Volume 25, Number 1, September 2015
UK politics
How to use 2015 general election
examples in exam questions
Rowena Hammal
Good exam answers use recent examples, but the best exam answers use examples to drive
their argument forward, rather than merely as decoration. This AS article considers some of
the main arguments that can be made in the wake of the 2015 election.
Class only tells you so much about voting behaviour
The 2015 general election results show that social class still has a role to play in explaining voting
behaviour. Of people in social classes A and B, 45% voted Conservative, while 26% voted Labour. In
contrast, 27% of social classes D and E voted Conservative, but 41% voted Labour. Most strikingly, D
and E social classes were more than twice as likely to vote UKIP compared to A and B social classes.
Socioeconomic status still matters, but we need to look at other factors to fully explain voting
behaviour. Geography is increasingly more telling than class: in 2015 50.8% of voters in the South
East of England voted Conservative, while only 18.3% voted Labour. In the North East 25.3% voted
for the Tories, compared to 46.9% who voted Labour. If we consider the devolved nations, the
argument that geography supersedes class becomes even more convincing. In Scotland, the success
of the Scottish National Party (SNP) in winning 50% of the vote meant that just 14.9% voted
Conservative, and 24.3% voted Labour.
Partisan dealignment continues to rise
In a question on partisan dealignment, you can argue that this election adds further proof to the
argument that Britain is becoming less politically aligned. This election was dominated by a record
number of ‘floating voters’ — some 44% of those ‘certain to vote’ had not chosen a party by March
2015. Politicians scrambled to woo the undecided, and voters agonised over their decisions.
Turnout remains low
At 66.2%, turnout in 2015 was only marginally higher than the 65.1% achieved in 2010. This is despite
opinion polls predicting a hung parliament, which might have been expected to increase turnout as the
result of the election was so uncertain. While the turnout was higher than the historic low of 59.4%
(recorded in 2001 when a Labour re-election seemed certain), the general trend of low turnout
continues.
Perhaps most significantly for the future, turnout among 18–24 year olds was just 43%. This compares
to the 78% turnout by those aged over 65. Older voters were also much more likely to vote
Conservative, which helps to explain the election result.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2015
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview
Referendums matter
In a question about referendums, you should use the 2015 general election to emphasise their
importance. Strangely, given that this election was not a referendum, two referendums played a very
important role. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum ‘no’ vote galvanised the Scottish National
Party (SNP), as frustrated ‘yes’ voters joined the party in record numbers. In the four days following its
referendum defeat, the SNP’s membership increased by 70% as 18,000 people signed up. The trend
continued: in 2015 its membership stands at over 100,000, a dramatic comparison with the 25,200 in
2013. This unexpected consequence of the independence referendum catapulted the SNP to the third
largest political party in the UK, and allowed it to win 56 out of Scotland’s 59 seats.
The proposed EU referendum also played an important part in 2015. By promising a referendum on
the EU by 2017, David Cameron was able to significantly reduce the threat from UKIP. Many rightwing voters who were tempted to switch from the Tories to UKIP decided not to, partly because they
were reassured by the promise of an EU referendum, and also because they feared a Labour–SNP
coalition if the Conservatives failed to win a majority.
The UK has a multi-party system
You might be tempted to argue that this election saw the re-emergence of traditional two-party politics.
After all, a Conservative majority government was elected, Labour now dominates the opposition
benches and the Liberal Democrats were left with just 8 of the 57 seats that they won in 2010.
Furthermore, for all the pre-election hype, UKIP did not really make an electoral impact, winning just
one seat and failing to win South Thanet for its leader, Nigel Farage. One might claim that 2015 was a
return to ‘business as usual’.
This would, however, be missing the point. From the start of the campaign, this election was all about
multiple political parties. Would UKIP split the Tory vote and enable a Labour government, perhaps
propped up by the SNP? Would the SNP obliterate Labour in Scotland, and ‘let in’ a Conservative
government? How would the Liberal Democrats be affected by their time in government? Could the
Greens take advantage of popular disillusionment with the Labour Party? And crucially, in the event of
a hung parliament, which of the smaller parties would end up holding the balance of power? Nowhere
was this new reality more evident than in the televised debate between the leaders of seven of the
UK’s political parties.
In the event, the Conservatives’ unexpected success was partly due to their reputation for economic
competence, and partly because they emphasised the dangers of a possible Labour–SNP coalition.
Ultimately, it was the electorate’s fear of the results of multi-party politics that convinced many floating
voters to plump for the Tories. But even though the Conservatives managed to win a slim majority, the
percentage of the electorate voting for parties other than the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats
rocketed from 11.9% in 2010 to 24.9% in 2015, setting a postwar record. The SNP, UKIP, the Greens,
and Plaid Cymru all increased their percentage share of the vote. Given that the first-past-the-post
system (FPTP) discourages many voters from ‘wasting’ their votes on ‘other’ parties, this result is all
the more impressive.
The case for PR continues
Any essay on electoral reform should focus heavily on the 2015 election results and the renewed
demand for proportional representation (PR), even if, ultimately, you prefer to argue in favour of FPTP.
Philip Allan Publishers © 2015
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview
In 2015, only the SNP were able to translate a greater share of the vote into a significant presence in
Parliament, because of their concentrated support in Scottish constituencies (their 1.5 million votes
translated into 56 seats). The rest of the ‘other’ parties have, however, been unable to break though
under FPTP.
This challenges the idea that our voting system successfully represents the will of the people,
particularly when the UKIP figures are examined. Despite winning 3.9 million votes, the party only won
one seat. The Greens won 1.2 million votes, which, when added to the UKIP result, brings their
combined total to more than 5 million, more than half the number won by Labour (9.3 million). Labour,
however, won 232 seats, whereas the Greens and UKIP took just two seats between them. In order to
win an MP, UKIP required more than a hundred times the number of votes that the Conservatives
required to win a single MP. It is not surprising, therefore, that UKIP and the Greens were quick to call
for the introduction of a proportional voting system.
Estimates suggest that, if the D’Hondt method (a formula used in some PR systems) had been used to
allocate seats, no party would have won an overall majority, although the Conservatives would have
won the most seats. UKIP would have been rewarded with 83 seats, the Liberal Democrats more than
50, and the Greens at least 25 seats.
However, those parties lack political power within Parliament to influence the voting system, and the
three largest parties in Westminster (the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP) have every reason to
defend FPTP, as each would lose seats under a PR system. The electorate is also likely to resist
electoral reform, as it did in the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum. Although greater numbers than
ever now support parties that would benefit from PR, a 2015 survey showed that only 29% of voters
would be happy with a coalition government. More coalition governments would, of course, be the
inevitable result of a PR system, so politicians who support the status quo have plenty of weapons to
use against those calling for reform.
Learn more
Information about the 2015 election results:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7186
YouGov article on the importance of culture, rather than class, in determining voting behaviour:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/08/general-election-2015-how-britain-really-voted/
Different maps showing the election result in different ways:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/23/general-election-2015-maps
The Electoral Reform Society’s report on the 2015 election (as the name suggests, the Electoral
Reform Society is a pressure group that advocates moving to a more proportional voting system):
http://www.electoralreform.org.uk/sites/default/files/2015%20General%20Election%20Report%20web.pdf
Rowena Hammal teaches history at Bohunt School, and is the online
editor of POLITICS REVIEW and an experienced politics teacher.
This resource is part of POLITICS REVIEW, a magazine written for A-level students by subject experts.
To subscribe to the full magazine go to www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview
Philip Allan Publishers © 2015
www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview