Voting Behaviour & the Media (Edexcel A Level Politics): Exam Questions

The Guardian

Electoral mistakes had been learned by Labour when in opposition, it was aware of faults in previous campaigns. Importantly, it had now got the media on side, producing a far less hostile press. The party was unified with no major issues splitting them to cause divisions. Labour ran a slick and well-managed campaign which appealed to many and was inclusive. The campaign focused on the core issues which mattered to the electorate, and which shaped party policy. The electorate trusted Labour and had economic faith in them. The country saw a need to head into new policy areas avoided for too long, such as constitutional reform and recognition of key human rights. The party had rebranded itself as New Labour, this was a transformational move which won widespread support. The electorate were looking forward and voted for Labour for radical change.

Mark Pack

The main reason for Labour success in 1997 was the Conservative Party’s failure in office. The electorate witnessed a governing party split and divided over the issue of Europe. It saw a government that seemed out of touch with ordinary people. A series of scandals rocked the party, and it was damaged by sleaze. There was a failure to see the economic insecurity felt by many and failure on economic issues. Furthermore, 1997 did not bring in a huge range of new policy. Labour accepted the Thatcherite legacy on free markets and continued with economic plans set by the Conservatives. Policy was not a vote winner for Labour rather it was the negative image of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives failed to inspire the electorate. Rather than looking forward, the electorate looked back and saw a series of mistakes and decided to punish the Conservatives.

Source 1

Opinion polls influence voters and parties. They can deflate turnout if they show one party way ahead. Opinion polls cause voters to vote tactically. Opinion polls can influence the demand to call a general election and for parties to abandon principles in order to gain popularity. In the Scottish independence referendum, a poll showing that ‘leave’ was in the lead made all the parties work harder to change the outcome. The core issue is that they mislead and do not give an accurate reflection of the voting preferences across the UK and as such they damage democracy.

The 2017 polls were not all wrong. They successfully reflected changing opinions during the campaign. Theresa May’s rating tumbled, while Jeremy Corbyn’s rose. Social care was the issue that caused Conservative support to fall. They correctly showed the Liberal Democrats had stalled, with UKIP support collapsing, and a significant switch from the SNP to the Conservatives in Scotland. They showed how Labour’s manifesto gained them support while the Conservative manifesto put voters off. In a close contest, opinion polls can improve turnout. Opinion polls are part of a free media and integral to a healthy representative democracy.

Some people claim that success in a general election for a political party depends on stable and predictable forces. Few seats change hands in a general election and voting patterns are predictable and constant. In studies of voting behaviour factors such as an individual’s class and family background combined with the area in which they live all merge together to provide a clear indication of the way an individual will vote. On this basis, opinion polls accurately indicate the outcomes of a general election. When many people are asked, they readily identify with both a specific class and endorse the policies of a major political party. The dice is loaded from the start and outcomes of general elections are all too predictable and fixed.

However, many now doubt the idea of predictability and the assumptions on which it is based. Instead of predictability they infer unpredictability and volatility with an inability to forecast accurately the outcome of how the public will vote. In fact in 2015, 111 seats changed hands and in 2017, 70. General elections and success in them is built around capturing ideas and having media support. What the political parties say in new policies and their manifestos matters greatly. Opinion polls, as the general election in 2017 showed, are no longer good indicators of the outcome. If anything, the 2017 general election illustrated the importance of age and education as indicators of how people vote. The media can make and break a political party. Riding the wave of media attacks, a political party must have a good leader who can weather any storm and connect with the masses. This is what Blair and Thatcher did and was the basis of their success. Policies and leaders are the crucial factors and, as such, they are the leading indicators for success at the polls.

Article 1

I beg to move, That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. … The essence of the motion is that the Government have failed the nation, that they have lost credibility, and that it is time for them to go.

… Let us take the Prime Minister's own objectives as the test by which he should be judged. … His first objective was to overcome inflation. … [T]he fact is that this Government have been responsible for doubling the prices in the housewife's shopping basket. Far from being overcome, inflation is rising again and will rise in the coming months.

… The Prime Minister's second objective was to make inroads into the unacceptably high level of unemployment … and to reduce it by 1979 to 3 per cent. Today it is double that figure. On that, too, the Prime Minister has failed. The Prime Minister's third objective was to achieve "a high-output, high-productivity, and a high-wage economy based on full employment". But only a week or so ago we had news of the worst level of manufacturing output this decade.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate on a motion of no confidence (speech of the Leader of the Opposition), 28 March 1979, Hansard vol. 965. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

I reply to the right hon. Lady by advancing three propositions. First, this Government, who have been in a minority in this House for most of their life, have achieved an outstanding record of social progress and economic performance.

