Voting behaviour and media Flashcards
Define and briefly outline Class dealignment
Class dealignment the process where individuals no longer identify themselves as belonging to a certain class and - in political terms - fail to make a class connection with their voting choice.
Class dealignment is the weakening of the relationship between social class and party support. Social class may nevertheless remain a significant factor influencing electoral choice. Class dealignment is reflected in a declining proportion of working-class voters supporting Labour, and a fall in the proportion of middle- class voters supporting the Conservatives. Among the consequences of class dealignment has been a shift in the policies and ideas of the major two parties (especially Labour) as they have been forced to seek votes from ‘natural’ supporters of other parties
Give some explanations for class dealignment
Suggested explanations for class dealignment include the following:
- Changing class system. The manual work force has shrunk (from 58 per cent in 1961 to 29 per cent in 2013), and the ‘traditional’ working class has given way to the ‘new’ working class.
- Cross-class locations. Social class has become less clear-cut, through, for instance, the decline in trade union membership and the rise in home ownership.
- Embourgeoisement. Growing affluence has encouraged some working-class voters to think of themselves as being middle-class. Affluent workers are less ‘solidaristic’ and may be more concerned about material self-interest.
- Sectoral cleavages. Voters have been increasingly affected by whether they work in the public sector or the private sector. These cleavages cut across class differences.
Outline the diminishing proportion of the population in class dealignment
A diminishing proportion of the population consider themselves a member of a specific class. Class is less important in society than it used to be. The parties have tended to move towards the centre of the political spectrum which means they appeal to people across the class boundaries.
Other factors than class have become important. Increasingly, voters have become unpredictable in their voting and are more influenced by the image of the parties than which class they seem to favour
Define and briefly Outline Partisan dealignment
Partisan dealignment the process where individuals no longer identify themselves on a long-term basis by being associated with a certain political party.
Partisan dealignment is a decline in the extent to which people align themselves with a party by identifying with it. What is seen as the ‘normal’ support of parties falls, and a growing number of electors become ‘floating’ voters. The main consequence of partisan dealignment has been greater electoral volatility. This has been reflected in increased uncertainty about electoral outcomes, as ‘swings’ from one party to another become larger and, perhaps, in the rise of new parties or the decline of old ones
Give some reasons for partisan dealignment
A variety of explanations have been offered for partisan dealignment:
- Increased education. The expansion of education in recent decades has encouraged voters to question traditional, party-based loyalties, and perhaps to take policies and issues more seriously
- Impact of the media. Voters have access to wider sources of political information, particularly through television. They are therefore less dependent on party-supporting newspapers.
- Ideological change. Shifts in parties’ policies and ideological beliefs since the 1980s (often in response to class dealignment) have alienated some of their traditional supporters.
- Decline in ‘social capital’. As post-industrial societies have become more diverse, fluid and consumer-orientated, social attachments and loyalties of all kinds have weakened
Causes of a decline of partisanship
The main factor in partisanship today is a trend known as partisan dealignment. This means that a progressively smaller proportion of voters feel a strong attachment to one of the major parties. This decline in partisanship has a number of causes:
- Class dealignment has occurred, This means that the old strong links between the working class and Labour and the middle class and the Conservatives have weakened . As a result of class dealignment people have weaker party attachments.
- The parties have tended to adopt centrist policies which can attract a wider range of voter support. There is a growing support for smaller parties such as the Green Party and Scottish Nationalists.
- There is a general widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of parties at Westminster (demonstrated by UKIP voting and low turnouts up to 2017) so people feel less attachment to them. Nevertheless there was something of a revival in support for the two main parties in 2017.
- There has been a long-term decline in party membership, with the exception of a revival in Labour membership and activism in 2016–17, so there are fewer committed party supporters. Despite these trends, class remains a fairly good predictor of how an individual will vote
Briefly outline issue voting
Voting behaviour that is shaped by party policies and (usually) a calculation of personal self-interest.
Where issue voting takes place, voters place one issue above all others and cast their vote based on that issue. They judge a party or candidate by their position on the issue and choose the one that most closely reflects their own opinion. This can mean they vote for a candidate whose other policies would be to their detriment.
Elections in the UK are rarely dominated by one issue-although the health of the economy is consistently significant- but 2019 could be described a s the Brexit election.
Outline the Rational choice theory in Issue Voting
Rational choice theory assumes that voters will make a rational, or logical, judgement based on what is in their own best interests. In an ideal version, voters will be fully informed about the various options and will choose the option that is best for them. By aggregating these views, the winning verdict will reflect what is best for society as a whole. The assumption here is that a voter will conduct a cost/benefit analysis of all options and make their choice accordingly.
