Voting behaviour and the media Flashcards
Voting behaviour and
the media
Before examining why people vote the way that they do, it is important to address
the popular misconception that the working class always vote Labour and that the
middle and upper classes are invariably Conservative voters. Like any misconception,
there is an element of truth in this. In the 1951 general election, for example, the
Conservative Party under Winston Churchill succeeded in defeating Clement Attlee
and Labour by mobilising middle-class support, which gave Churchill a majority in
the House of Commons.
However, general elections are influenced by a huge variety of other factors and it
would be simplistic to argue that the public will always vote according to class-based
allegiance. Margaret Thatcher won three general elections (1979, 1983 and 1987)
with significant amounts of working-class support, and in the 2017 and 2019 general
elections Theresa May and Boris Johnson won several traditionally working-class
seats, while seats that had been firmly Conservative were won by Labour.
The relationship between social class and voting behaviour is further complicated
by the reasons why voters of all classes might vote for the Liberal/Liberal Democrat
parties, the nationalist parties and the UKIP/Brexit parties. The variations within
social classes highlighted in Table 4.1 demonstrate why it is so important to avoid
generalisations when examining voting trends. Indeed, the more one studies voting
behaviour, the more one appreciates that the reasons why we vote as we do are
determined by a vast range of rational and even irrational factors.
In order to engage with this topic, you need to familiarise yourself with the
significance of at least three general elections. The case studies in this chapter focus
on the 1979, 1997 and 2019 general elections. You should be prepared to study these
in great depth, although you are advised to familiarise yourself with as many general
elections since 1945 as you can, as this will add conviction to your writing. It is
compulsory that you cover the 1997 general election.
CLASS A - Higher managerial, professional (judges, top civil servants, company directors)
Upper middle class
CLASS B - Middle managers, professionals (teachers, lawyers, accountants)
Middle class
CLASS C1 - Clerical workers, junior managerial roles, shop owners
Lower middle class
CLASS C2 - Skilled workers (builders, electricians, hairdressers)
Aspirational working class
CLASS D - Semi-skilled, unskilled factory workers
Working class
CLASS E - Casual workers, long-term unemployed, elderly people who rely solely on the
state pension
Working class
Social factors - Class-based voting and class/partisan dealignment
From 1945 until 1966, general elections were defined by how successful the Labour
and Conservative parties were in mobilising their core support. The Conservatives
generally relied on the support of A, B and C1 voters, with Labour’s core support
among C2, D and E voters. In the 1964 general election, for example, Labour’s
Harold Wilson won 64% of the votes of DE voters, while the Conservative prime
minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, won 78% of the support of AB voters.
However, the 1970 general election, in which the Conservative leader Edward
Heath achieved a surprise victory over Harold Wilson, demonstrated that issue
voting (see pages 144–45) could determine the result of a general election as much
as class-based voting. In this election, the Conservatives won a large number of
traditional Labour seats because, following Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech
in 1968, significant numbers of the white working class felt that immigration would
be more tightly controlled by the Conservatives. The decline of class-based voting
is also known as partisan dealignment and, since the 1970s, the results of general
elections have often been determined by striking examples of voting based on the
government’s competence and the salience (prominence) of specific issues rather
than according to class.
For example, in the 1979 general election, Margaret Thatcher startled political
commentators by launching the Conservative campaign in Labour-supporting
Cardiff. This was a clever attempt to disassociate the
party from being too middle class. The campaign’s
resulting focus on controlling inflation, enabling
tenants to buy their own council houses and confronting
trade union power following the excessive number of
strikes during the so-called ‘Winter of Discontent’,
was so popular that there was an 11% swing to the
Conservatives by C2 voters and a 9% swing by
DE voters. In her subsequent general election victories
(1983, 1987) Thatcher made further inroads into the
working class by associating the Conservatives with
strong national defence, privatisation and traditional
social values.
Like Thatcher, Tony Blair was highly successful at
broadening his party’s appeal far beyond its core
support. He increased Labour’s share of the vote in all
social categories and won a majority of support in all
age groups with the progressive appeal of New Labour
In the 2017 general election, Jeremy Corbyn gained further support from the AB
social category, while Theresa May made striking gains among DE voters. This was
due to pro-Europeans in higher social classes wanting to punish the Conservatives
for Brexit by voting Labour, while large numbers of DE voters considered the
Conservatives more likely to deliver Brexit and control immigration.
On the morning after the 2019 general election, Boris Johnson thanked Labour
voters who ‘lent’ their votes to the Conservatives, telling them, ‘I will never take
your support for granted.’ This suggests that the Conservatives understand that they
may not be a natural home for working-class voters and so will seek to maintain this
support by focusing on the NHS and ‘levelling up’. Whether or not they succeed is
likely to determine the extent to which partisan dealignment becomes a permanent
feature of UK politics.
Social factors - Region
All the national parties can claim a significant concentration of support in certain
parts of the country (Table 4.2). This is mostly due to economic and social factors.
l The South East is the most prosperous region in the UK, with high levels of
home ownership and little tradition of heavy industrial trade unionism. The
Conservatives do disproportionately well there. Ethnically white rural parts of
the UK, such as East Anglia and the South Coast, are also classic Conservative
territory.
l Labour, meanwhile, has dominated ethnically diverse big cities with large
working-class populations, and major centres of industrial production such as
South Wales, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Tyne and Wear.
l As a rule, the industrial North of England has been more likely to vote Labour
and the South of England Conservative.
The Liberal Democrats have fared disproportionately badly out of the UK’s first-
past-the-post electoral system (see Chapter 3) because they have fewer areas of
concentrated support. However, even liberalism has had its heartlands in the
Celtic fringes of the South West, rural Wales and the far north of Scotland,
where there is a long tradition of small-scale, non-conformist artisans who do
not identify with either of the main political parties. Since 1950, Orkney and
Shetland, for example, has always returned a Liberal/Liberal Democrat MP to
Westminster.
Voting by region from 2005 to 2019
east 2005 - 43.2% east 2019 - 57.2%
london 2005 - 38.9% london 48.1%
Several interesting conclusions about voter/partisan dealignment can be drawn from
Table 4.2:
l London has increasingly become a Labour stronghold, with the party’s share of
the vote increasing by 9.2% between 2010 and 2019 despite losing all four general
elections (Table 4.3). This is probably due to the inclusive, more pro-European
position of the party, which is more popular in a multicultural global city like
London.
l Labour support has held up better in Wales, but here again the Conservatives
have dramatically increased their vote by 14.7% by appealing to Welsh
Euroscepticism.
l Support for the Liberal Democrats has collapsed across the UK, including in
traditional heartlands like rural Wales. In the 2017 and 2019 general elections,
for the first time ever Wales did not return a Liberal/Liberal Democrat MP.
l The evidence suggests that voting behaviour has become much more erratic in
recent years, challenging party dominance in regional heartlands across the UK.
The argument that FPTP encourages safe seats and minimises voter choice (see
Chapter 3) may not be as persuasive as it once was.
results of general election
2010 - labour, 38 seats. conservative, 28 seats. liberal democrats, 7 seats.
2019 - labour, 49 seats. conservatives, 21 seats. lib dem, 3 seats.
Social factors - Age
The influence of age on how we vote is significant. The Conservative Party’s
support is strongest among older voters, while the Labour and Liberal/Liberal
Democrat parties have generally won the support of younger voters. This is because
the Conservative Party has traditionally emphasised policies such as lower taxation,
strong national defence, law and order and, in recent years, has been significantly
more Eurosceptic than Labour and the Liberal Democrats. These sorts of policies
appeal to older property-owning voters, who tend to favour security and stability
and, having more financial responsibilities and savings than younger voters, are
often keen for their taxes to be kept as low as possible. In the 2019 general election,
for example, it was striking that people who owned their homes or had a mortgage
voted Conservative by a clear margin. Those who rented were much more likely to
vote Labour (Table 4.5).
owner - 57% voted conservative
private renters - 46% voted labour
18-24 year olds. 62% voted labour
65+ year olds 645 voted conservative
Younger voters are more likely to be concerned with issues such as social justice
and the environment and so are more likely to favour Labour. In 2017, for example,
Jeremy Corbyn successfully connected with young people by emphasising that
Labour was on the side of ‘the many not the few’. Labour’s commitment in the 2017
and 2019 general elections to abolish tuition fees further encouraged support among
young people.
