What happened in the 1997 General Election and why? What impact did it have?

What happened in the 1997 General Election and why?

What impact did it have?

In 1997 there was an expected swing from Conservative to Labour government. It resulted in Labour receiving 9.2% more votes, and 147 more MPs than in 1992; and with the Conservatives winning 11% less votes, and 171 less MPs than in 1992 (the Liberal Democrats won 17% of the votes about equalling the previous election, and gained 26 seats). The outcome of the election was due to various factors which had always been apparent yet commentators never predicted the severity of Labour’s win and the Conservative’s loss.

Blatantly, the first reason for this landslide victory was the weakness of the Conservatives. Broadly put, the reasons the electorate DID NOT vote for the Conservative party were that they seemed, old, tired, divided and sleazy. This can be seen in that the average age of a Conservative MP was over 50 and 44% of over 65s voted for them, their campaigning was limited, there was internal conflict over many issues such as the Economy and Europe. The leader, John Major, was also seen as weak and indecisive. The problems the Conservatives faced during their term badly affected them when the voting came; and the fact their support was spread through the country meant that they were at a disadvantage due to FPTP (they failed to win constituencies). These various weaknesses meant that people were reluctant to re-elect the Conservatives, therefore much of the electorate were looking for another party to vote for. For many that party was Labour.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Completely adverse to the Conservatives was the Labour Party. After three terms of Conservative rule, the Labour Party was seen as young, fresh and dynamic. Now presented as ‘New Labour’, they had the youngest leader for nearly 200 years (Tony Blair), they had socialist policies and promised reform of many different departments e.g. NHS and House of Lords. Labour also targeted key marginal constituencies, meaning that they did better in those than they did nationally. This was vital in turning votes into seats that the Conservatives failed to do. This leads onto Labour’s next tactic to gaining power: Tactical Voting. This means an ‘anti-Conservative vote’; where voters are encouraged to vote for either the strongest Liberal Democrat or Labour. This means that it stops the Conservatives getting seats (Labour was not worried that the Liberal Democrats may gain seats, as they were the third party and were not a threat). This may, then, account for the 100% (20 to 46) increase in Liberal Democrat seats while their % share of the vote went down 1%! The work of the Labour Party members also paid dividends. The increasing number of young members working all over the country opposed to the reduced ageing membership of the Conservatives meant Labour could campaign all over the country while the Conservatives were stretched. Finally, Labour had the media on its side, a priceless tool. While Labour could do very little wrong, The Conservatives were constantly on the front page for scandals involving Neil Hamilton and Michael Portillo.

Essentially, the Labour Party capitalised on their % share of the vote. Though their huge majority in the House of Commons is due to a variety of reasons: The problems faced by the Conservatives, the reforming and repositioning of labour, electoral geography, Labour’s campaign tactics, tactical voting and Labour’s party membership. The result completely demolished the Conservatives and set the tone for a new style of Government. The Labour party immediately set about carrying out their promises outlined in their manifesto. The Liberal Democrats hugely increased their number of seats and so had more influence, and the ‘other’ parties also increased their share of the vote, with SNP and NI candidates winning nearly 30 seats.

What happened in the 2001 General election and why?

What impact did the result have?

In 2001 the Labour party was, again, expected to win. This, of course, was true, with Labour winning 42% of the votes and 62% of the seats in the House of Commons. The Conservatives won less than 25% of the national vote. It was the lowest turnout for a General Election for nearly 100 years, this was mainly due to the fact that labour winning was seen as a for-gone conclusion, and there was widespread apathy, because many saw that their vote would not make a difference.

There were also few big issues to concern the electorate; but the Government had been doing a satisfactory job, and there was no need or desire for change. Despite this, a strong campaign was fought. However, the polls revealed that there were no major issues, but they did reveal that the Conservatives were concentrating on the unimportant issues. This included asylum seekers and the Euro, which were not generally important to the electorate. Whereas Labour and the Liberal Democrats concentrated on more important issues such as NHS and education.

There was less than a 2% swing from Labour to Conservatives, and overall there was little change from 1997. The huge apathy in 2001, shows a trend that in 1997 it was an Anti-Tory election, and in 2001 it was Anti-any party election. This may have been mainly due to party de-alignment where they basically all have the same policies (Labour are said to be as right as the Tories).

This election has shown the parties that less people are interested, and so political participation has been high on the agenda. All parties have also tried to distinguish themselves, and make promises that will actually change people’s lives (they say) for the better. It has ended with more conflict in the House of Commons, and promise of reform in the future (Euro still at Tony Blair’s discrepancy). Desperate to set his party apart, it could be possible that the PM thinks a victory in Iraq will improve his standings and cause less apathy with more support for his party.

Chris Williams Pol