How women have deserted the Tories at the polls

The party once attracted far more female than male support but since 2005 the reverse has been true.

David Cameron may have insisted that his party does not have a "problem with women" at today's PMQs (as he stood in front of an entirely male frontbench) but the polls tell a different story. The latest YouGov survey gives Labour a three-point lead among men (36-33) but a nine-point lead among women (42-33). 

The female vote was once one of the Tories' greatest electoral assets, with the party consistently attracting more support from women than men, but since 2005 the reverse has been true. In 1992, the female-male gender gap [% Female Con Vote - % Female Lab Vote] minus [% Male Con Vote -% Male Lab Vote] stood at six points in the Tories' favour but it fell to two points in 1997, to one point in 2001 and to minus six in 2005 (among men, the Tories and Labour were tied on 34 per cent). At the last election, the gender gap stood at minus five and, as I've noted, it currently stands at minus six. Here are the numbers in full. 

How men and women voted

1979

Men

Conservative 43

Labour 40

Women

Conservative 47

Labour 35

Female-male gender gap: +9

1983

Men 

Conservative 42

Labour 30

Women

Conservative 46

Labour 26

Female-male gender gap: +8

1987

Men 

Conservative 43

Labour 32

Women

Conservative 43

Labour 32

Female-male gender gap: 0

1992

Men 

Conservative 41

Labour 37

Women

Conservative 44

Labour 34

Female-male gender gap: +6

1997

Men 

Conservative 31

Labour 45

Women

Conservative 32

Labour 44

Female-male gender gap: +2

2001

Men 

Conservative 32

Labour 42

Women

Conservative 33

Labour 42

Female-male gender gap: +1

2005

Men 

Conservative 34

Labour 34

Women

Conservative 32

Labour 38

Female-male gender gap: -6

2010 

Men 

Conservative 38

Labour 28

Women

Conservative 36

Labour 31

Female-male gender gap: -5

David Cameron walks along Downing Street on February 4, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496