Secondly … during the years that lie ahead there will be a great deal for the Government and for the country to do in such areas as improving our industrial efficiency, the return to full employment, controlling prices, better industrial relations, and overcoming poverty. There will be no sense of complacency by the Government about what needs still to be done, but neither should we overlook the achievements of the last five years.

My third proposition is that we shall make most progress by adapting and broadening the policies that have served so far to protect the people of this country in the midst of world recession and not by sudden switches or reversals of policy. The right hon. Lady clearly believed this afternoon that she was putting forward some new policies. On the contrary, what we heard was a repetition of the same old policies that the Conservative Government tried between 1970 and 1974—policies that failed.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate on a motion of no confidence (reply of the Prime Minister), 28 March 1979, Hansard vol. 965. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

… [S]ome people said they signed the petition because they would like to see proportional representation, because they feel the current Government do not represent the views of the country. Of course, many people meant that critically, but it also reflects the simple numerical fact that we have a voting system that gave a majority to a party that won 33.7% of the vote on the lowest turnout in 24 years. It would of course be unrealistic to even hope that such a Government could represent the views of the country, because they are so far below representing what at least 50% of people think.

… [P]roportional representation would enshrine the idea of more than one party having to co-operate, compromise, listen and engage in order to form a broad-based and more representative Government.

… It is not right that a Prime Minister of whatever party affiliation should be able to treat the country like a political casino, choosing on a whim when to have a general election.

Source: extract taken from a Westminster Hall debate, 'Call for General Election' (speech of Olly Glover), House of Commons, 12 January 2026, Hansard vol. 778. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

… I am proud that we are rolling out free breakfast clubs across the country, making sure children go to school nourished and ready to learn. The Government also announced funding for 300 new nurseries … Recently, we scrapped the two-child benefit cap. Although Opposition Members might disagree with lifting thousands of children in my towns and villages, and 550,000 children across the country, out of poverty, I think it solves another stain on our country and is an investment in the future long-term success of our country.

… Positive change takes time. We know that from many decades of history in this House and in town halls up and down this country. Labour was elected with a resounding victory, a large majority and a mandate to make decisions that turn this country around. Anybody looking at our manifesto can see a vision of what Britain will look like by the time we get to the next general election. That is how our political system works. That is how British Governments have always been judged; they get four or five years and then the public have their say.

Source: extract taken from a Westminster Hall debate, 'Call for General Election' (speech of Josh Newbury), House of Commons, 12 January 2026, Hansard vol. 778. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 1

A healthy democracy needs voters to be informed and engaged; instead, we are seeing a significant rise in news avoidance, significant disengagement with news among some demographics, and lowering levels of voter turnout.

… The growth of local news deserts is alarming. … [I]n too many areas voters next week will be going to the ballots almost blindfold. The absence of local professional journalism means local politicians not being held to account, a lack of transparency and an absence of channels for candidates to promote their policies. Instead, voters are reliant on social media. We know that these are the platforms for echo chambers and pile-ons, not reasoned debate. Voters are vulnerable there to simplistic populist policies that do not bear scrutiny.

… [Carole Cadwalladr's] previous talk blew the lid on Cambridge Analytica and the massive, widespread harvesting of Facebook data that then allowed social media to be used to influence voters in the Brexit referendum and other elections.

Source: extract taken from a House of Lords debate, 'The Future of News' (speech of Lord Knight of Weymouth), 25 April 2025. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Article 2

… The issue … goes beyond press regulation. … Why did not more of us speak out earlier? The answer is what we all know and used to be afraid to say: News International was too powerful. It owned 40% of the newspaper market before the closure of the News of the World. It owns two thirds of the pay [television] market through 39% of the Sky platform and Sky News.

The Communications Act 2003 rightly stops an organisation holding [a commercial television] licence and more than 20% of newspapers, but it does not apply to digital channels. One might say that it was an analogue Act in a digital age. The Act needs to be updated as such a concentration of power is unhealthy.

If one thing comes out of what we have seen in the past two weeks and over many years, it must be that we understand the point about concentrations of power in our society because large concentrations of power are more likely to lead to abuses of power.

Source: extract taken from a House of Commons debate, 'Public Confidence in the Media and Police' (speech of the Leader of the Opposition), 20 July 2011. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.