Short-term determinants of voting behaviour

7 short-term factors

1. Manifestos and policies

2. Campaigns

3. Party image

4. Leaders

5. Issue voting

6. Rational choice

7. Valence and governing competence

British Electoral Society — % of country that voted for 3 different parties across the 3 elections 2010-2017

49%

Electoral volatility

Degree of change in voting behaviours between elections based on the idea that voters have become more willing to switch between parties due to lack of strong connection to any one party

Rational choice theory

Idea that individuals make rational choices and achieve outcomes that are aligned with their own best interests

Valence factor

Relative success or failure of a government’s policies. Voters who vote according to valence factors are deciding based on their satisfaction with the government’s performance. Valence is not an issue (or the politics of a party) itself, but which party is most likely to deliver on this issue.

Governing competence

Perceived ability of the governing party to effectively manage the state. Also applies to the opposition parties. Gov’ts lose elections instead of being won by opposition.

Disillusion and apathy

Process of disengagement with politics/political activity, lack of confidence in politicians being able to solve issues and make a difference is shown in lack of turnout and awareness of contemporary events.

YouGov — swing voters

don’t [have a strong view on individual issues] [… but] judge parties and politicians on their character

1959 — governing competence

• Economic prosperity under Macmillan → 100+ seat majority

  • Rising living standards — ‘most of our people have never had it so good’

1979 — governing competence

• Callaghan failed to deeascalate strikes during Winter of Discontent

• Also got misquoted: “crisis? what crisis?”

1983 — governing competence (3)

• Thatcher bought down inflation despite high unemployment, thus fulfiling a manifesto commitment

• Led during Falkland’s War

• Unified cabinet

2010 — governing competence

• Damaged by 2008 financial crisis and recession

2015 — governing competence

• Cameron had contributed to economic recovery since 2010

2024 — governing competence

• Truss’ mini budget crashed economy → inflation, high living costs

• Also Partygate and Pinchergate

Rational choice — 3 aspects

1. Manifestos

2. Policies

3. Political leaning

Explanation of rational choice

• Voting in one’s own best interests — removes emotion and makes voting decision logical

• May still choose a party for e.g. economic reasons even if there are some policies that might make them worse off

Example of a group issue voting

• Pensioners and parties that have highest pensions/retirement benefits

Irrationality of issue voting

• Could have a voter worse off

  • E.g. party financially disadvantages them but aligns with voter’s beliefs

1979 — issue voting

• Winter of Discontent

  • Overrode Callaghan’s higher approval ratings

1983 — issue voting

• ‘Falklands Factor’ aka Thatcher’s involvement in Falklands War

  • Boosted her approval rating

1997 — issue voting

• Tory sleaze and scandals 1992-7 facilitated Blair

2005 — issue voting

• 2003 decision to invade 🇮🇶 despite biggest demonstration in 🇬🇧 history

  • Dramatically reduced L’s majority

2017 — issue voting

• Manchester Arena Bombing and London Bridge attacks → terror and policing issue

2019 — issue voting

• Brexit!

  • Made long-time L voters vote C and breached Red Wall

2 examples of parties adopting certain policies to get certain votes

1. Environmental policies to take Green votes

2. C’s Euroscepticism to take UKIP votes

3 qualities of a successful leader

1. Accessible — media performer, likeable

2. Trustworthy

3. Strong — they’ve got to run a country!

1979 — Callaghan

• Significantly ahead of Thatcher in polls

  • Lost election

Thatcher — 1980 C party conference

• Faced down ON Cons by saying ‘You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning’

Thatcher — 1982

• Sent a task force to 🇦🇷 to recover Falklands

Thatcher v Foot

• Strong and focused v left-wing intellectualism (only appealing to core L voters)

Description of Foot by Marr

‘would-be parliamentary revolutionary detained in a second-hand bookshop’

Foot

• Brilliant orator

  • Failed to inspire widespread backing

Blair’s personal appeal

• Personal appeal declined from 1997 → 2005 BUT incompetent rivals meant did not become electoral liability

2005 — Blair % lead in ‘who would make the best PM’ opinion polls

15% (voters recognised leadership qualis despite declining personal appeal)

Clegg — impact of first TV debate

• Increased personal approval ratings (Cleggmania!!)

Clegg — number of seats lost and % of vote

• 5 seats

• 1% vote

Conclusions from Clegg

• TV debates can enhance visibility and approval but don’t always align with electoral gains

Brown

• Poor personal standing + Bigotgate

Miliband

• Not viewed as credible

  • Bacon sandwich

  • The Edstone (his manifesto promises on a stone tablet)

Corbyn — 2017

• Disastrous but more accessible than May

  • BUT appealed to young ‘Corbynites’

Corbyn — 2019

• Lost likeability from 2017

• Not very popular

2019 — % general public that said Corbyn would make the best PM

31%

2019 — % general public that said Johnson would make the best PM

49%

Johnson

• Widely distrusted

  • Avoided reporters (fridge) and set-piece TV interviews (melting ice Channel 4)

Johnson’s 2019 majority

80 seats

Importance of party image

• Shows unity (or lack of unity)

1980s — L image

• Bad

  • Perceived close links to unions

1990s — 2 elements of C image

1. Splits over Europe

2. ‘Nasty Party’ — get rich quick and no sympathy for disadvantaged

1990s — L image

• Changed under Blair

  • Smart dress

  • No moustaches

  • Carrying pagers to keep up-to-date

2 requirements for an image change

1. Right leader

2. Policy changes

2005 — C image

• ‘Detoxified’ by Cameron

  • Inclusive; aimed at young/women/BME voters

2010 — % swing L → C

5%

2017 — May % lead in polls

20%

2017 — change in May’s image

• Strong and stable through Brexit → stubborn, wooden, pessimistic

2019 — C image

• Still deeply divided over Brexit

2024 — C image

• In TATTERS

  • Partygate

  • PPE

  • Lobbying

  • Truss

  • Pinchergate

  • Unable to deliver on migration

  • Post-Brexit?!

  • Levelling up policies?!

2024 — L image

• McSweeny purged party of Corbynites

• Seen as more moderate and appealing to broader electorate

Impact of campaigns

• Reinforce views > changing views

Reasons for importance of campaigns

• Partisan dealignment → more floating voters

1992 — C campaign

• Major: staged events → soap box in town centres

  • Unexpected victory

1992 — L campaign

• Kinnock over confident at rallies

2017 — L campaign

• Optimistic rallies — Glastonbury

2017 — L % increase in votes

10%

2017 — C campaign

• May uninspiring appearances

1964 — L campaign

• Presidential (Wilson), like that of JFK

• Dynamic

1964 — L % increase in votes

0.2%

1987 — L campaign

• TV-friendly

2019 — C campaign

• Brexit focused but barely changed polling

Manifestos post-1945

• More specific and detailed

  • Clear set of issues

  • Clear set of policies

Doctrine of mandate

• Central to electorate-party-gov’t relationship

• Winning party has a mandate to carry out all the policy commitments contained in its manifesto

1983 — 2 elements of L manifesto

1. Nationalisation

2. Increase in taxation

Post-1983 — L policy changes

• 3rd successive defeat → policy review to return to electability

1997 — 5 L manifesto promises

1. Cutting class sizes

2. Fast-track punishment for young offenders

3. Cutting NHS waiting lists

4. Getting 250,000 under-25s off benefits

5. Freezing income tax

2005 — C policy change

• Revised to be more ‘compassionate’

2017 — C policy

• Dementia Tax

2017 — L policy

• Ending tuition fees

2019 — C policy

• ‘Get Brexit Done’

2019 — 2 elements of C manifesto

1. Vague

2. Brief

2019 — 2 elements of L manifesto

1. Ambitious

2. Not credible

2019 — C % of Leave vote

74%

2019 — L % of Remain vote

49%

2019 — LD increase in Remain vote

• 12% → 21%

Hapathy

• Contention with circumstances and therefore no need to vote

2 years that had hapathy

1. 2001

2. 2005

2024 — reason for low turnout

• C voters just didn’t vote instead of voting L

2019 — turnout

• Dropped despite Brexit due to mistrust of leaders and parties