5% of the population, 18-24 year olds turnout 47% in 2019.
19% of the population 65+ olds turnout was 74% in 2019
Labour and the Conservatives have been most successful when they have been able
to reach beyond their core age support. In 1997, Labour achieved a 5% lead over the
Conservatives among voters aged 65+, helping Tony Blair to his landslide victory,
while in Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 general election victory the Conservatives
achieved a 1% lead over Labour among 18–24-year-olds. Currently, the dominance
of the Conservative Party among older voters gives them a major electoral advantage
because older voters are significantly more likely to vote.
social factors - Ethnicity
The impact of ethnicity in determining voting
behaviour is also significant. Historically, since
Commonwealth immigrant communities were
generally within the C2, D and E classes, they were
more likely to vote Labour because of its high spending
on the welfare state and close association with the
trade union movement. Labour’s commitment to
multiculturalism and its introduction of the first Race
Relations Acts in 1965, 1968 and 1976 to outlaw
discrimination have further provided it with a strong
historical connection with immigrant communities.
Meanwhile, the influence of Enoch Powell — whose
‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in 1968 called for an end to
Commonwealth immigration — on some elements
within the Conservative Party has often made it seem
hostile to immigrant communities. For example, in
the 2017 general election, the Conservatives won just 5 of the 75 most ethnically
diverse constituencies in the UK. In contrast, Labour won 46 of the 73 seats in
London, which is 45% white British.
Despite the Johnson and Truss cabinets being the most ethnically diverse in UK
history and positive efforts by the Conservative Party to connect more with minority
ethnic voters by selecting more candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds, Table
4.8 demonstrates Labour retains a commanding lead among minority ethnic voters.
This suggests that ethnicity continues to be a salient factor determining voting.
The appoinment of Rishi Sunak as the UK’s first British Asian prime minister in
October 2022 may challenge this, although his privileged background suggests this
is by no means certain.
ethnic vote
share of minority ethnic note followed by national share of vote.
labour 64% (32.1)
conservative 20% (43.6)
However, it is also important to not generalise about
minority ethnic voters. In several constituencies, the
Conservatives have successfully cultivated the British
Asian vote. For example, Harrow East and Leicester
East both have large British Asian populations and
both have seen a steady increase in support for the
Conservatives
2019 general election - harrow east
Conservative 54%.
Social factors - Education
The impact of education on voting behaviour significantly changed in the 2017
general election. Those with higher educational qualifications comprise the top social
brackets and have traditionally been more likely to vote Conservative. However, in
2017 there was a remarkable change in voting patterns, with the Conservatives
increasing their support among those with fewest educational qualifications and
Labour achieving higher levels of support among those with degrees in the top
brackets. The 2019 general election results suggests this may be part of a long-term
trend in which the Conservatives have aligned themselves with stricter controls on
immigration, increasing their support among white working-class voters who feel
threatened by globalisation and so decisively voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum
(see Chapter 3). Labour’s more liberal approach to immigration and its more nuanced
approach to Brexit have dramatically increased its support among better educated,
more cosmopolitan voters who voted Remain in 2016 and have been dismayed by
what they see as Conservative insularity.
