What went wrong? A psychologist’s view

David Clark-Carter, Professor of Psychological Research Methods

Prof David Clark-Carter

What lessons can be learnt from the 2017 British general election?

The picture seemed obvious at the time the Prime Minister called the election:  the next election was due in three years’ time, which could be inconvenient when trying to deal with the aftermath of leaving the European Union (EU); Theresa May had become Prime Minister without being subject to an election; she had a small majority which meant she was dependent on the support of factions within and outside her party in order to get her proposals through Parliament, making her job harder; and the manifesto to which the Government was being held was throwing up some serious problems, such as not allowing them to raise National Insurance and so causing a U-turn after the budget.  The Conservatives were far ahead of Labour in the opinion polls and so an election would address each of these problems.

Now, instead of increasing her majority, she has no majority; so what went wrong?

Firstly, she had said publicly and repeatedly that she wasn’t going to hold an election, so her trustworthiness was already being questioned, which would mean that any appeal to the public just to trust her would be less successful.  Secondly, despite saying that leaving the EU was the main topic, it was hardly mentioned.  Instead the manifesto proposed a number of measures which proved unpopular, some of which forced rapid U-turns or demands for clarification which didn’t fully emerge.  Thirdly, she tried to stage manage her appearances during the campaign to such an extent that we were left with just the impression of parroted phrases such as ‘strong and stable’ and ‘coalition of chaos’, which, like ‘Brexit means Brexit’, started to seem meaningless.

As part of that management she refused to take part in any debates with her opposing parties.  A fourth issue is that her opponents generally performed better than she did and than predicted, despite notable exceptions such Diane Abbott’s appearance on LBC and Jeremy Corbyn’s on BBC Woman’s Hour, both of which involved failure to remember costs of policies.  Her opponents appealed to an electorate which was tired of the consensus that we should continue to have more austerity measures for a further five years or longer, so taking the agenda away from the one she said she wanted.  Finally, the atrocities in Manchester and London should have put her in a good light.  As the Prime Minister, she had a platform to demonstrate her gravitas and resolve.  She did that well. However, having been in the party which had been in power for seven years and having been the Home Secretary for most of those, the cuts in police numbers during that time became another issue.

When Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, he was in a similar position to Theresa May: he had not been elected and the polls showed that his party had a large lead over the Conservatives.  However, he didn’t hold an election until he needed to and he lost.  He has been blamed for that loss by not holding the election earlier before the financial crash was used to question his Government’s ability to handle the country’s finances.  Perhaps we should re-evaluate his decision, given what has happened in this election.

Opinion polls have been shown to be wrong a number of times recently and, even if they accurately show that one party has a large lead, during an election campaign it is possible to lose much of that lead through ill-thought out and poorly explained policies, failure to engage in debates and the occurrence of events which put the spot-light on previous policies.  You can’t do much about the last one, except try not to leave hostages to fortune, but the first two will need addressing if the same mistakes aren’t to be made again.  As people are already talking about another election being held soon, the mistakes made in this one will need to be analysed quickly.

A first step would be to look at the numerous examples in the past of policies being devised by a small group of like-minded people.  They are not discussed with a wider group or, if they are, criticisms are resented, seen as disloyalty and ignored.  When the policies are implemented they prove to be very unpopular; in fact, sometimes so unpopular that they can be the first step towards the leader being replaced. The Poll Tax, as it came to be called, was one of these.  Although trying out ideas on a wider group, and genuinely listening to reactions, doesn’t guarantee that they will find general approval and increases the danger that they will be leaked to the Press, it does reduce the danger of creating a budget or a manifesto which contains untested ideas which need to be withdrawn soon after they are made public.

Unreliable polls and predictions

Mick Temple, Professor of Journalism and Politics

Professor Mick Temple

Despite my abysmal failure to get my last three major electoral predictions right, with a week to go I’ve been asked to forecast the result of our forthcoming general election. Some people never learn.

