Why the notion of the faithful party voter is a thing of the past
Poor old Gordon Brown. Under his leadership, Labour's election results are the worst in maybe 40 years, the "core vote is in meltdown" and the "heartlands are in revolt". But he should try not to worry too much: it isn't all his fault. People like to think that areas of Britain are inherently Labour or Tory - and even the Lib Dems have long-term "strongholds" now. These ideas of political loyalty are often based on stereotypes of the "northern working man", the "Tory Home Counties banker" or the "Celtic fringe".
But many of these redoubts are now cracking in the face of Britain's increasing political plu ralism. Areas that were historically associated with a single party were often kept that way because of a lack of serious opposition. Now, independents and others are increasingly moving in to fill the political vacuum. And voters have changed accordingly. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent lecture at Westminster Cathedral: "We generally prefer . . . to be patrons rather than subscribers." Loyalty has been replaced by scepticism. This applies to politics just as it does to organised religion. You don't want to get too close to any organisation as you might be tainted by association when it does something wrong or becomes unpopular. This being the case, what does it tell us about election results?
It does not mean that voters are becoming less reasoned in their choices. When I stood for election to my local council for the second time, one enterprising voter crossed out my name and party label and wrote "Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein candidate" in their place. I have wondered ever since whether they were comparing me unfavourably to the MP for West Belfast, or merely felt frustrated that they couldn't vote for him instead. Either way, I don't feel that they were being irrational. Voters' choices are always based on rational consideration, however much politicians or commentators dislike those choices.
For candidates, however, a switch of loyalty is a problem. John Dunn, the distinguished professor of politics at Cambridge University, wrote that "to remain in politics in a modern demo cratic republic it is, for the great majority of those concerned, necessary to contest elections, and at least intermittently to win these".
With a volatile electorate, holding on to power becomes harder. An extreme cynic might take the route of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. But Brown does not really have the option of sending in the war veterans to Nuneaton or Reading, so what can he do? Perhaps he would do better to take it on the chin, like Dick Tuck. Tuck was a Democratic Party apparatchik who spent much of his career imaginatively trying to discredit Richard Nixon. When he stood for the California state senate himself, however, he received an unfavourable verdict. Tuck considered the result for a second, then gave his own verdict: "The people have spoken, the bastards."
Stephen Brasher is the author of an essay on the Labour Party and national identity in "Imagined Nation: England After Britain", edited by Mark Perryman (Lawrence & Wishart, £16.99)
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