David Goodhart, in The Road to Somewhere (2017), has contrasted the less educated
‘somewheres’, who are rooted to their communities through lack of opportunities,
with the better educated ‘anywheres’, who have the educational qualifications to take
advantage of globalisation. In 2017 and 2019, it seems as though Labour generated
significant support among the ‘anywheres’ while the Conservatives achieved their
own breakthrough with the ‘somewheres’ (Table 4.10).
degree or higher voting labour 2017-2019 48% vs 39%
no qualifcation voting conservative 2017-2019 52% vs 59%
social factors - Gender
The influence of gender in determining the result of general elections has changed
since the end of the Second World War. From 1945 until the 1980s Labour’s close
association with male-dominated trade unionism and its reputation for allowing
inflation to spiral, so hitting family finances, provided the Conservatives with a
powerful opportunity to appeal to the housewives’ vote. In the 1959 general
election, Harold Macmillan associated Conservative prosperity and stability with
a happy family life. Then, in 1970, Edward Heath defeated Harold Wilson by
pledging to reduce the cost of living, thereby winning significant support among
housewives. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher similarly articulated women’s concerns that
Labour governments had allowed inflation to undermine family finances and that
irresponsible trade unionism was pulling society apart (Table 4.11).
47% of women voted 1979 conservative.
However, the Conservatives’ traditional lead among female voters has been
challenged by Labour. This is perhaps because the Conservative Party’s emphasis on
strong national defence and its growing association with euroescepticism may have
contrasted unfavourably for some women with Labour’s focus on education, social
care and the National Health Service (Table 4.12).
Although the overall gap is minimal, among younger voters women are dramatically
more likely to vote Labour than Conservative. In 2019, among 18–24-year-old voters,
just 17% of women voted Conservative and 64% voted Labour, whereas 22% of men
in this age group voted Conservative and 59% Labour. Whether this trend has been
caused by a reaction against certain male Conservative politicians among younger
women is uncertain. As men and women increasingly play similar roles in the family
and workplace, the gender gap may diminish as a factor determining voting behaviour.
2019 general elections
conservative m46 f43
labour m31 f 34
Political context
Although social factors are significant, the political context in which a general
election is held is of defining importance. This is because the electorate makes
decisions based on several judgements about the governing and opposition parties.
The factors that inform these judgements are based on the competency and
effectiveness of the government and are called valence factors. This means that
voters make value judgements on the government and the opposition parties.
With the decline of class-based voting, valence factors become more significant in
determining the result of a general election.
Political context - Governing competence
A core reason why voters choose to vote in the way they do involves a valence
judgement on the effectiveness of the government and the likely effectiveness of the
opposition. If voters are reassured that the government is competent, they are less
likely to vote for opposition parties. Alternatively, if the government seems unable
to cope with the challenges it faces, this may encourage voters to vote in a new
government, either because they believe another party to be more likely to govern
well or as a protest vote.
A Conservative poster from the 1959 general election depicting a happy family at
home and the line ‘Life’s better with the Conservatives — don’t let Labour ruin it’ is an
example of how the valence influence of competency can be utilised by a governing
party. On that occasion, the remarkable prosperity achieved under the Conservatives
rewarded Macmillan with a 100-seat majority over Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell.
Key terms
Valence factor
The
relative success or failure
of a government’s policies.
Voters who vote according
to valence factors are
making their decision
based on whether they are
satisfied or dissatisfied
with the government’s
performance.
key terms
Governing competency
The extent to which the
government is regarded
as having been capable
and competent. If it is
viewed as having failed
in government, this will
encourage the public to
vote for a change.
