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

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.