had a bad reputation was more important to the Labour party winning the election than the fact
William Hague was a bad leader. If the conservatives had been a good party previously, they
would never have been voted out and hence their mistakes had led to them not being re-elected
in 2001. William Hague carried the skeletons of the past on his shoulders and so his bad
reputation was more likely from the past than any personal traits. Therefore, the conservatives’
past was a bigger factor in influencing Labour votes than the bad public view of William Hague’s
personality.
The Labour party had previously been a party aimed only at the working classes. Before
1997, however, they became a catchall party and thus increased their target influence onto the
middle classes. The Labour party got 1% more of the non-manual workers votes than the
conservatives in 1997, and this shows class dealignment; more middle class people voting against
their natural party and for the Labour party rather than conservative. Hence, class dealignment
was taking place, and Labour were appealing to people from across the boards of both middle
and working class, therefore they had an increased chance in winning the 2001 election because
they were stealing the traditionally conservatives votes. This all meant that Labour won the 2001
election.
The dominant ideology model can further explain why Labour won the 2002 election.
Of the newspapers in circulation at the time, six of them supported Labour in comparison to
three who supported conservative. Readers of the newspapers could have been influenced by
articles in the paper, or by headlines they glanced at throughout the campaign, as to whom they
voted. However, some would argue that newspapers do not influence people, but they simply
support whoever their readers support. People do not want to read things that contradict their
beliefs so they will not buy a paper if it supports their opposition party. Therefore, the
readership influencing the press, rather than the press influencing the readership, could argue
against the press helping Labour to win, although, they certainly supported the party and
encouraged voters not to change their minds. The press, however, were not a major influence on
people’s votes in the election when compared to an issue such as how suitable a party leader is.
If the conservatives leader had been greater and stonger, the voters would have been more
inclined to vote for him/her regardless of the press.
Between the period of 1999-2002, Tony Blair’s Labour government had successfully
reduced unemployment. The Labour party had achieved the lowest unemployment rates since the
mid 1970s and this pleased the working classes and secured the employed voters for another
election. The fact the unemployment levels had decreased filled people with hope that Labour
could futhur decrease unemployment if they were in power for another term. They had no
reason to believe Labour would slacken on their employment policy and therefore no reason to
take a gamble and change the party in power. The reason people decide not to vote for the party
in power again is based on the levels of satisfaction with what the party have achieved, and as the
Labour party had not decreased employment, the people voted again for them, and hence they
won the 2001 election. The employment situation was perhaps more of a factor of why the party
won than the influence of the press. People in employment would have been more likely to vote
Labour because they were satisfied than just because a newspaper said so. Voters were directly
benefiting from employment levels whereas they were not directly benefiting from newspaper
propaganda.
The economy was doing well in other areas aside from employment. The party could
boast the lowest inflation rates since the early 1970s and the lowest interest rates for thirty years.
This pleased the middle class voters and made them want to vote labour again, because they both
were pleased with the party’s achievements so far and also had no reason to take a gamble on
voting for a party who might not maintain the Labour party’s good work. Therefore, voters
decided to stick with the Labour party, in fact the volatility of votes was the most stable in post
war years in the 2001 election. Thus the labour party won the 2001 election as people were
benefiting directly from their rule.
The government redistributed the tax payments so they favoured the poor rather than
the rich. This proved to Labour voters that the New Labour movement wasn’t going to move
too far over in favour of the conservative voters. Therefore, they weren’t displeased with the
party and wanted to vote for them again, as they could be sure that the Labour party’s tax
systems would benefit the working class voters more than the conservative party’s tax systems
would. Therefore, people voted for the Labour party again and Labour won the election.
The Labour party imposed some good management of law and order, and hence
between 1999 and 2000 the crime rate began to fall. This pleased the population considerably and
hence they had no reason to oust Labour from parliament. They gained trust for Labour and felt
comfortable in re-electing them because they had not done any harm to the country and seemed
to be benefiting it instead. This contrasted with their opinion of the conservative party, who had
damaged the country in their previous rule. Therefore, people decided to vote Labour again and
they came to power.
The Labour Party’s education policies were appealing to many people. They proposed a
large increase in expenditure and a reform in how the schools would be run. People had no
evidence that the Labour Party would go against these policies and no desire to turn back to the
conservatives whom they did not trust, so they voted Labour again, as they deemed education a
very important issue and did not wish to risk it. Therefore, the Labour party won the general
election because people had no desire to change parties, they had been given no reason to.
In the constituency of Dorset South, tactical voting occurred in favour of the Labour
party, which enabled them to win a conservative marginal seat. Tactical voting is where individual
voters decide to vote not in favour of a political party but ‘against’ their least favourite party. In
Dorset South, this happened to be the conservative party. Liberal voters voted Labour so the
anti-conservative vote was not split and Labour won the seat rather that the conservatives. This
hatred of the conservatives meant that Labour could gain seats in such a fashion and hence win
the election. People were not necessarily in favour of Labour, but were willing to vote anyone but
the conservatives. Tactical voting did not have a major impact on the final result of the election,
however. It gained a few seats out of the several hundred Labour won overall, but other issues
such as the economy and education policies really had the most serious effect on voting.
William Hague, the opposition leader to the Labour Party, had misjudged his election
campaign, and as a result, lacked the support of the people. He based the election campaign
mainly on the issues concerning Europe, and the majority of the population did not care about
Europe as much as they did about issues ‘at home’. Therefore, party errors meant that the
conservatives did not gain much support because they did not tackle issues that were important
to people. They also gave the wrong impression about their Europe beliefs
“…that did give the impression the party was shrill and extremist” Lord Britten.
The party focused so predominantly on Europe that people thought they were extreme and
hence preferred the Labour party. They were not made aware of any conservative policies that
were much different from the Labour party’s policies, and hence did not see why they should
vote for a similar but historically less successful party. This meant that Labour did not have a
genuine competitive opposition. The opposition the conservatives offered was not very strong
and so they were effectively not challenged. This meant that the Labour Party won the 2001
election easily.
In conclusion, the Labour Party did not do anything drastically good in their four years
in power, but the conservatives lacked sufficient momentum to do anything radical or propose
changes that would swing voters back from Labour voting. The conservatives had a legacy of
recent failure behind them and a leader who was not particularly appealing to the public so they
could not gain support easily. In addition to this the Labour party did not displease any particular
sector of their voters. Although voting turnout went down, this did not affect the Labour Party
and hence they easily won the election comfortably, as the situation had not changed a great deal
since their first great victory in 1997.
--
