The Impact of the 1997 General Election

The Impact of the 1997 General Election

In 1997 there was an expected swing from Conservative to Labour

government. It resulted in Labour receiving 9.2% more votes, and 147

more MPs than in 1992; and with the Conservatives winning 11% less

votes, and 171 less MPs than in 1992 (the Liberal Democrats won 17% of

the votes about equalling the previous election, and gained 26 seats).

The outcome of the election was due to various factors which had

always been apparent yet commentators never predicted the severity of

Labour's win and the Conservative's loss.

Blatantly, the first reason for this landslide victory was the

weakness of the Conservatives. Broadly put, the reasons the electorate

DID NOT vote for the Conservative party were that they seemed, old,

tired, divided and sleazy. This can be seen in that the average age of

a Conservative MP was over 50 and 44% of over 65s voted for them,

their campaigning was limited, there was internal conflict over many

issues such as the Economy and Europe. The leader, John Major, was

also seen as weak and indecisive. The problems the Conservatives faced

during their term badly affected them when the voting came; and the

fact their support was spread through the country meant that they were

at a disadvantage due to FPTP (they failed to win constituencies).

These various weaknesses meant that people were reluctant to re-elect

the Conservatives, therefore much of the electorate were looking for

another party to vote for. For many that party was Labour.

Completely adverse to the Conservatives was the Labour Party. After

three terms of Conservative rule, the Labour Party was seen as young,

fresh...

... middle of paper ...

... shows a trend that in 1997 it was an Anti-Tory election, and in 2001

it was Anti-any party election. This may have been mainly due to party

de-alignment where they basically all have the same policies (Labour

are said to be as right as the Tories).

This election has shown the parties that less people are interested,

and so political participation has been high on the agenda. All

parties have also tried to distinguish themselves, and make promises

that will actually change people's lives (they say) for the better. It

has ended with more conflict in the House of Commons, and promise of

reform in the future (Euro still at Tony Blair's discrepancy).

Desperate to set his party apart, it could be possible that the PM

thinks a victory in Iraq will improve his standings and cause less

apathy with more support for his party.