In my defence, (1) it looked like being a hung parliament in 2015, (2) it seemed clear that we would vote to remain in the EU and (3) plain that Donald Trump’s nauseous blend of racism, sexism and egoism would never be endorsed by America. And it appears equally clear that Jeremy Corbyn can’t win…

But what seemed a no-brainer a few weeks ago has become rather more difficult to call. And the Prime Minister only has herself to blame.

Supremely confident of victory, Theresa May decided to slip in a few policies she knew would be unpopular with the Tory core voters. They might not like her proposed changes to social care, but where else could those diehard Conservatives go?

Their response clearly rocked her and she was forced into a humiliating U-turn over her ‘dementia tax’. Her mask of invulnerability slipped. Jeremy Corbyn may still be struggling to win voter approval but Labour’s bold manifesto received widespread praise when ‘leaked’. Tory strategists appeared to panic and suddenly the Prime Minister looked less confident as she tried to deny her policy change.

The awful events in Manchester intervened and suddenly an election campaign appeared insignificant next to the loss of so many lives.

But without being cynical, such tragedies offer leaders the chance to show their qualities and as the New York Times noted, the Manchester bombing provided a ‘political boon, however unwanted’ for Theresa May. The expectation was that the ‘narrative’ for this election would shift and the emphasis move to security and terrorism, issues she knows well. Mr Corbyn does not score well on security matters.

However, somewhat unexpectedly and to the nation’s credit, these issues have not stifled wider debate. Brexit, health, immigration and the economy still dominate.

OK, none of us trusts the polls anymore but they do give a broad indication of support. From a 20 percent Tory lead six weeks ago to some polls now predicting a hung parliament illustrates one thing. Theresa May has not had a good campaign. She has dominated coverage with the central message ‘trust me to deliver on Brexit’. Focus group research suggests this personality cult approach is not popular with voters.

Overall, there is a feeling that a combination of arrogance and complacency has characterised the first half of the Conservative campaign while Theresa May has failed to win either the hearts or minds of undecided voters.

She lacks empathy and the Channel 4 leaders’ interviews on Monday showed her uneasiness at the slightest sign of a less than adoring audience. She improved a little in her one-to-one with Jeremy Paxman. Paxman is a caricature of his previous self – his interviewing technique was outdated and appalling. He reserved most of his venom for Jeremy Corbyn who, despite a decent interaction with the audience questioners, did not perform well against Paxman. It was a missed opportunity for both leaders.

So, time to stop prevaricating and make my prediction (other dodgy predictions are available). There are only two parties with a chance of forming a government. While May’s wobble suggests that maybe we’ll wake up on June 9th with a Labour government, all the signs still say the Tories will win.

I could have a different viewpoint next week – events dictate outcomes, and who knows what’s coming as polling day draws nearer.

But the polls, the leadership ratings and the unease people feel about Corbyn’s past (not to mention the walking disaster area that is Diane Abbott) will probably all combine to deliver a majority for Theresa May, albeit not the landslide she wanted.

General Election 2017 gives voters a genuine choice when it comes to poverty and benefits

Richard Machin, Course Leader for Social Welfare Law Policy and Advice Practice

Richard Machin

As the course leader for Social Welfare Law, Policy and Advice Practice here at Staffordshire University my academic interests focus on the impact of government policy in areas such as housing, social security and immigration. Over the last few years I have worked with colleagues on a range of research projects looking at issues such as the impact of the ‘bedroom tax’ in North Staffordshire and rough sleeping and street activity in Hanley. As ever these are areas of heated political debate in the current election campaign.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation  (JRF) have recently mapped the risks of working-age poverty across the UK. This provides a constituency level analysis of where high levels of working-age poverty are likely to exist based on the numbers of people claiming benefits and tax credits.  The ‘working-age poverty risk index’ gives each constituency a score of between 0 and 10, with 0 indicating the lowest risk of poverty and 10 the highest risk of poverty. The national average score is 2.8 and a total of 632 constituencies were surveyed.

