, and 7% swing of trade unionists to conservatives
- more young voters (who do not have cemented political views - more flexible) - 9.5% swing
- many men swung to the conservatives (18-24 manual workers of 1974 compared to 1979 = 21% points)
factors leading to the 2017 election outcome
- the campaign itself
- the policies of the party
- the manifesto
context to the 2017 election
- manchester arena bombing
- stabbings on london bridge
- was a snap election, meaning that policy and campaigning was rushed
- snap election to strengthen support in brexit negotiations
*idea that the conservatives had cut policing spending under may, and look what happens
how did policies lead to may narrowly winning the 2017 election
- dimentia tax by nick timothy and fiona hill (what people owed to the state was taken from the estate) - stupid because conservative voters are typically older + this policy challenged generational wealth
*may also did not provide any input into this policy bc of snap election (lack of leadership) - conservatives were planning on cutting winter fuel payments (ie erode support base)
- may (home sec) cut police spending, and 2 terrorist attacks occurred
how did labour policies and manifesto boost their popularity
- labour proposes the idea of abolishing of tuition fees, which boosts support among young people
manifesto:
- manifesto was leaked a week early - meant it obtained exclusive coverage and exposure early (undivided voter attention) = more coverage + second wave of exposure later
- labour’s manifesto involved mass nationalisation policies of water, rail etc (it was radical + would mobilise voters)
how did the conservative manifesto lead to a slim conservative win in the election in 2017
- manifesto was rushed bc of a snap election
- manifesto pledges attacked the elderly
KEY stats from 2017 election
- conservative 21 point lead narrowed closer to the election
- conservatives lost 13 seats and 42% of vote
- labour win 40% of vote and gain 30 seats (closest result = polarization)
- small parties all lose many seats, UKIP lost seat
*vote share of lab + tory = 82%
break down leadership into 3 paras
- leader of current gov (incumbent)
- incoming leader - opposition
- leadership actions
voting behaviour pattern for 2017
- those with lower educational qualifications voted conservative, 22% more than labour
- more men voted conservative
- retired / elderly people still voted conservative
- for every 10 years someone is, the chances of voting conservative increases by 10 percentage points
- turnout was at 84% of people above 70
- 57% voter turnout among younger people, whom 66% vote labour
impact of media
- BBC
- murdoch
- opinion polling
factors which led to the labour win in the 1997 election
- individual personas
- the media / opinions
- the conservatives
- conservative campaigning problems
- labour policies
- the economy
wider political context for 1997 election
- the conservatives had been in power for 18 years - people needed change
- the economy had fallen apart and inflation was huge due to the conservatives
- the conservative party was fractured
- britain was trying to figure out what todo about europe and how to bring significant change
- loss of class based voting bc of this presentation of “new labour”
key stats from the 1997 election
- labour only had a small lead in many constituencies - ie 3 point lead in 2nd place constituencies
- labour only won 45% of the vote but 179 majority
- gender swing to labour: 45% of men
- ethnicity: 82% black voters vote labour, 66% asian
- age: labour was ahead in every age bracket, including older 55+ groups
- a lot of voters were focusing on safe seats and so would avoid voting here
- there was also a degree of tactical voting between labour and lib dems as to defeat conservatives - the media published tactical voting guides
how did individual personas cause labour to win the 1997 election
blair:
- young, revolutionary, charismatic and energetic leader
- he wanted complete change / remove old connotations of labour
- idea of ‘blair effect’
- his young nature and moderate stance allowed for a galvanised party
- said “change” 37x in a speech
- ‘presidential’
major:
- confessed that the conservatives would lose in april
- low morale / minimal motivation
- he could not galvanise the party
- malleable and weak leader
- no consistency
- untrustworthy
- passive
how did the conservatives cause labour to win the 1997 election
policies:
- claim leaving the ERM is betrayal yet proceed todo so - 50% of public is dissatisfied
