Along with Partisan Alignment there is also Partisan Dealignment. This refers to the weakening of a party loyalty and identification and the weakening of class-based voting (Class Dealignment).
According to Bo Sarlvick and Ivor Crewe (1983) there was evidence of Partisan Dealignment in the 1970’s where less than half the voters consistently voted for the same party in four general elections. However Sarlvick and Crewe argued that the main reason for partisan Dealignment is a process of Class Dealignment, which refers to a decline in class-based voting.
There have been many different proposals put through for the reasoning behind Dealignment. First there is the changes in the class structure, which have in turn weakened class identification and class loyalty. Also there has been a decline in sectors of employment where Labour support has usually been strongest such as in heavy industries like steel, ship building and coal which were state owned until the 1980’s.
Also increasing numbers of working-class voters no longer belong to trade unions, and they were more likely to own there own houses. Factors such as these tend to weaken class identification, which in turn leads to partisan Dealignment. Secondly its argued that people are increasingly guided by party policy rather than loyalty when casting there votes.
Recently in the elections Labour swept to victory. Ivor Crewe and Katrina Thompson conducted a study into Partisan Dealignment. They looked at the strength of party identification; they argued that very strong identification indicates a strong commitment to the party. Evidence from the elections showed a steady decline in the percentage of voters who very strongly identified with a political party (From 44% in 1964 to 16% in 1997) because of this evidence it was suggested that partisan Dealignment is still continuing.
Reasoning for continuing Dealignment according to David Sanders in the 1997 election is because Tony Blair and Labour managed to convince ‘Middle Britain’ that he had shed most of the baggage from old labours social past, and by 1997 the gap between Labour and Conservative has narrowed considerably as there were few differences between both parties policies and voters recognized this.
It seems as though labour has successfully transformed itself into a party, which is able to appeal to all social classes, and as a result Labours share of middle class votes in 2001 was only slightly below that of the conservatives share.
Although voting patterns can be down to social class and socialisation its also been suggested that gender can influence voting behaviour. It was found that from 1945 to 1992 women were more likely to vote that of Conservative rather than men. However this gender gap has virtually disappeared for that of the 2001 election.
There are many reasons for this one of which is the increasing amount of women that are now working rather than having their traditional views / outlook. Also Age is said to affect the way that voting goes. The older generation is seen to vote more for Conservative rather than Labour. This maybe because they are ore suck in their traditional views and therefore vote conservative.
In conclusion it seems as though there is a general agreement that process of partisan and class Dealignment have been occurring since the 1970’s. A process of Dealignment does not necessarily mean that partisan loyalty and class based voting have ended, only that they have declined. The question is will Partisan Dealignment continue? Also it seems as though gender and age can have a major effect on voting patterns.
In order to conduct find conclusive evidence for ‘Partisan Alignment’ in the General Election of 2005 I had to ask a large number of people. I simply asked them two questions, which were; “What is your Occupation?” and “Whom did you vote for?”
From this I could gather results in order to try to find a link between social class and the party they support.
After gathering the research I narrowed down a few more interesting of the results to interview in graver detail. I left it to an open interview to allow for the respondents to express there own views on the matter and in order to avoid leading questions.