The influence of governing competency in general elections succesfull vs unsuccesfull
Successful governments
1959
Economic prosperity and a wider availability of
consumer goods contributed to Harold Macmillan
increasing the Conservatives’ parliamentary
majority to over 100. Macmillan’s calm sense of
authority and the way in which he took political
advantage of rising living standards, claiming ‘most
of our people have never had it so good’, gave
voters little reason to change government
1966
After 2 years in power, Harold Wilson’s Labour
government still looked energetic and focused and
industrial unrest was limited. Facing a new and
untried leader of the opposition, Edward Heath,
Wilson called a snap election and dramatically
increased his parliamentary majority to over 100
1983
Although unemployment levels remained high,
Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government had
successfully brought inflation down, fulfilling its
manifesto commitment. Her leadership during the
Falklands War (1982) and the unity of her cabinet
further reinforced the government’s reputation for
strength of purpose
Unsuccessful governments
February 1974
When Edward Heath called a snap general election, he did so in
response to another miners’ strike, which threatened more severe
industrial disruption. His decision to use a general election to
assert the government’s authority led to this being referred to as
the ‘Who governs Britain’ general election. Many voters, however,
saw this as evidence that an incompetent government had lost
control of the nation
1979
The inability of Labour prime minister James Callaghan to stop
the dramatic escalation of strikes during the Winter of Discontent
undermined public faith in his government. This was made worse
when his attempts to reassure the country were misquoted in the
press as ‘Crisis? What crisis?’. Swing voters consequently voted
Conservative because they thought Margaret Thatcher was more
likely to confront the growing power of trade unionism
Political context - Leadership
The image that the party leader projects has become increasingly important for
voter support. Some prime ministers, such as Harold Macmillan in the 1959 general
election, have won convincingly because they were able to present themselves as
competent and in charge.
In the 1983 general election, Margaret Thatcher’s reputation for strong and focused
leadership contrasted with Michael Foot’s left-wing intellectualism, which had little
appeal beyond Labour’s core vote. For example, Thatcher faced down one-nation
rebels at the 1980 Conservative Party conference, saying, ‘You turn if you want to.
The lady’s not for turning’, and sent a task force to recover the Falklands from an
invasion by Argentina in 1982. Foot, in contrast, although a brilliant orator, failed to
inspire widespread backing. He has been described by Andrew Marr as ‘a would-be
parliamentary revolutionary detained in a secondhand bookshop’.
In 2001, Tony Blair dominated the political landscape with the charismatic force
of his personality and so there was little reason to vote for a weak and divided
opposition under William Hague.
Successful opposition leaders
Sometimes opposition leaders can generate support by capturing
the mood of the nation. In 1970, Edward Heath’s dogged principles
successfully contrasted with a growing distaste for Harold Wilson’s
misplaced presidentialism and reputation for duplicity. Similarly,
in the 1979 general election campaign, Margaret Thatcher was
presented as a sensible and forthright ‘housewife’ who, like much of
the rest of the nation, was no longer prepared to tolerate excessive
trade union power. In 1997, the energy of Tony Blair’s campaign
and his attractive self-confidence had huge appeal in the country in
contrast to John Major’s reputation for dithering, weak leadership.
Successful opposition leaders are thus able to set the agenda of an
election to their advantage.
l Winston Churchill, 1951 general election — Churchill successfully campaigned
on a manifesto pledge to ‘set the people free’, promising to end rationing and
reduce the middle classes’ tax burden. He also won support by contrasting one-
nation Conservative values with the class-based socialism of the Attlee government.
l Margaret Thatcher, 1979 general election — Although less popular than Labour
prime minister James Callaghan, Thatcher successfully focused the general
election on the government’s failure to confront the growing power of trade
unionism.
l David Cameron, 2010 general election — In 2010, David
Cameron focused the Conservative campaign on the huge
increase in the national debt under Gordon Brown. Having
suffered from so much media criticism, this was Labour’s
weakest point and contributed to Brown’s defeat. That
Cameron did not achieve a parliamentary majority was due
to a strong showing by the Liberal Democrats under Nick
Clegg.
unsuccesfull opposition leaders
However, some opposition leaders can fail to engage with the
public and may even lose support as the campaign continues.
