04/13/23 1

Voting Behaviour in the UK 1945-2005

Part C: Social Influences on Voting and Non-Voting

204/13/23

Voting Behaviour in the UK: Part C: Voting Behaviour in the UK: Part C: Recent General Elections: Social Influences on Voting and Non-Voting Recent General Elections: Social Influences on Voting and Non-Voting

In Part C I provide the following information. Click here for BBC Information on all post war General

Elections Summary results for the 1979-2005 General Elections. Statistical trends on class, region , gender, age , religion

and ethnicity and voting behaviour. Some information on Non-Voting This will be followed by Part D in which I provide more

“political” information on the General Elections of 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2005.

304/13/23

Voting Behaviour in the UK: Part C: Index

Recent General Election Results Voting Behaviour and Social Class Region and Voting Behaviour Gender and Voting Behaviour Ethnicity, Religion and Voting Behaviour Electoral Turnout

404/13/23

Voting Trends 1979-2005Voting Trends 1979-2005

504/13/23

Seats Won 1979-2005Seats Won 1979-2005

Con Lab “Lib” SNP/PC Other Con Lab “Lib” SNP/PC Other

604/13/23

Voting Behaviour and Social Class 1979-2005Voting Behaviour and Social Class 1979-2005

Click here for data from IPSOS MORI on relationships between social class and voting behaviour 1974- 2005.

However remember the problems of defining social class and the different approaches to the measurement of class dealignment.

The following three slides illustrate the changing relationships between social class and voting behaviour between 1992 and 2005 as measured by the AB, C1, C2 and DE social class schema.

704/13/23

Conservative Social Class Support

AB C1 C2 DE CONS 1992 56 52 39 32 1997 41 37 27 21 2001 39 36 29 24 2005 37 37 33 25 Change 92/05

-19 -15 -6 -6

804/13/23

Labour Social Class Support

AB C1 C2 DE LAB 1992 19 25 40 49 1997 31 37 50 59 2001 30 38 49 55 2005 28 32 40 48 Change 92/05 +11 +7 0 -1

904/13/23

Lib Dem Social Class Support

AB C1 C2 DE LIB/DEM 1992 22 19 17 16 1997 22 18 16 13 2001 25 20 15 13 2005 29 23 19 18 Change 92/05

+7 +4 +2 +2

1004/13/23

Housing 2005

Cons Lab L-D

Home owners with mortgage30 39 23 Home owners without mortgage 43 30

20 Council tenants 16 56 19

1104/13/23

Regional Voting Trends1997 -2005 [1] [Coloured figures =2001]

Region Con Lab Lib Dem Nat

Scotland 17.5 [15.6]

15.8

45.6 [43.9]

39.5

13.0 [16.4]

22.6

22.1 [20.1]

17.7

Wales 19.6 [21.0]

21.4

54.7 [48.6]

42.7

12.4 [13.8]

18.4

9.9 [14.3]

12.6

North 22.2 [24.6]

19.5

60.9 [55.7]

49.8

13.3 [17.1]

23.3

N. West 27.1 [28.3]

28.7

54.2 [51.8]

46.0

14.3 [16.5]

21.4

Yorks. & Humbs.

28.0 [30.2]

29.1

52.0 [48.6]

43.6

16.0 [17.1]

20.7

1204/13/23

Regional Voting [2]1997 ,2001,2005

Region Con Lab Lib Dem

W. Mid 33.7[35.0]35.0

47.8[44.8]38.7

13.8[14.7]18.6

E. Mid 34.9[37.3]37.1

47.8[45.1]39.0

13.6[15.4]18.5

E. Anglia 38.7[41.7]43.3

38.3[35.8]29.6

17.9[19.0]21.8

S. East [excl all London]

41.4[42.6]43.3

31.9[31.7]25.5

21.4[21.6]25.5

Gtr. London 31.2[30.5]31.9

49.5[47.3]38.9

14.6[17.5]21.9

S. West 36.7[38.5]38.6

26.4[26.3]22.8

31.3[31.2]32.6

1304/13/23

Gender and Voting Behaviour 1974-2005

Click here for IPSOS MORI data on Gender and Voting Behaviour 1974- 2005

Click here for IPSOS MORI data on gender, age and voting behaviour in the 2005 General Election

The following 4 slides have been copied directly from the first part of the voting behaviour presentation. You may already have seen these!

1404/13/23

Gender and Voting Behaviour [1]Gender and Voting Behaviour [1]

Relationships between gender and voting behaviour are summarised in trends in the so-called gender gap in voting behaviour

The gender gap is defined as the difference between the % Conservative- Labour lead among women and the % Conservative-Labour lead among men.

Calculated in this way a negative gender gap indicates that women were more pro-Conservative than men and a positive gender gap suggests that men are more pro-Conservative than women.

Gender gaps have indeed been negative for much of the post 2nd World War period but have declined in the 1990s and in 2005 there was a positive gender gap.

Click here and scroll down for gender gap calculations 1974-2005 from IPSOS MORI

1504/13/23

Gender and Voting Behaviour [2]Gender and Voting Behaviour [2]

The pro-Conservative/anti –Labour tendencies of female voters relative to male voters for much of the post-war period were explained by the following factors.

