A Hung Parliament
Before the dust had settled in the 2010 general election the general consensus was that a Conservative government was inevitable. The general public was confident that the Labour Party and its leader did not stand a chance in the 2010 elections. However the results showed that there was no clear cut winner and the process of a Hung parliament was becoming more and more a likely outcome. The markets and the media kicked at this idea because they believed it to be bad for business as they feared fall in the sterling due to the uncertainty that would come with that coalition government. Although many pundits claimed that this would be bad for business, many did agree that anything was better than the current political terrain in Britain and the Hung parliament may be the spark the government needed to put their house in order (Political Science Resources, 2012).
The Parliamentary Affairs claimed that while many things could be pointed to as the reason why the Labour Party could not retain the Prime Minister position, there are some reasons why the election led to a Hung Parliament (2010).
- The new Labour Party seemed to be moving on fumes and was no longer the richer of the parties as that title was given to the Conservatives
- Gordon Brown was accused of lacking a domestic vision that was clear and probable while being burdened by global economic problems
- The Conservatives meanwhile seemed to be blossoming under David Cameron
- The televised debates added a new twist to the elections as people could see the candidates together and trying to answer the same questions in the best way they knew
- Media had a field day in choosing who they planned to stand behind and they ensured that the public knew why the others were not the right people for the job at hand
- The economic terrain was suffering with the recession and crisis in the banking systems saw to an election result that was not expected by anyone.
The last time an election had happened in the UK where there was no clear cut winner was in February 1974. However the 2010 general elections followed a similar path where no single party had an overall majority. The three major parties consisting of the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all lost and gained seats from the 2005 general elections. The Conservatives won 96 more than in 2005 and ended up with 306 seats, Labour lost 90 seats and ended with 258 seats while the Liberal Democrats lost 5 and ended with 57 (Rhode, Cracknell and McGuinness, 2011). The Labour Party secured their lowest percentage since 1983 and was down 6.2% from 2005 to end at 29%. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had their largest share since the Second World War and finished with a combined total of 59.1%
The Labour Party
The Labour Party governed for 13 years which was the longest period of governing by one party in the UK elections. While they did create reforms and make changes to the State the recession diminished most of the positive work that had been carried out by the Labour Party. With all the things stacked against them many people may have not been shocked that they could not secure re-election. What some people find strange is that for a party that had been consistently losing votes from the previous two elections, a difficult economic terrain and a leader that was not liked; they still almost won a chance to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
One of the problems that may have been had by the Labour Party was voter turnout. The turnout was low even though there was an uptick when compared with the other two previous elections. This turnout also showed a gap among social classes with more Conservatives participating in the voting process as compared with the Labour Party members and this led to them losing the grip they had previously held on the government for the previous 13 years. One other observation that was seen in the last election was the fact that the two super parties were beginning to lose some of their lustre as their combined share proved to be the lowest ever in British history. If these trends continue it will be hard for the single member constituency to return (Garner and Kelly, 1993 p253).
The Conservatives
David Cameron was able to accomplish what the previous three leaders before him could not and that was help the party recover enough to pass a believable Conservative message. The fact that the size and the evaluation of the Conservatives had not changed since 1997 is testament to the work put in by the new leader. The financial crisis also affected the ratings of the Conservatives as it became positive. The Conservatives also took the mantle of the richest of the big parties from the Labour Party. This wealth also had a part to play in how the campaigns were run and handled.
Surveys were able to give an idea of the characteristics of the voters and how and maybe why they were inclined to vote the parties they did. These opinion surveys that were taken and filled out by individuals who claimed they were going to vote showed that the Conservatives would lead across board. The only exception came in the social class of people between the age of 25 – 34 and living in social rented houses. These groups that were also mostly women were more inclined to vote the Labour Party as opposed the Conservatives. However there was still an uptick in those claiming to vote Conservatives when compared with the figures available from the 2005 general elections.