In 1959 Hugh Gaitskell could not compete with Macmillan’s
effortless charm, while in both 1987 and 1992 Neil Kinnock
could not convince enough swing voters that he possessed the
gravitas necessary to be prime minister. In 2015, Ed Miliband
also failed to inspire the confidence of the electorate.
l Neil Kinnock, 1992 general election — Having lost to
Margaret Thatcher in 1987, Neil Kinnock was confident
of defeating John Major in 1992. However, the triumphant
presidentialism of his campaign grated with core swing
voters. The Sheffield Rally just days before the election saw
Kinnock become incoherent with excitement. His repeated
‘We’re all right, we’re all right’ shocked enough voters back
to the Conservatives to give Major a slim victory.
l Michael Howard, 2005 general election — In 2005, Michael Howard succeeded
in reducing Tony Blair’s majority. However, lingering memories of Anne
Widdecombe’s jibe that ‘there was something of the night’ about him meant
that he could not inspire widespread popular support for the Conservatives. His
support for the Iraq War (2003) also ensured that the anti-war vote went to the
Liberal Democrats under Charles Kennedy.
l Ed Miliband, 2015 general election — Miliband failed to persuade enough voters
that he had the strength of character to be prime minister. An attempt to provide
him with greater stature by having him publicly unveil a 9-foot stone tablet with
his campaign promises carved into it backfired when it was ridiculed as the
‘Edstone’ and ‘The heaviest suicide note in history
Liberal/Liberal Democrat leadership
Although every modern prime minister has been a member of either the
Conservative Party or the Labour Party, the leadership of other political parties has
often been important in determining the result of a general election. The 1964,
February 1974 and 2010 general elections all demonstrate how a strong showing
by the leader of the Liberal/Liberal Democrat parties can have a significant impact
on the result.
l 1964 general election — Although Harold Wilson had expected to win a decisive
victory over Conservative prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Labour
managed only a 4-seat majority. This was because Liberal leader Jo Grimond’s
energetic campaign appealed to young people. The Liberal vote consequently
increased by 5.3%, while the swing to Labour was only 0.2%.
l February 1974 general election — In the ‘Who governs Britain?’ general election,
Jeremy Thorpe offered an exciting alternative to Edward Heath and Harold
Wilson. The Liberals increased their share of the vote by 11.8%. By holding the
balance of power, Thorpe was able to force the resignation of Edward Heath as
prime minister.
l 2010 general election — This was the first election in which televised leaders’
debates were held in the UK. Nick Clegg’s engaging personality made him the
clear winner, forcing both Gordon Brown and David Cameron to admit, ‘I agree
with Nick.’ The Liberal Democrats’ party-political broadcasts also focused on
Clegg’s trustworthiness. The 57 Liberal Democrat MPs elected to Parliament
denied Cameron a majority, leading to the first coalition government since 1945.
minority party leadership
The impact of Nigel Farage as UKIP leader in the 2015 general election was also
significant. Although UKIP was expected to win votes at the expense of the
Conservatives, Farage’s relentless focus on immigration made it a pivotal issue
among the working class and so took potential votes away from Labour, helping the
Conservatives to win key marginal seats. Although UKIP only won Clacton, the
party achieved 12.6% of the popular vote.
In Scotland, an extraordinarily effective campaign by SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon
in the 2015 general election led to Labour losing 40 seats north of the border,
undermining Ed Miliband’s hopes of forming a government. Two years later, Ruth
Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, ran a highly effective campaign that
won the Conservatives 13 Scottish seats. This was the highest number since 1983 and
without them Theresa May would not have been able to form a government.
The popularity of the party leader
A party leader can be very important in winning support for their party. However,
as Table 4.14 illustrates, a party leader can have a negative approval rating but still
achieve highly if they are able to define to their advantage the issues on which a
general election is fought.
1979 - Although James Callaghan was significantly more popular than
Margaret Thatcher, she still won the general election by focusing on
the competence of the government and the need for change
2015 - Although UKIP leader Nigel Farage had the worst approval rating of any
party leader, he succeeded in making immigration a key issue in the
election, dramatically increasing UKIP’s vote among the working class
2017 - When the general election was announced, YouGov found that 50%
of voters thought Theresa May would make the best prime minister
compared with just 14% for Jeremy Corbyn and 36% undecided.
