elections lost by government or won by opposition?

Introduction?

• As this essay focuses on elections that are ‘lost by the government’, the key examples used will be from the 1979, 1997, 2010, and 2024 elections, in which there was a change of government.

Structure of the essay?

• P1 - Leadership

• P2 - Competence

• P3 - Rational Choice and Issue based voting

P1 - leadership - lost by government

• It can be argued that the general elections in the UK are lost by the government because the unpopularity of PMs is often a key reason why voters vote against a governing party, and the opposition leader isn’t required to be hugely popular.

• This was clear in the 2024 election, when Sunak was one of the least popular leaders fighting an election in history, with a net favourability of -51% with the public, tarnished by Partygate, leaving D-day celebrations early, and being viewed as smug.

  • As a result, Starmer was able to win a landslide 174 seat majority, despite not being hugely popular, with a net favourability of -17% on election day.

• This can also be seen in the 2010 election, when David Cameron didn’t have high approval ratings, but was able to win the election due to unpopularity of PM Gordon Brown.

  • An IPSOS Mori poll, shortly before the election, showed 33% regarded Cameron as the most capable PM, compared to 29% for Brown.

  • Cameron was able to defeat the government and win the most votes of any party due to Brown’s reputation of being cowardly, boring, and uninspiring. Cameron needn’t be hugely popular for them to win.

• Can also be seen in the 1979 election, when Prime Minister James Callaghan was derided for his failure to deal with militant trade unions, leading to the Winter of Discontent.

  • As a result, it was largely irrelevant that Conservative Party leader, Margaret Thatcher, wasnt well known and didn’t have major popularity.

P1 - leadership - not lost by government / won by opposition

• On the other hand, if the governing political party recognises that their leader has become unpopular and is no longer an electoral asset, they will often remove them in favour of a new leader who can convince the electorate they are offering something new.

  • This is most prevalent with the Conservative Party in the past decade, which has removed three leaders who had become unpopular with the public due to failing when in power: Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss.

  • Before the 2019 election, the Conservative Party removed May and brought in Johnson, who able to distance himself from the rest of the party and successfully win the election, in part due to his charisma.

• Popular opposition leaders can also be highly important in why opposition parties are able to win elections against the governing party.

  • This is seen in particular in the 1997 election. Blair was very popular across the country and was seen as a strong, competent, and charismatic leader with a clear vision and control over his party.

  • This is in direct contrast with Prime Minister John Major, who was seen as a weak, boring leader, presiding over a party divided over Europe, and tainted by ‘sleaze’ an the cash for questions scandal.

P2 - Competence - lost by government

• It can be argued that GE in the UK are lost by the government as the perceived incompetence of the government when in office is a key reason why voters vote for the opposition.

• The failure of the government when in power was a key reason for the government losing in the last four elections when there was a change of government: 1979, 1997, 2010, and 2024.

  • In the 1979 election, Labour was voted out in large due to the perception they were unable to manage the economy and trade unions in the context of the Winter of Discontent, in which the government attempts to impose a 5% limit on pay increases led to increased strikes.

    • This provided the Conservatives with an irresistible theme; that the country needed a new direction with a government that could grapple with economic and social breakdown.

    • They cleverly used the slogan ‘Labour isn’t Working’.

  • Perceived economic incompetence was also significant in 1997. By 1997, the economy was recovering from the recession of the early part of the decade, but voters iddn’t give the Conservatives credit for this, rather they remembered the catastrophe of ‘Black Wednesday’ in September 1992.

    • Monthly opinion polls showed Labour consistently ahead of the Conservatives from the Autumn of 1992 onwards.

  • Additionally, the incompetence of the Conservative government since 2019 was without a doubt the most important factor in Labour’s landslide victory in the 2024 election,

    • The public viewed the Conservatives as incompetent, self-serving, and untrustworthy due to a large number of scandals, which led to the party’s vote share dropped from 43.6% in 2019 to 23.7% in 2024.

      • The fact the government failed to follow its own COVID-19 restrictions and held parties whilst the public stayed inside, revealed in late 2021 in the ‘party gate scandal’ was damaging and resulted to the resignation of Boris Johnson.

P2 - competence - won by opposition

• On the other hand, it can br argued that the opposition are only able to benefit from the governments incompetence and win the election if they are perceived to be competent themselves.

  • In the 1979 election, a great deal of the Conservative Party’s messaging focused on bringing down inflation by way of monetarism. The Labour Party wanted to bring down inflation too, however theirs lacked credibility due to their failure in office.

  • In the 1997 election, Labour were successful in presenting themselves as an economically competent party, pledging not to increase income tax and to prioritise national finances.

    • Further evidenced with Blair telling ‘businesses to not be afraid’.

  • In 2024 too, the Labour Party was successful in presenting itself as competent and the antithesis of the Tories. This led to electoral success, as 2019 Conservative voters felt comfortable defecting - they were boring and uninspiring, but didn’t put off voters due to appearing too radical.

    • Labour moved to the centre ground and promised not to raise income tax, national insurance, or coportation tax, which made the Conservative Party’s usual attack line on increasing taxes rather ineffective.

P3 - won by opposition - rational choice and issue based voting

• One key argument that GE are won by opposition in the UK is that the opposition are able to provide manifesto and policy platform to the electorate that offers real change and benefits them economically.

  • This can be seen in the 1997 election, then Blair successfully rebranded the Labour Party. As Labour leader, Blair drove forward the policy of modernisation and abandoned old-fashioned party policies such as nationalisation (removal of clause IV), tax increases, and the strengthening of Trade Union powers, which might put off middle class voters.

  • Blair also gave off reassuringly tough signals of law and order, using the slogan ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’, an issue that mattered to voters after rising crime rates in the early 1990s.

P3 - lost by government - rational choice and issue based voting

• On the other hand, it can be argued that GE are lost by the government as opposition parties often have similar policies to the governing parties, but are able to win as they provide a change in terms of leadership and aren’t tainted by their record in governance.

  • This can be seen in the 1979 election, when both parties prioritised bringing down inflation and the Conservative Party’s manifesto contained very little indication Thatcher intended to move her party so far to the right.

    • There was a mention of returning recently nationalised industries to private hands and removing TU powers, but no suggestion of the radical crusade to scale down the state sector.

  • In 2010, too, the policies of Labour and Conservatives were relatively similar, with both parties supporting austerity and bringing down the deficit, however the Cons had more success as their reputation for economic competence hadn’t been damaged by the financial crash.

  • Finally, in 2024, the Labour Party intentionally moved to the centre and was avery careful in selecting differences in policy from the Cons.

    • In many areas they were similar: increases to defence spending to 2.5%; they both promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or corporation tax; they both promised to invest in the NHS; they both promised to tackle illegal immigration.