The figures for Stoke make interesting reading:

  • Stoke Central has a poverty risk score of 4.5 (the 73rd most at risk constituency)
  • Stoke North has a poverty risk score of 5.1 (the 39th most at risk constituency)
  • Stoke South has a poverty risk score of 4.2 (the 98th most at risk constituency)

With the general election fast approaching this research is timely. In recent elections voters have bemoaned the lack of choice between the main political parties, but this cannot be said for general election 2017. If the JRF research is a cause for concern what can we expect in terms of social security policy in the next parliament? An analysis of the Conservative Party manifesto indicates more of the same. The programme of welfare reform pursued since 2010 will continue for working-age claimants and, surprisingly, pensioner incomes would also be reduced (through the means testing of the winter fuel-payment and the ending of the ‘triple-lock’ on the state pension). Labour are proposing a series of fundamental reforms of the benefit system: the ‘bedroom tax’ would be abolished, the limiting of means-tested benefits to the first two children in the family would be scrapped, the controversial sanctions regime would be abandoned and we would see an overhaul of the way in which disability benefits are assessed. The Liberal Democrats would pursue a similar range of fundamental reforms including scrapping cuts to housing benefit for 18-24 year olds and increasing the annual value of benefits in line with inflation (working-age benefit levels are currently frozen).

Voters have a genuine choice on 08 June and it will be fascinating to see which parties’ vision for the UK over the next five years prevails.

Two electioneering strategies

David Clark-Carter, Professor of Psychological Research Methods

There appear to be two strategies at play in the electioneering prior to manifestos being published:

Prof David Clark-Carter

  1. Repeat a slogan and try not to say anything about policy.
  2. Announce policies and do the round of interviews.

The danger with the first is that if another party is doing the second then you will seem very light on policy and the media will latch on to anything you do say and try to extrapolate from it.  For example, you might keep saying ‘Strong and stable’ about your own party and ‘chaos’ about another party.  If the media get a hint that you might not put up V.A.T. they will ask about other taxes, which were part of a previous package, and failure to answer can be interpreted as an intention to put those other taxes up.

One consequence of the second strategy, when other parties are adopting the first strategy, is that your policies are the only ones available for comment and so they can fill the available space. This can be an advantage if you make sure they withstand the scrutiny.  However, if the delivery in any way obscures the message then the message can be lost.  I gather that Diane Abbott’s interview on LBC was her seventh.  If someone is being put through such an intense schedule of interviews then I would recommend having memory aids which are very easy to refer to.

Fake news and conspiracy theories

Dr Daniel Jolley, Lecturer in Psychology

Dr Daniel Jolley

Popular conspiracy theories propose that members of UK government murdered Diana, Princess of Wales; climate change is a hoax orchestrated by the world’s scientists to secure research funding and pharmaceutical companies and governments cover up evidence of harmful side effects of vaccines for financial gain.

Conspiracy theories like these accompany almost every significant social and political event and can typically be defined as attempts to explain the ultimate causes of events as the secret actions of malevolent powerful groups, who cover up information to suit their own interests.

Fake news, which involves the publication of fictitious information on social media, appear to be a fertile ground for conspiracy theories to flourish.  Indeed, millions of people subscribe to conspiracy theories.

They are not reserved for only people who are paranoid, but rather, they are a normal everyday process that we are all susceptible to.   With the popularity of social media, conspiracy theories are at our fingertips more than ever before.

What’s the harm with conspiracy theories, anyway? In research conducted with my co-author, Prof Karen Douglas at the University of Kent, we have shown that being exposed to the idea that governments are involved in plots and schemes reduces people’s likelihood of wanting to engage in the political system.  People were less likely to want to vote.

We found that being exposed to conspiracy theories can make people feel politically powerless and feel that their vote will not count; if the government is conspiring against us, how can I make a difference?

