In Today's Britain People Vote Less on Who They are than on What They Perceive - Coursework Example

In todays Britain, people vote less on who they are than on what they perceive Introduction The study of a s voting behaviour is known also as psephology, and is direct derivate of the Greek word psephos meaning a pebble, which was used in ancient city of Athens for casting their vote. This study in electoral systems is important as they help us “define how the political system will function.”1 The modern day psephologists in UK have studied and evaluated the voting patterns of the British people over a long time period, and classified two main eras that delineate the two different voting patterns. These two eras as classified are: the time period between 1945-1970, which is signified by a stability in all forms of electoral decisions; while the second era being from 1970 till date, which can be described as the era of decreasingly less identification on the part of voters with any fixed political parties. With increasingly complex behaviour of the voting patterns that were being observed in the contemporary general elections both in UK and worldwide, psephologists came up new voting models that also quite often involved statistical calculations to explain voting behaviours and patterns, and in 1990 we find that W. I. Miller propounding that voting behaviours could be easily differentiated into 6 main models. In my article I will study the shift in the UK voters’ attitude and the perceived changes in the voting patterns, by analysing the various elections that has been held in the recent times and studying the different voting models and political dealignment in British politics. It will also analyse as to whether strong leadership within party politics does reflect in the vote results, and if policies of the political parties play an effect in influencing the voting patterns. Discussion Background history: a study of the British electoral system scenario would throw up certain very interesting pictures, profiling the significant transformations that have taken place during the last seven decades. During the 1940s-50s, the scenario was comparatively simple with just two parties dominating the entire political scenario. Between these two major parties, with the help of the ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) system of voting, they divided amongst themselves almost around 90 % of the votes and practically the whole of the House of Commons. These two parties had strong ideological differences that characterised and became their symbols they stood for, and people voted according to this ideological symbolisation. As for example, the labour party believed in “high taxation, redistribution of income and wealth, a welfare state characterised by universal public services and benefits, and nationalisation of the country’s major industries[that is, a socialist state]... [While] their opponents believed in the free market in which the state played a regulatory role, with some public services and benefits for those unable to provide for themselves.”2 Thus, the Labour party’s supporters were mainly drawn from the working class level, while the Conservatives’ had their staunch supporters in the non working classes; with some support from the rural sections. The equation was very simple, with the election results depending on how much the two parties were able to get together their own staunch supporters while also persuading the voters that were not committed to any parties (these were labelled as the ‘floating voters’) to vote for them instead of their opponent party. This was especially seen in 1945, when a large number of the voters turned over to the Labour party, as the Conservatives were connected with the depression of the 1930s, and the voters en masse thought that giving the socialist Labour party a chance might work out things better for the general populace. In the next elections that took place (1951) we find that Conservatives took away a major share of the voters, as people found that the Labour party had become a little complacent. From this picture it is very evident that there were no third party in the entire scenario that might have turned the scales for the Labour or the Conservatives, while another picture emerges that represents a socio-political cleavage, or a “social differentiation such that the consequences of political policy are materially or symbolically different for different groups.”3 A major change in the voters’ behaviour was perceived during the 1970s, especially in the 1979 elections when the Conservatives came to power with a large majority. This transformation was mainly owing to the change in the social class structures that were brought in by the various manufacturing industries (private or nationalised)4, and the formation of new group known as the service sector. During this time both the major parties faced defections, especially the Labour party, where the members broke away to form new parties like the social democratic party (SDP)5, and the rise of the different nationalist parties in different regions of UK, like the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Plaid Cymru, (the Welsh National Party) while the Ulster Unionists also started playing a major role in UK politics. The labour party that suffered the most took a long time to recover under Neil Kinnock, John Smith, and majorly under Tony Blair. 6 Fig 1: Election Results: Percentages of the Popular Vote [and seats won in most recent General Elections], this table represents the changes over time in the voting pattern. The 1940s had only two major parties and people were loyal to them and their ideologies; however in 2010 we find that besides the two major parties, there are other parties that have also developed quite a strong say within UK political landscape.7 It is now essential that we study the various voting models, to comprehend the basis of the voters’ behaviours and to find out as to whether there has been any change in the voting pattern of the UK people. A sociological study on the voting behaviour emphasizes the impact of social structure, which suggests that various existent social groups exert influence on voting choices. Voters are generally considered to vote for parties that best reflect the interests of their particular social groups. This was very evident during the 1940s till the 1970s, when both the major two political parties of UK were recognised by their type of social class supporters. UK can be said to be have been divided into two basic social classes: the manual (working class) and the non-manual class (the middle class).8 With the women entering the job scenario after the WWs, however the homes started losing their loyalties for one party, for while the husband may have been a manual labour, the wife would be a non manual worker, thus having two different social class values within a single home, leading to fractured political views9. In the present times, it is considered by many that class based voting is nearly extinct in UK.10 The term used to denote this decline in class based votes is known as dealignment11 and is relevant to the shift in the loyalty and support towards one single political party. This majorly occurred during the 1970s owing the formation of large section of the middle class people (that voted for the conservatives) and mainly arose from the manual worker group; while the latter’s numbers decreased significantly12 which in turn led to the down fall of the Labour party during this time13. Heath, Curtice, and Jowell in their book further divides the UK social class into the petit bourgeoisie, salariat, routine non-manual, working class, unemployed and others; though they also agreed that the decrease in the social milieu of the manual labour class had led to the fall of the Labour party.14 The concept of class dealignment can be understood even better if we study its two different forms: class dealignment and partisan dealignment. Class dealignment refers to the break in social class and political loyalty, while partisan dealignment refers to a condition where a particular class of voters that voted for a particular party, disappears from the social setting. This latter definition is more suitable for the political setting in UK during the 1970s, with the slow decrease in the worker class from UK’s social profile and the fall of the Labour party. However the 1997 and the 2001 elections saw a major victory for the Labour party, where interestingly dealignment again played major factor, since it was seen that the Alford index rated the class voting as being at its minimum during the 1997 and the 2001 elections and the percentage of people that strong part identifications had also fallen to 15%.15 From table 1 we can see that there were major swings in the voting patterns of UK in recent times. In 1997 there was the first large swing when almost 10% voters moved away from Conservative to Labour, reflecting a volatile trend that was missing during the stable periods. 2010 shows the reverse swing where we notice major gains for the Conservative party, thus indicating that there are no more loyal followers for any particular political party, thus denoting clear class dealignment. Tactical voting, where voters decide to select a candidate that has more chances of winning, instead of going for their own choice of political party, with the primary aim of dislodging an unwanted candidate that had been previously elected. This was observed in 1997 when the supporters of the Liberal Democrat voted for Labour in order to dislodge a Conservative party member16, which Denver uses it to show as the presence of the class dealignment factor. With class dealignment, there came the presence of more floating voters that took decisions on how they, their households, communities, and their localities, were faring owing to the policies created by the present political parties in power, and also the role of the present government in handling certain emergency situations. The concept of ‘economic voting’ also became more popular, and people voted for a political party that would bring them prosperity. Thus Performance Politics became a major factor that removed all values of fixed attachment and loyalties towards any particular party, and people started voting for parties that performed better in bringing about growth and economic stability. With the media growing stronger and reporting on the a daily basis on the performance of the represented electives and analysing the policies made by the ruling political party, and with the print and electronic becoming highly popular17, the voters are showing a trend of becoming more influenced by these reports and are voting without showing any loyalty for any particular party.18 The model of Party Identification that holds that voters have long-standing psychological ties (sort of family ideals handed over generations, from parents to the children) to certain political parties, and they do not move away from breaking this tie, thus generation after generation vote for the same party19. In this era of class and partisan dealignment this model does not hold true anymore. In the 2005 elections it was especially seen that the valence model succeeded in defeating the traditional class cleavage model, since people voted for Blair (though he was unpopular in regards of taking part in the Iraq war) and subsequently Labour won because of the general positive views of the public on Blair (intrinsic valence factor), as he had managed to usher in economic growth and development and so people associated prosperity with him, and voted accordingly. The term valence issues can be referred to factors that “involve the linking of the parties with some condition that is positively or negatively valued by the electorate.”20 Here in 2005, Blair was linked with present and future prosperities, while it was also seen that he had stuck to his agenda he expressed before the Iraq war, thus he reflecting issue proximity. Valence issues mainly pertain to the performance values of the a party and “in general, valence reflects the overall degree to which the party is perceived to have shown itself able to govern effectively in the past, or is likely to be able to govern well in the future.”21In contemporary UK, issue proximity (where one sticks to the promises made prior to the election and keeps growth and development as the chief factor), is very important. Britain, voters have been consistently concerned about valence issues – the ability of governments to produce in those policy areas that matter most to people. “A healthy economy is the classic example, with the vast majority of voters demanding strong economic performance as indexed by high rates of growth coupled with low interest rates, and low inflation and unemployment rates [top priority issues]. Non-economic valence issues are also important, and parties are judged by their ability to deliver highly valued public services in areas such as crime, education, health care, and national security.22 In the stable era another trend was noted, where leaderships were recognised in the opposition parties, and policies also liked from the opposition camp, but voters preferred voting for the party they owed their loyalty to.23 Lately it has been noticed that in the “elections between 1964 and 2005 ...the party with the most popular leader usually won the general election.”24 This arises mainly if party variants are small on the spatial important issues, and under such situations the voters take an overall call that depend on valence issues like better standards of living, reduced crime rates or improved medical care.25 Conclusion: from the above discourse it is very evident that the era of loyalties for a particular political party and class based voting system, is indeed a thing of the past. A contemporary UK voter would vote based on the performance index of the party, the valence intrinsic nature and the leadership qualities of their party leader, on the priority proximity of the present ruling party and the handling of the voter’s priority issues26; while other models of geographic location, party loyalties and class based votes all have come to a naught. Thus, indeed, it stands true that in todays Britain, people vote less on who they are than on what they perceive. Bibliography Belknap, G. and Campbell, A.1952. Political party identification and attitudes toward foreign policy, Public Opinion Quarterly, 15:601-23. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., and McPhee, W. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 75. Budge, I., McKay, D., and Newton, K. 2007. The New British politics. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Collis, D. 2009. Social grade: a classification tool. IPSOS Media CT, 1-2. Retrieved from, http://www.ipsosmori.com/DownloadPublication/1285_MediaCT_thoughtpiece_Social_Grade_July09_V3_WEB.pdf Crewe, I., and King, A. 1995. SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Party. Oxford: Oxford Crewe, I., Gosschalk, B., & John Bartle, J. (eds.) 1998. Political Communications: Why Labour Won the General Election of 1997. London: Frank Cass. Dalton, R. 2006. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies 4th Ed. Washington: CQ Press. Denver, D. & Gordon H. (eds.). 1992. Issues & Controversies in British Electoral Behaviour Eds. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 345. Denver, D. 2006. Elections and Voters in Britain. London: Palgrave, 97. Farrell, D. 2001. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2. Franklin,M., Mackie, T., and Valen, H.,et al. 1992. Electoral Change: Responses to evolving social and attitudial structures in Western countries. Cambridge: CUP, 67. Harold, C., Saunders, D., Stewart, M., and Whiteley. P. (Eds.). 2009. Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: CUP. Harold, C., Saunders, D., Marianne C. Stewart, M., and Paul Whiteley. 2005. “The Issue Agenda and Voting In 2005” In, Pippa Norris and Christopher Wlezien, eds., Britain Votes 2005 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4. Heath, A., Jowell, R., & Curtice, J., (Eds.) with Bridget Taylor. 1994. Labour’s Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 284.  Heath, A., Curtice, J., and Jowell, R. 2001. The rise of New Labour: party policies and voter choices. New York: OUP, 30. Johnston, R. 2010. ‘Review,’ of the forthcoming Harold D. Clarke, David Sanders, Marianne C. Stewart, and Paul F. Whiteley, Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from, http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/23/pa.gsq046.full.pdf+html . King, A. 2002. Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: OUP, 1. . Mughan, A. 2000. Media and the Presidentialization of Parliamentary Elections. Hampshire: Palgrave, 25. Nicholas, A., & John Bartle. J.(eds..) 2010. Britain at the Polls 2010. London: Sage.    Norris, P. 1997. Electoral Change since 1945. Oxford: Blackwell, 107.   Sarlvik, B., and Crewe, I. 1983. Decade of Dealignment: The Conservative Victory of 1970 and Electoral Trends in the 1970s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schofeld, N., Maria Gallegoz, M., Ozdemirx, U., and Zakharov, A. 2009. Political Equilibria in a Stochastic Valence Model of Elections in Turkey, 3. Retrieved from, http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pdf/SCHOFIELD_May19TURKEY.pdf. Stokes, D. 1963. Spatial Models of Party Competition, 57 American Political Science Review, 1963: 368-377, 366. Voting Behaviour in the UK: Document Two: From the 1970s to the General Elections of 1992 and 1997. 2010. Retrieved from, http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/elections9297.html Read More