The Coalition Government
There was a 3.7% increase in voters turn-out from 2005 till 2010 which saw 29.7 million people cast their votes. The state of the election saw to the coalition of the three major parties as no single party had the overwhelming advantage required for them to wield authority in the UK. Electoral pundits and studies have gone into this election results to show that the next election results would wholly favour a Conservative or Labour majority. In order for the next electoral results to favour the Conservatives they will need to swing 2% points from the Labour Party. The Labour Party on the other hand would need a swing of 5% points from the Conservatives for the results to favour them (Rhode, Cracknell and McGuinness, 2011).
As have been stated above the 2010 elections did not see any party come out as overwhelming winners in winning a majority of the 650 seats available in the House of Commons. The Conservatives got a total of 10.7 million votes or 36.1% of all votes cast in gaining 306 seats. The Labour Party did a million fewer than 2005 as they accrued 8.6 million of the votes cast or 29.0% of the voting public. This was 6.2% less than the previous election of 2005 and good for 258 seats. The Liberal Democrats came in third and claimed 57 seats. They improved on their numbers from 2005 and won 6.8 million cast votes or 23.0% of the voting public. While it is obvious that there are more than 3 parties in the United Kingdom these three happen to be the most popular. The Independents and the Speaker won 29 of the available seats.
The Coalition Government that came about as a result of election results was remarkable in the sense that it agreed outside of wartime or emergency. It took place rapidly and was handled orderly as this government was formed a week after the general elections (Electoral Reform Society, 2010). This election also saw constituency results that saw MPs elected by a minority. 2010 elections failed to provide a majority winner and in so doing proved that fragmented electoral pattern was not an aberration giving strength and significance to the need and argument for the Alternative Vote. This election saw MPs getting elected even though they did not win their constituency as 111 MPs were elected having garnered less than 40% support from their voters. The breakdown of these MPs saw 56 of them being Labour Party MPs, 34 from the Conservatives and 10 Liberal Democrats (Fisher, Cutts and Fieldhouse, 2010).
Under-representation in seats when compared to share of votes of smaller parties tends to be a primary bias in the electoral system. A good example would be the Liberal Democrats who gained 23% of the votes cast but were able to hold just 8.8% of seats. While remaining the most common of bias other electoral biases still exist especially when the bigger parties have an asymmetrical relationship between votes and seats. This is seen in most cases where one party may need a greater lead in popular votes in a bid to win the majority when compared to the other. As is common with most elections incumbency helps with determining how voting is usually swayed but it did not translate into a majority win for the Labour Party in the 2010 election.
The Minorities
Research has shown over the years that the Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) in the United Kingdom usually are drawn to the Labour Party during the elections and the 2010 general elections were not any different. This present election saw 68% of this voting bloc vote the Labour Party while the remaining 32% was shared among the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats (Heath and Khan, 2012). While key findings from the Ethnic Minority British Election Study (EMBES) did show that blacks and other minorities were not as likely to register to vote as their white British counterparts, the turnouts of those registered is similar to that of the white British (CREST, 2000). Over time more and more minorities have gotten involved in politics in a bid to get their voices heard and at the last election ethnic minorities made up 8% of the electorate.
There were many themes to look out for in the 2010 general elections but some of the most pressing ones to the BEMs was whether David Cameron could make the Conservative Power more appealing and one of the ways this was checked was through the voting behaviour of this group – a group that normally supports the Labour Party. While the percentage was still high at 68%, it had significantly dropped by 8% to 10% from the previous elections where support used to range in the high 70s. this decrease which was also evident from other voting blocs in addition to the 4% and 1% bump that was experienced by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats respectively led to the Hung Parliament that exists in the United Kingdom today (Heath and Khan, 2012).
Just like with everywhere around the world women also have been getting more involved in party politics. 143 of the Members of Parliament (MPs) that were elected were women; a number that had not been surpassed before. The Labour Party has always had the largest number of female MPs of any party but even the 2010 elections saw the Conservatives gain 49 female MPs. The minorities also had a say in the 2010 elections as 27 MPs are from minority ethnic groups. Of the three major parties the Liberal Democrats remain the only party that is yet to elect a minority ethnic as an MP. With the 144 seats that were claimed by women the UK rose to the 52nd place in the worldwide table of women representation in parliament. Unfortunately this positioning still places her behind countries like Rwanda whose representation is at 56.3% and well below a lot of European parliaments in the western world (Electoral Reform Society, 2010). This number will only continue to rise in proportion to the party’s commitment to gender equality.