In our most recent research, we have also uncovered that conspiracy theories are potentially resistant to correction.  Once a person subscribes to a conspiracy theory, they can be increasingly difficult to debunk.

It is, therefore, important that at the point of exposure to information, people are thinking critically.  If the headline sounds too good to be true, it very well may be!  Here are some practical suggestions to help with this:

  • Think about the source; who has written the article?
  • Evaluate the evidence contained within the article; is the piece based on fact?
  • Read multiple articles from a variety of outlets on the same topic. Do not just trust one article; try and get a full picture of the story that takes into account all sides of the argument.

We know that conspiracy theories can be potentially damaging and difficult to debunk.  So, think critically before clicking “share” on Facebook or “retweeting” on Twitter.  Be sure you feel confident that the piece is accurate before sharing!


Dr Daniel Jolley blogs at conspiracypsychology.com and tweets @DrDanielJolley

Snap general election catches country on the hop

Jackie Gregory, Senior Lecturer in Journalism

Jackie Gregory

It’s fair to say that Theresa May has caught the country on the hop this Easter by calling a snap general election for June.

Across Stoke Central there was a deafening shout of “Here we go again” when the announcement came from Downing Street just after 11am on Tuesday. Things were only settling down after a hard-fought by-election in February which saw newcomer Gareth Snell retain the seat for Labour, following Tristram Hunt’s resignation.

Snell could become one of the shortest serving incumbent of any seat if the voting turns a different way in June. It is not going to be an easy second election campaign for him. He has not had the chance to make a definitive mark and his majority of 2,620 was bolstered by floating voters who were tactically voting to keep UKIP’s controversial leader Paul Nuttall out, rather than actively voting Snell in. Conservative’s Jack Brereton who ran Nuttall a close third, must now be licking his lips at the prospect of another chance, especially with the city’s voters voting for Brexit last June. UKIP are weakened in this area following the by-election and their best bet, certainly for Stoke Central, is to choose a well-known local candidate.

On a wider scale, this election is being seen by some as the EU referendum Mark II. Despite Article 50 being triggered, it is still a chance for those who are pro-Europe to give the government who is taking us out of the EU a kicking; or for Leave supporters to give Theresa May validation for hard Brexit. Will the Remain voters (including Labour and Conservative Remain voters) now cross party lines to register their dismay by supporting the Lib Dems, who have always been consistent in their anti-Brexit stance? Tim Farron’s party has maintained that the UK should remain within the Single Market.

The election puts Remain MPs who represent a Brexit constituency in a difficult position. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour’s Paul Farrelly won by just 650 votes in 2015. He is a Remain supporter in a pro Brexit area, and who caused controversy late last year, when he voted against his party in maintaining his opposition to triggering Article 50. Elsewhere in the country, some Labour MPs who are Remain and anti-Corbyn are considering not standing again, feeling they are in an impossible position.

The election should sort out whether Corbyn is lamb to the slaughter, or in fact a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Labour has been rolling out some headline-making policies in the past few weeks and will be campaigning on education, living standards and the NHS rather than Brexit, but whether this resonates with the electorate is yet to be seen.

Calling this election is not without risk for May, especially as she had vehemently promised she wouldn’t do so – and flip-flopping is never a good look. Although the odds currently put her as favourite, she could still be a loser if she wins – for if she is returned to Downing Street with a reduced majority, then her position is weakened. She is not so much Iron Lady Mark 2, but a bendable metal one, who could be broken.

Turnouts for snap elections are generally lower than in scheduled general elections, and voter apathy could be more prevalent this time. Many who don’t normally vote turned out for the referendum, because they saw it as a chance for change. Since then there has been issues with fake news, fake promises and some voters feel they were short changed. There may be a feeling a why bother, this time around.

The one thing that is predictable, is that voting patterns are becoming more unpredictable. There is no such thing as a safe seat any more. No MP should be sitting too comfortable this week, and May will have to wait until June to see if she really did pull the rabbit out of the hat.