Advertisement

British Politics

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 521–535 | Cite as

A re-dividing nation? A newly polarised electoral geography of Great Britain

  • Ron Johnston
  • Charles PattieEmail author
  • David Rossiter
Original Article

Abstract

One feature of the result of the 2015 British general election was the reduction, to a level lower than at any time since 1945, in the number of marginal constituencies. This paper shows that the main reason for this was the change in the level and pattern of support then for the country’s smaller parties, compared to the previous election in 2010. Although support for the two largest parties—Conservative and Labour—changed very little, the 2015 result nevertheless meant that each had fewer marginal seats to defend and more safe seats where its continued incumbency was virtually assured. After the 2015 election, Labour’s chances of becoming the largest, let alone the majority, party in the House of Commons were slight unless it achieves a swing of some six percentage points.

Keywords

Spatial polarisation Electoral geography Marginal and safe seats 

References

  1. Chen, J., and J. Rodden. 2013. Unintentional gerrymandering: political geography and electoral bias in legislatures. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8: 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Curtice, J. 2009. Neither representative nor accountable: first-past-the-post in Britain. In Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: the Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India the United Kingdom and the United States, ed. B. Grofman, A. Blais, and S. Bowler, 27–45. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Curtice, J. 2010. So what went wrong with the electoral system? The 2010 election result and the debate about electoral reform. In Britain Votes 2010, ed. A. Geddes, and J. Tonge, 41–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Curtice, J. 2015. A return to normality? How the electoral system operated. In Britain Votes 2015, ed. A. Geddes, and J. Tonge, 25–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Curtice, J., S. Fisher, and R. Ford. 2010. Appendix 2: an analysis of the results. In The British General Election of 2010, ed. D. Kavanagh, and P. Cowley, 410–417. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Curtice, J., S. Fisher, and R. Ford. 2015. Appendix 1: the results analysed. In The British General Election of 2015, ed. P. Cowley, and D. Kavanagh, 416–425. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Grofman, B., A. Blais, and S. Bowler (eds.). 2009. Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: the Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India the United Kingdom and the United States. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Gudgin, G. and P.J. Taylor. 1979. Seats, Votes, and the Spatial Organisation of Elections. London: Pion (reprinted in 2012 by ECPR Press, Colchester).Google Scholar
  9. Johnston, R.J., G. Borisyuk, M. Thrasher, and C. Rallings. 2012. Unequal and unequally distributed votes: the sources of electoral bias at recent British general elections. Political Studies 60: 730–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnston, R.J., and C.J. Pattie. 2011. The British general election of 2010: a three-party contest or three two-party contests? The Geographical Journal 177: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnston, R.J., C.J. Pattie, and J.G. Allsopp. 1988. A Nation Dividing? The Electoral Map of Great Britain, 1979-1987. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Johnston, R.J., C.J. Pattie, D. Dorling, and D.J. Rossiter. 2001. From Votes to Seats: the Operation of the UK Electoral System since 1945. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rodden, J. 2010. The geographic distribution of political preferences. Annual Review of Political Science 13: 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thrasher, M., G. Borisyuk, C. Rallings, R.J. Johnston, and C.J. Pattie. 2016. Electoral bias at the 2015 general election: reducing Labour’s electoral advantage. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26: 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolEngland, UK
  2. 2.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations