This effect is closely related to the idea of partisan dealignment – people start to identify less with the traditional main parties, and start to consider other options (or none at all).
However, there is a flip-side to this. Due to the fact that there is, for the uneducated fellow, no discernable difference between Lib-Lab-Con, the average person starts to consider more minor, radical parties. This is, in my opinion, a good effect, for it makes the system more democratic. This is so, because if there was a monopoly on the government system, those in charge, could more easily abuse the democratic tenants. It also helps the rise of different ideas, and essentially, even though, so called Nationalist and Communist (i.e. radical) parties could gain influence, under democratic principles, if the people wish that this is so, then there surely is no harm in letting them voice their opinions.
Conflicting opinion would suggest however, that if radical parties are allowed to surface, the stability of the country may be affected. Also, it is possible to suggest, that if these parties were allowed to win a general election, they would threaten the very stability of government (i.e. the system of democracy).
As well as political factors, such as the shift towards consensual politics, there are also economic ones. One has to remember, that in 1979, when turnout was high (76%), the economy was just rising out of a slump. People would have been motivated to vote, for the party which they considered, to be best able to manage the country’s finances for the next 5 years. During the late 1990s/Early 2000s, the economy was generally good, and inflation was low. Now, because the average man had food in his fridge and a car in the garage, there was not so much motivation to leave the house, and go vote. Indeed, many would say, for example, ‘Why go out into the cold harsh weather, to vote for people that will not affect me in anyway, when I could rest at home, in my living room with my plush leather sofa and 50” television?’.
An idealist may suggest that people do not vote to benefit themselves, but to benefit the country. Surely there is no point in voting to benefit oneself, if the country (and therefore, one’s environment around one) suffers? However, although this hypothesis is correct, many people, unfortunately, do not think this far, and hence, people vote to benefit themselves in the short term, not the country in the long term.
Now that the country faces an upcoming recession, it will be interesting to note where the electorate’s loyalty lies. Will they vote for the parties they fail to identify with, or will they vote for more minor parties, as a sort of protest vote, against the establishment (or perhaps, against the shift towards consensual politics).
In conclusion, one could suggest that there is not increasing disillusionment with party politics, within the UK, merely disillusionment with the major parties. It seems that many politically active citizens within the state are shifting their attention to more minor parties, and more radical ones, simply due to the shift to consensual politics; partisan dealignment and uncertain economic conditions. Some are even so fed up of the political game, that they shift their efforts to single issue pressure groups. For example – the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than a million members, as of today, whilst the Conservatives (usually having high numbers of members) having merely 270,000 members (a fall from 1980, of approximately one million).