Women were less likely to be in employment than men and when they were in employment, less likely than men to be in heavily unionised occupations where Labour voting was most likely.

It was suggested that for much of the post –war period women could on average be described as having a more traditional outlook on life than men. Not a very convincing argument nowadays , you might think.

On average women live longer than men and older people are more pro-Conservative and anti- Labour than young people

1604/13/23

Gender and Voting Behaviour [3]Gender and Voting Behaviour [3]

The extent of relatively pro-Conservative/ anti-Labour voting behaviour among women always varied according to age and social class.

Also from the late 1980s this trend in female behaviour began to be reversed such that in 2005 women were relatively anti-Conservative/pro-Labour in comparison with men.

1704/13/23

Gender, Age and Voting in 2005 : IPSOS MORI

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Men18-24 Women18-24

Men 35-54 Women35-54

Men 55+ Women55+

Con

Lab

Libdem

1804/13/23

Gender and Voting Behaviour [4]Gender and Voting Behaviour [4]

The data on the previous slide indicate that by 2005 younger women are particularly pro-Labour and anti-Conservative  perhaps due to long run generational changes in attitudes and values and/or to the return to Parliament of an increasing number of female, Labour MPs and/or to Labour's greater willingness to campaign on female related issues. However many young women may have been dissuaded from voting Labour as a result of UK involvement in the Iraq war and , in any case no pro-Labour gender gap is present in the case of female voters 55+

It will be interesting to see whether this new female support for the Labour Party holds up at the next General Election. What reasons are there for believing that it might not?

1904/13/23

Voting Behaviour and non-Class FactorsVoting Behaviour and non-Class Factors

PJG Pulzer stated that “Class is the basis of British party politics: all else is embellishment and detail.” We do however need to familiarise ourselves with such details: i.e. with the possible effects of region, ethnicity, age, gender and religion on voting behaviour.

Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern England are more likely to vote Labour than voters in Southern England.

Ethnic minority voters are more likely to vote Labour than white voters. Catholic voters were more likely to vote Labour than Protestant voters. In each of these three cases this could be explained partly [but not

entirely] by the indirect effects of social class in that the Scots, the Welsh, ethnic minority members and Catholics are also disproportionately likely to be working class [ which takes us back to the Pulzer quotation]

Click here and scroll down for further data and explanations re age, gender, region, religion, ethnicity and voting behaviour.

Note that many Muslim voters withdrew their support from Labour in the 2005 General Election as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

2004/13/23

0

20

40

60

80

100

1950 1966 1983 2005

Declining turn out

Turn out UK

2104/13/23

Variation in Election Turnout by Social Class 1997-2005

All Figures are Percentages

General Election 1997 General Election 2001 General Election 2005

Overall General Election Turnout 71 59 61Social Grade A/B 79 68 71Social Grade C1 75 60 62Social Grade C2 69 56 58Social Grade D/E 62 53 54

2204/13/23

Variation in Election Turnout 2001 and 2005 : Affluence and Poverty

2001 differential turnout by seat comparing poorer inner city with affluent southern seats:

Liverpool Riverside = 34%; Manchester Central = 39%; Hackney S & Shoreditch= 47%; Islington South = 47%; Bethnal Green & Bow = 49%.

Oxford W & Abingdon = 65%; Buckingham = 69%; Norwich S = 68%; North Norfolk = 70%; Wyre Forest = 68%.

In 2005 the highest English turnouts were in Dorset West [76.3%], Norfolk North [73.0%] Richmond Park [72.8%] and Mole Valley [72.5%].

In 2005 the lowest English turnouts were in Staffordshire South [37.2%], Liverpool Riverside [41.5%], Manchester Central [42.0%] and Salford [42.4%].

Click here for full information on constituency differences in turnout including maps of the UK and of the major UK conurbations. A very nice link , I think!

2304/13/23

Turnout % in 2005 by age cohort 18-34 34

25-34 43

35-44 58

45-54 63

55-64 73

65+ 76

2404/13/23

Interest in Politics: Note that declining turnout trends do not prove that interest in Politics is declining. 1973 1991 1995 1997 2001 2003 2004 2005 Very 14% 13 13 15 14 9 13 16 Fairly 46 47 40 44 45 42 37 45 Not very 27 26 30 29 29 30 33 28 Not at all 13 13 17 11 11 19 17 11

2504/13/23

Electoral Turnout: Useful Sources

The analysis of electoral turnout raises a range of complex issues

many of which are discussed in the following sources. Click here and scroll down for very detailed analysis of the 2005

General Election by the authors of the 2005 British Election Study . Scroll to page 4 for analysis of electoral turnout.

Click here for the Power Report [which provides very detailed information on British Democracy ,electoral turnout and related issues ].

Click here for full information on constituency differences in turnout including maps of the UK and of the major UK conurbations. [Already mentioned earlier.]

2604/13/23

Campaigns and Tactical Voting

Campaigns and tactical voting are very important topics within the study of voting behaviour.

I hope to provide information on these topics at some point in the future.

2704/13/23

Social Influences on Voting and Non-Voting

The End