Outline Tactical Voting
First used on a large scale in 1997, tactical voting occurs when two parties are sufficiently close to one another in policy and ideological terms for their supporters to be willing to vote for the ‘other’ party in order to keep their ‘least preferred’ party out of power. In 1997 and 2001, tactical voting favoured Labour and the Liberal Democrats and damaged the Conservatives. However, more complex patterns of tactical voting appeared to have taken place in 2005 and 2010. Divisions between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over the Iraq War may have meant that – in those elections – fewer Liberal Democrat supporters were willing to ‘lend’ their vote to Labour, while former Labour supporters disaffected by the war were happy to switch their vote to the Liberal Democrats.
Define Governing Competency
Governing competency the perceived ability of the governing party in office to manage the affairs of state effectively. It also applies to how voters regard the potential competency of an opposition party, if it were to win office.
Another way of explaining voting behaviour is known as rational choice theory: the idea that voters behave like consumers, deciding how to vote by evaluating what is the most beneficial option for them as individuals. Voters look at the policies on offer and choose the party most closely aligned to their preferences. This is linked to the growth of a more educated electorate, with more access to political information, particularly since the rise of the Internet. This approach is problematic because it assumes that voters make rational choices based upon a knowledge of party policies. It does not explain elections where voters feel differently about different issues, or where there is no single overriding issue.
Define Performance of government in Governing Competency
The conventional wisdom on elections has long been that ‘governments lose elections; oppositions do not win them’. This suggests that elections are largely decided by the performance of the government of the day, and particularly by its economic performance. As the reminder on the wall of Bill Clinton’s office during the 1992 presidential election put it: ‘It’s the Economy, Stupid’. If the 2010 general election could be regarded as a ‘referendum’ on Labour’s performance, the party was fatally damaged by the loss of its reputation for economic competence following the global financial crisis and the subsequent sharp recession. In the case of the Conservatives in 2015, it was notable that the claim that their ‘plan is working’ was sustained by an economic recovery that had started two years earlier.
Define Valence in the Governing Competency
Valance is the image of the party and how well they are liked and trusted. Theresa May identified the Conservative’s valence problem after 1997 when she described them has becoming seen as ‘the nasty party’.
Define Disillusion and apathy
Disillusion and apathy refers to the extent to which individuals increasingly become disengaged with politics. Disillusion and apathy might be measured in several ways, such as low turnout in elections, or declining membership of political parties.
Define Manifesto
The document in which a political party details what actions and programmes it intends to introduce if it is successful in the next election — a set of promises for future action.
Define Mandate
The authority to govern, which a government derives from an election victory. This means that it has the right to introduce its policies as stated in its manifesto. It also allows it to take decisions on other issues as they arise during its term of office, which could not have been foreseen when the manifesto was produced
Case study: Fulfilling a manifesto pledge: extending free childcare
In the Conservative manifesto of 2017 there was a promise to offer working parents of 3 and 4-year-olds 30 hours of free childcare a week instead of 15 hours.
This was primarily designed to increase the number of parents in work (and therefore paying taxes and contributing to the nation’s economy) who might otherwise not be able to afford the cost of additional childcare. It was also felt that some young children might benefit from the opportunities for socialisation and would be taught basic skills by nurseries or childminders. Only those earning less than £100,000 would be eligible. This scheme was rolled out and in operation by September 2017.
Outline the Case Study of the 1945 elections
The 1945 election marked a watershed in British history. The successful Conservative wartime leader, Sir Winston Churchill, was defeated by Clement Attlee’s Labour Party.
Attlee’s landslide victory ushered in the welfare state and the National Health Service. The commanding heights of the British economy were nationalised. India was granted independence.
Background - Winston Churchill’s national government, established in 1940 to guide Britain through World War II, ended on May 23, 1945. The Labour Party re-engaged in politics, but Churchill was hesitant to dissolve Parliament before the Pacific war ended. The 1945 election marked the first in Britain for ten years, as the previous decade had seen significant changes and a new left-leaning consensus developed during the war. The Beveridge report, published in December 1942, recommended a welfare state and National Health Service, which received widespread support but received lukewarm support from Churchill and the Conservative Party. The nation had experienced war and anticipated victory.
Campaign - Despite polls showing Labour six points ahead of the Conservatives, most observers believed the Tories would win the election. Churchill’s popularity as a war leader led to the Conservatives’ appeal to the nation under the slogan “Vote National - Help him finish the job.” Churchill and Lord Beaverbrook criticized Labour’s proposals for a welfare state and nationalisation of key industries, stating they would need to “fall back on some kind of Gestapo” to implement them. The Labour manifesto, Let us Face the Future Together, offered a radical departure from the past.
Results- On 26 July 1945, Labour won the Parliamentary majority of 146 seats, the largest in post-war British history, with 48% of the vote. This unprecedented swing of 12 points was more a rejection of the Conservative Party than Winston Churchill’s performance as a war-leader. Many first-time voters and those in the forces voted Labour, as it persuaded voters that it could build the post-war world desired by the majority. Churchill’s refusal to embrace the Beveridge Report cost him dearly.