Although Corbyn never achieved approval ratings as good as May’s,
his much more optimistic campaign increased the Labour share of the
vote by 9.6%
The campaign
The way in which a party campaigns can be significant in determining the result
of a general election. The socialist rhetoric of the Labour Party’s campaign in 1983
appealed only to its core vote and failed to engage middle-class swing voters who
were beginning to benefit from the tax cuts of the Thatcher government. In 1992,
John Major salvaged the Conservative campaign by taking to his soap box to appeal
directly to the voters. This old-style electioneering was a welcome contrast to the
stage-managed Neil Kinnock campaign and gave the Conservatives an unexpected
general election victory. In the 2017 general election, Jeremy Corbyn campaigned
in a similarly traditional fashion across the nation, taking the Labour case directly
to the people, in marked contrast to Theresa May’s lacklustre and highly controlled
campaign. However, 2 years later, Corbyn failed to campaign in the same optimistic
fashion. Beset by allegations of anti-Semitism and unable to address great open-air
meetings (due to poor weather during the December general election), Corbyn was
quickly thrown on the defensive. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson
fought a tightly organised campaign simply focused on ‘Get
Brexit Done’. This powerful appeal contributed to his 80-seat
majority.
However, even a carefully choreographed campaign can fail
if the electorate is not persuaded by the manifesto or the
leader. In 1987, for example, Peter Mandelson brilliantly
organised Labour’s campaign, including an inspiring television
commercial focusing on Neil Kinnock. Yet Labour’s vote
share increased by only 3.2% over Michael Foot’s disastrous
campaign in 1983. The key issue was not the campaign but
that Thatcher was perceived to be much the stronger leader.
Debate
Do campaigns influence the result of a general election?
yes
In the February 1974 general election, the Liberal Party under Jeremy Thorpe exploited widespread discontent with both Edward Heath and Harold Wilson, especially among first-time voters. In a campaign address a few days before the vote, Thorpe called on Liberal voters: ‘Stand firm. Don’t be bullied. Together we can make history and heal
the self-inflicted wounds of Britain.’ As a result, the Liberal share of the vote increased by 11.8%.
no
- In the 1950s and 1960s the class allegiance that
political parties could depend on meant that campaigns
made little difference in swaying most voters. For
example, the 1955 and 1959 general election campaigns
simply confirmed expected Conservative victories under
Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan ( could include stats for class voting)
yes
- In 1992 John Major’s decision to abandon stage-
managed events and take his soap box to town
centres was in marked contrasted to Neil Kinnock’s
over-confidence at the Sheffield Rally. This changed
the dynamic of the general election, giving the
Conservatives an unexpected victory
no
- Although Harold Wilson’s dynamic and presidential
campaign in 1964 was supposed to make him appeal to
the voters as a British John F. Kennedy, in fact Sir Alec
Douglas-Home’s low-key dogged earnestness proved
more appealing. In the end, Wilson increased Labour’s
share of the vote by only 0.2% on Hugh Gaitskell’s
lacklustre performance in 1959.
and
- In 1970 Edward Heath’s campaign was dismissed as
bland and uninspiring. Plans had been drawn up by top
Conservatives to force his resignation when he lost.
His surprise victory over Harold Wilson was completely
unexpected
yes
- In 2017 Jeremy Corbyn’s optimistic rallies and
popular manifesto commitments such as ending
tuition fees contrasted sharply with Theresa
May’s uninspiring campaign appearances and the
widespread unpopularity of the ‘dementia tax’. As a
result, Labour dramatically increased its support as
the campaign progressed, from less than 30% of the
vote at the beginning to 40% in the general election
no
In 2019, the Conservatives ran a more effective
campaign by relentlessly focusing on Brexit. However,
during the campaign, polling hardly changed, suggesting
that many voters had already decided how to vote before
the campaigning began
Voter turnout and trends
Voter turnout in general elections is less high than it has traditionally been. A
low point was reached in 2001 when just 59.4% of the electorate voted. By 2017
turnout had recovered to 68.8%. It dipped back to 67.3% in 2019, although this
may have been because it was a winter general election. What matters more than
the headline figure is the age factor. Older people are much more likely to vote
than younger people. This is generally to the Conservatives’ advantage, as they
have much more support among older voters than does the Labour Party. Labour
has also been disadvantaged since voters in the lower social classes are less likely
to vote than in the higher categories. However, because of the Conservatives’
growing support among C2, D and E voters, this may become a problem for the
Conservatives as much as for Labour.
