Long-term factors are no longer important in explaining voting behaviour in the UK. Discuss.

From 1979-1992 more women voted for the Conservatives than any other party. In the last three elections there have been no major gender differences in voting.These data were usually explained by theories that for much of the C20th, women were less likely to be in paid employment and less likely to be trade union members or because women were seen as possibly more “traditional" or more "deferential" than men in their views as a result gender differences in socialization. In spite of this, women were 5% more likely to vote Conservative than Labour [36% Cons and 31% Labour] and men were 10% more likely to vote Conservative than to vote Labour [38% Cons and 28% Labour ] in 2010 illustrating that women’s traditional relative Conservatism did not apply in 2010. Furthermore, in 2005 34% of men and 38% of women voted Labour thus reversing the traditional gender gap once again. This is partly because of the increase in female Labour candidates, female MPs thus concentrates more on ‘family policies’ such as maternity and paternity which generates more support from the women.

The partisan identification model argues that voters base their choice on a long-term commitment to a party and pay comparatively little attention to the policy differences between the parties at election time or the performance of the parties since the last election. Party identities continue to be inherited from family of origin but the strength of the inheritance, especially from fathers, has declined. The major shift is from strong to weak identification. In 2005, it was found that less than 15% of the electorate claimed to identify strongly with a party as compared to 40% in the 1960s. The extent of identification was not particularly strong as well with only 14% among Conservatives and 16& for Labour. The conservatives appear to have suffered a greater haemorrhaging of ‘identifiers’ than Labour. This causes a decline in turnout and is a source of greater volatility and instability in electoral behaviour. It has also led to a notable increase in parliamentary representation for the Liberal Democrats, and for ‘independent’ candidates.

Other the other hand, the media can have a significant influence in an election as to many people; the media is their only source of information on political issues. Legally, TV and radio have to be ‘non partisan’ in their coverage of an election. However, a lot of the coverage is based on the proportion of the vote a party gets and it often decides on what issues they broadcast. This is showed when Labour Party was given a greater time allocation than say the Green Party in general elections. This may encourage voters to switch their votes thus causing a party to either lose or win. This can be proved with the rise of popularity of the Liberal Democrats after the news on TV debate. Likewise, newspapers have the similar effect. For example, the national press can and will openly support a particular party during an election. This was most evident in the 1992 election when 70% of national newspaper readers supported the Conservatives. Also, in 1997, Labour was able to reverse press hostility and 60% of national newspapers advised their readers to vote Labour including The Sun. This resulted with a landslide victory for Labour. This illustrates that there is a strong link between the political preferences of voters and the preferences of the newspapers they read.

Furthermore, politics in Britain has become increasingly ‘Presidential’ – many would argue the personality of the leader has a significant influence on voting behaviour. In 1997 Tony Blair’s energy, youth, dynamism and untarnished imaged contrasted with the tired, worn-out grey and bland image of John Major. This was a major influence in Labour’s landslide victory. However in 2005, Labour lost 5.8% of their vote. One of the top three reasons for not voting Labour was that voters did not trust Tony Blair due to his involvement in Iraq. The impact on the Iraq war and the misleading information given lead him to be untrustworthy and a liar. Nevertheless, the Conservative leader, Michael Howard did not have a positive enough image to win the election. In 2010 Gordon Brown’s negative image in the media cost Labour a great many votes. This illustrates that voters may be more influenced by its leaders rather than the party itself.

Additionally, in recent years there has been an increase in ‘rational voting’ and that voters choose parties according to their policies on issues such as tax, health, education and etc. This can be seen when from 1979 to 1992, majority voted for conservatives as they were regarded as the party of low taxes where else Labour were viewed as the party of high taxes and to lavish public spending. However, in 1997, as Labour concentrated more on issues such as education, health and tax and portrayed themselves as the party of prudent financial management, they achieved a landslide victory. Also, a party which appears weak and divided over key issues will struggle to get itself elected such as in 2001, the conservatives failed to gain popularity as the party itself were bitterly divided over Europe.

Short term factors such as media, issues and leadership can overlap as how a leader is portrayed in the media can create a strong or weak image which in turns shapes the votes of a general election.  Voting behaviour trend is seen to be moving strongly towards short term factors as it has a bigger impact upon how the public votes. Hence, voting behaviour is portrayed to be more rational and volatile and that long term factors are becoming in decline.