Outline the results of the 1945 General Election
Labour
Votes- 11,967,746, Seats- 393, Change - + 239
UK Vote Share (%)- 48.0 and GB Vote Share (%)- 48.8
Conservatives
Votes- 9,972,010, Seats-210, Change -219, UK Vote Share (%)- 39.6 and GB Vote Share (%)- 39.3
Liberal
Votes- 2,252,430, Seats- 12, Change- 9, UK Vote Share (%)- 9.0 and GB Vote Share (%)- 9.2
Outline the Case study of the 1997 election
Background and Campaign: “The Conservatives had taken a hit on their traditional reputation for economic competence. In September 1992 the pound spectacularly crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. From this stage on Labour was ahead in the polls. In addition, there was open Conservative feuding on Europe and this was responsible for the government’s defeat on the Maastricht Bill in 1993 as well as for John Redwood’s 1995 leadership challenge. There were 12 Conservative resignations from office taking place over allegations of personal impropriety and misconduct, meaning the Conservatives were in a very weak position going into 1997
Tony Blair led Labour through a modernisation policy, abandoning traditional policies like nationalisation and tax increases. He emphasized tough signals on law and order and business links. Labour won the endorsement of the press, including The Sun and The Times, and its 1997 platform stressed policy details like reducing primary school classes and cutting hospital waiting lists. However, there was no stark difference between Labour and the Conservatives. John Major’s 21-seat majority had become a minority administration, and Labour won the Wirral South by-election, showcasing economic evidence of Britain’s “booming” economy
Outline the results of the 1997 election
The final result of the election 1997 revealed that Labour had won a landslide majority, making a net gain of 146 seats and winning 43.2% of the vote. 150 Members of Parliament, including 133 Conservatives, lost their seats.
Outline the factors which explain the results of the 1997 election
FPTP- Labour’s crushing victory nevertheless owed much to the Westminster electoral system, as it was based on just 43.2 per cent of the vote.
Not ‘the economy stupid’- The election was also a notable exception to the ‘rule’ that the key determinant of electoral success is the government’s economic performance. In this case, despite the fact that the economy had been growing strongly since about 1993, with unemployment falling steadily, the Conservatives lost 178 seats, the party’s vote having fallen to 30.7 per cent on the basis of a 10.2 per cent swing to Labour.
New Labour- In explaining the outcome of the 1997 election, most attention has focused on how, after four successive defeats, Labour managed to transform its electoral fortunes. In a process that had started under Neil Kinnock in the 1980s, but accelerated sharply once Blair became party leader in 1994, the Labour Party radically altered its image and policies. Rebranded as New Labour; the party abandoned left-wing policies which addressed the interests of the ‘traditional’ working class and adopted a centrist programme aimed at attracting support from the middle classes; rewriting the ‘socialist’ Clause IV of the party’s constitution in the process.
The media- Under Blair, Labour also launched a ‘charm offensive’ intended to win over the City and big business, and assiduously cultivated the Murdoch press, gaining the endorsement of The Sun in the 1997 election. The effectiveness of these strategies was evident in the success Labour had in 1997 in winning support from C1 and C2 voters, even attracting increased support from AB voters. Nevertheless, some argue that governments lose elections, oppositions do not win them. From this perspective, the parlous state of the Conservatives, rather than the transformation of Labour, was the principal explanation for the outcome of the 1997 election.
Events- Conservative misfortunes arguably began in September 1992 when a speculative surge against the pound forced the UK out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, in the process damaging the party’s reputation for economic competence.
A disunited party- More seriously, John Major’s Conservative government was dogged throughout the 1990s by splits over Europe, which, combined with a small parliamentary majority from 1992, made the prime minister appear weak and the party hopelessly divided.
Time for a change- Finally, the Conservatives may have struggled precisely because they had been in power too long, parties that win a number of successive elections tending to experience a decline in support over time. The Conservatives were thus vulnerable to perhaps the most potent of all electoral slogans: ‘Time for a change’.
Outline the Case studies of the 2019
The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on Thursday, 12 December 2019. The Conservative Party, having failed to obtain a majority in the 2017 general election, had faced prolonged parliamentary deadlock over Brexit while it governed in minority with the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a situation which had forced the resignation of the previous Prime Minister, Theresa May. Boris Johnson took a huge gamble by calling a December general election for the first time in almost a century. But he was celebrating on Friday morning after the Conservatives scored one of their biggest general election victories in recent years
In July 2019, after May’s resignation, Boris Johnson was elected as Conservative leader and appointed as Prime Minister. Johnson could not induce Parliament to approve a revised withdrawal agreement by the end of October, and chose to call for a snap election. The House of Commons supported the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019 by 438–20, setting the election date for 12 December. Opinion polls up to polling day showed a firm lead for the Conservatives against Labour throughout the campaign