The manifesto
In its manifesto, a political party explains the policies upon which it will govern. It is
unlikely that voters will engage with all the elements of a manifesto (see Chapter 2).
However, certain popular policies may help swing the result, while unpopular or
confusing policies can help to undermine a campaign. Two examples demonstrate
the influence of a party’s manifesto, the Labour Party’s manifestos of 1987 and 1992:
l In 1987 the Labour Party manifesto did not commit to the UK’s nuclear
deterrent. This enabled the Conservatives to claim that Labour could not be
trusted on defence, their campaign poster boldly stating ‘LABOUR’S POLICY
ON ARMS’ next to an image of a surrendering soldier.
l In 1992 the Labour manifesto commitment to increase public spending allowed
the Conservatives to claim that a Labour government would mean a ‘tax
bombshell’ for every family.
On both these occasions the Labour manifesto contributed to the Conservative
victory.
In the 2017 general election, however, the Conservative Party’s manifesto pledged
that if elderly people receiving NHS care at home had assets of more than £100,000,
the excess would contribute to the cost of their care after their death. Although
the plan was supposed to provide a fairer system of care, it was quickly labelled a
‘dementia tax’ by the press and the Conservative campaign stalled. Meanwhile,
Labour’s manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees gave the party a dramatic
boost from young and first-time voters, while its promise of an end to austerity
and the introduction of higher taxes for the top 5% of the population had broad
popular appeal. Its slogan ‘For the Many Not the Few’ also gave the campaign an
inspirational dynamic, which was absent from the Conservative campaign.
Two years later, Labour failed to replicate this in their 2019 manifesto. Instead,
their commitment to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s EU withdrawal and then
hold a second referendum on EU membership contrasted unfavourably with the
Conservatives’ simple manifesto promise to ‘get Brexit done’.
Issue/instrumental voting
In addition to making decisions on the competence of the government, voters can
choose to vote on the salience (importance) to them of certain issues. This can also
be referred to as instrumental voting and suggests that voters do study a party’s
manifesto and make decisions based on how they respond to particular issues.
Therefore, political parties often establish focus groups to investigate which issues
the public feels most strongly about so they can tailor their manifesto accordingly. In
other words, general elections can be determined by voters making a rational choice
based on their individual self-interest.
In 1983, for example, Conservative warnings that a Labour government under
Michael Foot would reverse the right-to-buy scheme contributed to Margaret
Thatcher’s landslide re-election by encouraging the aspirational working class
to vote Conservative to protect their properties. In 2015, immigration and
Euroscepticism were unexpected core issues for many voters, contributing to the
remarkable increase in UKIP’s vote from 3.1% in 2005 to 12.6%. In 2017, a core
issue was where the leading parties stood on Brexit, while Labour’s commitment
to abolishing tuition fees provided a strong incentive for younger voters to vote
Labour. In the 2019 general election, the party positions, manifestos and campaigns
were also driven by this issue of Brexit.
However, in some general elections instrumental voting can be considerably less
important than the government’s reputation for competence. For example, in the
1997 general election Labour enjoyed an 11% swing among AB voters even though
they were most likely to be affected by Labour’s proposed windfall tax on privatised
utilities. This suggests that the perceived incompetence of the government of
John Major was the valence factor that mattered more than economic self-interest.
Since the UK formally left the EU on 31 January 2020, the EU is unlikely to be an
important factor going forward, and governing competence, such as the political
fallout of the fuel and cost of living crisis, may once again become key in determining
the result of a general election.