- 22 tax increases since 1992
- major was ignoring key questions on health and educational policy in conferences
- only 25% of people thought that standards of living improved, 38% thought they declined
- disagreement over europe and ERM
internal divisions:
- not cohesive - ministers openly criticise major
- kenneth clark admitted that economic reform was to clean up the party
- there was a divide on if to dwell upon labour in the past, ie the “it hurt” slogan was too backward looking
- leadership challenge by john redwood
how was the economy a cause for labour winning the 1997 election
- 1992 = black wednesday - britain forced to leave the EERM after pound falls, forcing use of gold reserves and interest rates spike to 15% (economic mismanagement)
- hurts homeowners after the ‘right to buy’ policy of thatcher - own party hurts them
- labour 20% polling lead
- government forced to borrow 50 billion from 1993-1994
- norman lamont initially refuses to resign then resigns - no consistency
how did media allow labour to win the election
- the sun, mirror and the guardian openly support tony blair - faith in politicians
- the media doesn’t cover the conservative press conferences (no interest / public exposure)
- ‘new labour, new danger’ slogan was disliked by 73% of people, whom 58% were tory - lack of consensus
- the conservatives had used xenophobic and inappropriate comments towards blair (amplified by media - distrust)
- 1996 scott report about internal actions of ministers - amplified by media
conservative campaigning problems in 1997
- conservatives could not decide on a campaign policy to stick to and adopt (no united campaign approach)
- conflicts with saatchi and tim bell over media methods
- the tories used negative campaigning, presenting them as bitter
- the conservatives were too hung up on the idea of ‘old labour’ and completely missed this new labour rhetoric
- conservatives never met to discuss campaigning (ie michael haseline)
- actions of danny finkelstein (no credability + unity)
how did labour policies allow them to win the 1997 election
- blair adopts ideas of triangulation to include more middle ground voters (inclusive)
- radical reform = remove clause IV of labour party charter (less socialist) - distance from old labour rhetoric
- blair applied pressure to tow the line (labour was well messaged)
- over 70% believed labour’s policies were sincere
- labour was deemed as a safe bet
- embraced thatcherism (ie no trade unions, privitisation)
- was not a class based party - it was new and inclusive
- it was not as socialist - erode tory support base by becoming more moderate (labour gave the perception of being in control)
labour campaign:
- phillip gould - created focus groups for labour to ensure public satisfaction
factors which led to the conservative win in 2019
- the conservatives
- leadership
how did leadership allow the conservatives to win in 2019
persona of johnson:
- he was semi-young but also created a sense of loyalty
- debates on TV presented himself as competent / able to impose change
- idea of ‘get brexit done’ - commanding and strong figure - contrast weakness of may
leadership of corbyn:
- corbyn failed to amplify his ideas about brexit and the labour stance
- his persona was overshadowed by the charisma of corbyn
how did conservative policy allow them to win in 2019
- brexit
- the party had a strong and strict approach on brexit
- this presented the conservatives as unified
- labour was ‘on the fence’ about their policy
- it became a brexit election
- brexit was appealing to the “red wall” of voters who supported leave (fluid support from multiple voters)
wider context to 2019 election
- loss of class based voting - much more fluid
- became a brexit election
- may’s government had failed to pass brexit - need a strong government in power
key stats from 2019 election
- conservatives retain their 2017 voters
- 85% of those who voted conservative in 2017 stuck with them in 2019, compared to 72% of labour voters - age
- 21% of 18-24 = conservative, vs 67% = 70+ - gender
- 46% men = conservative + 44% women
- younger women voted labour - minorities
- 64% of black voters vote for labour, aligns with 2017 at 72% - conservatives only win about 20% of these voters
- 67% voter turnout
- johnson wins 42% of vote and 80 seat majority
voting patterns across the 4 elections
1. 1979
2. 1997
3. 2017
4. 2019
*ideas of partisanship, voting attachment, class based voting etc