The Media
The surge of online social activity played a big role in dissemination of information regarding the campaigns. These played well into the debates that were being televised for the first time. While the television and social media seemed to be moving forward in terms of how they affected election voting, the newspapers reverted to the 90s giving overwhelming support to the Conservatives and bringing down the opponents. To say that the television debates did not have an effect on the British public would be akin to claiming that the first American presidential debate did not help Mitt Romney in the polls. In showing three men that had previously not held that position the debates answered a lot of questions for the voters.
The televised debates participated in swaying the minds of some voters as the opinion polls showed. These polls put support for the Conservatives at a low of 31% and a high of 41%. For the Labour Party it was a low of 23% and a high of 33% while the Liberal Democrats brought up the rear with a low of 16% and a high of 34% (Rhode, Cracknell and McGuinness, 2011). These debates which ran for 90 minutes were happening for the first time in British politics. They ran over three consecutive Thursdays and were aired on the ITV, Sky and BBC channels. The topics covered during these debates were domestic affairs, foreign affairs and the economy. The audience also had the opportunity to ask questions. It is assumed that almost all homes in Britain have access to a television set and two of the three channels listed above are free viewing. The debates between Brown, Clegg and Cameron provided many homes their first glance of their soon to be new Prime Minister and these debates swayed the voting choices of some of the voters that stood on the fence.
.
References
Rhode, C., Cracknell, R. and McGuinness, F., 2011. General Elections 2010 – Commons Library Research Paper. [online]
House of Commons. Available at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-36.pdf [Accessed 26 August 2013].
Electoral Reform Society. 2010. The UK General Election 2010 – In-Depth. [online]
House of Commons. Available at http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file4e3ff1393b87a.pdf
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Political Science Resources. 2012. British General Election, 2010. [online]
Political Resources. Available at http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/ge10.php
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Oxford University Press. 2010. Parliamentary Affairs. [online] Oxford Journals. Vol. 63 (4). Available at http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/4.toc
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Jones, et al., eds., 2007. Politics UK. United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6hynlgLMxbAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=politics+uk+bill+jones+2007&source=bl&ots=2MGZNsVGqF&sig=0courm12ZBVeRJFJ3oHcJSGcW0Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DicZUpNhpKfRBdHEgIgJ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=politics%20uk%20bill%20jones%202007&f=false
Kelly, R., and Garner, R., 1993. British Political Parties Today. Manchester : Manchester University Press.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hiG8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=elections+and+voting+behaviour+in+britain+denver&source=bl&ots=khAzj56GMC&sig=7QyNbO3ewZWRPEchtlbHC_jK-jA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tyoZUpqvApGI7Aa-nIDwCA&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=elections%20and%20voting%20behaviour%20in%20britain%20denver&f=false
CREST. 2000, Social Class and Voting: A Multi-Level Analysis of Individual and Constituency Differences.
[online] CREST. Available at http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p83.pdf
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Leach, G., n.d. The Election Economy. [online] IoD. Available at
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20election%20economy%20leach%20graeme&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iod.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FDocuments%2FPDFs%2FInfluencing%2FBig%2520Picture%2FBP%25202009%2FDec%2Felection%2520economy.pdf&ei=VvUZUsn5Hq7J0AXwmYGwBw&usg=AFQjCNHMNhc-XSLA9F4fxAAlJOyRxVayQw&bvm=bv.51156542,d.d2k
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Fisher, J., Cutts, E., and Fieldhouse, E., 2010. Constituency Campaigning in the 2010 British General Elections. [online]
Available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/government/epop/papers/panel18/p18_fisher_epop2010.pdf
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
Heath, A., and Omar, K., 2012. Ethnic Minority British Election Study – Key Findings. [online]. Available at http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/EMBESbriefingFINALx.pdf
[Accessed 26 August 2013].
