A Test of Core Vote Theories: The British Conservatives, 1997–2005

Abstract

The British Conservative party during 1997-2005 appeared to support the view that parties react to defeat by energizing their core vote base. Using a series of spatial and salience-based definitions of the core vote, combined with elite interviews with William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, the three Conservative leaders between 1997 and 2005, empirical evidence in support and also refutation of the core vote critique is evaluated here. The analyses suggest that Conservative issue strategies between 1997 and 2005 were chosen on grounds of spatial proximity and public perceptions of issue ownership, and that an appeal to Conservative voters was consistent with a broader appeal. The implications of this evidence are important for conceptualizing and applying party base explanations in Britain and beyond.Parties' strategic decisions are often thought to trade between pursuing the support of the majority and satisfying the interests of the base. American presidential candidates reassure their party ticket that the instincts and commitments that won them the nomination will be delivered in office, but appeal to the wider electorate on a more moderate platform. In the 2004 US presidential election, a strongly aligned electorate enabled George W. Bush to muster a 'Get Out the Vote' campaign, rather than persuade independents or win over wavering Democrats. The dominance of ideas about appealing to the base in the United States is such that the concepts have naturally been applied to other countries. As in the United States, divergent party positions are explained in West European party systems, such as Britain, France and Norway, by the ideological nature of a party's base; its partisans.1 These voters, it is argued, provide a strong incentive pulling parties away from the Downsian median voter equilibrium position. 2The idea that electoral constituencies diverge ideologically is uncontroversial within the cleavage view of politics whereby party-voter representation operates via meaningful

Party Reputations and Policy Priorities: How Issue Ownership Shapes Executive and Legislative Agendas

“…86 Green andJennings, 2017. 87 Petrocik 1996. for the executive agenda in the US, but no effects for the legislative agenda in either the US or the UK, perhaps reflecting the endogenous nature of the lead of one party over another.…”

Which Issues do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems

“…For political parties, issue salience is therefore just as much a strategic decision as issue positioning (Carmines and Stimson 1993;Green 2011;Green-Pedersen 2007;Meguid 2005Meguid , 2008Meyer and Wagner 2013). These decisions are important not just because they can help to explain electoral success or defeat, but also because they determine the party system issue agenda and the topics that dominate political debate in general.…”

“…These are those policy areas where it has a long-standing reputation for handling the issue well and prioritising the resolution of key challenges (Budge and Farlie 1983;Green 2011;Green-Pedersen 2007;Petrocik 1996;Sides 2006;Vavreck 2009). If the campaign focuses on such issues, then that party should be more successful at the polls than otherwise.…”

Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention

“…This result may be because the majority of the parties in our analysis are generally vote seeking, and will respond equally to the electorate and to their own supporters. See Dalton 1985;Downs 1957;Green 2011;Hobolt and Klemmensen 2008;Miller and Schofield 2003. 51 We have chosen to drop the issues that voters mention that we could not link to one of the issue areas, as we are interested in understanding how responsive parties are to voters on the specific issues they mention.…”