1. 3/28/2014 1
Voting Behaviour in the UK 1945-2005
Part C: Social Influences on Voting and Non-
Voting

2. 23/28/2014
Voting Behaviour in the UK: Part C:
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.

3. 33/28/2014
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

4. 43/28/2014
Voting Trends 1979-2005

5. 53/28/2014
Seats Won 1979-2005
Con Lab “Lib” SNP/PC Other

6. 63/28/2014
Voting 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.

7. 73/28/2014
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

8. 83/28/2014
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

9. 93/28/2014
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

10. 103/28/2014
Housing 2005
Cons Lab L-D
 Home owners with mortgage 30 39 23
 Home owners without mortgage 43 30 20
 Council tenants 16 56 19

11. 113/28/2014
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

12. 123/28/2014
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

13. 133/28/2014
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!

14. 143/28/2014
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

15. 153/28/2014
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

16. 163/28/2014
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.

17. 173/28/2014
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 Women
35-54
Men 55+ Women
55+
Con
Lab
Libdem

18. 183/28/2014
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?

19. 193/28/2014
Voting 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.

20. 203/28/2014
0
20
40
60
80
100
1950 1966 1983 2005
Declining turn out
Turn out UK

21. 213/28/2014
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 61
Social Grade A/B
79 68 71
Social Grade C1
75 60 62
Social Grade C2
69 56 58
Social Grade D/E
62 53 54

22. 223/28/2014
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!

23. 233/28/2014
Turnout % in 2005 by age cohort
18-34 34
25-34 43
35-44 58
45-54 63
55-64 73
65+ 76

24. 243/28/2014
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

25. 253/28/2014
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.]

26. 263/28/2014
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.

27. 273/28/2014
Social Influences on Voting and Non-Voting
 The End