抄録
In the UK the last general election was held on April 9th, 1992. Most opinion polls before the election indicated the Labour would have a greater chance of winning. Pollsters expected an overall Labour victory or a hung parliament (an evenly divided parliament). In spite of their expectations, the Conservatives won an overall majority and there was not even a hung parliament. The percentage of Conservative votes slightly decreased, but the number of votes increased. The Conservatives lost 40 seats making a total of 336 seats. The percentage of Labour votes increased by 3.6 point to 34.4%, and the Labour gained 271 seats. The LDP lost 2 seats and now hold 20 seats.
The 1992 election saw a modest reversal of the North-South divide. Conservative support rose in Scotland and in Northern England, while falling back slightly in the rest of the country. Labour did particularly well in London and the Midlands, While it suffered significant losses in Scotland. The SNP gained much more votes than in the '87 election. Scottish voters were thought to be polarized ovre the problem of Scottish Independence.
This paper re-examines the findings of the MORI survey taken from small subgroups of the electorate. The Labour recorded a decrease in its share of vote among council tenants and the unemployed despite an increase among the rest of the sub-groups. The party seems to have drawn votes mainly from the LDP, not from the Conservatives.
This paper argues that the images of party leaders had a great impact on the 1992 general election results. The Conservatives won in large part because they replaced Mrs. Thatcher with John Major. In the last stage of her government, the level of public approval of her as Prime Minister was very low, and at that point, support for the Labour Party outstripped that for the Conservative Party by a considerable margin. But in November 1990, when John Major was elected as the leader of the Conservatives, the rate of support for the Conservatives went up.
As Major's leadership style was very open and consultative, he seemed to many voters to be responsive to their wishes. His humble backgrounds also worked to his advantage. Many voters regarded him as one of their immediate circle, not as a man from a different world, while they admitted that he had proved himself during his service as a Secretary in the Thatcher Government. Major benefited from the fact that he was exposed to a number of global political events, which proved his ability to make tough decisions under pressure as a national leader and added to his prestige as an international statesman.
By contrast, Kinnock was less popular. He was not trusted so much as a potential Prime Minister. In the Gallup polls between December 90 and April 92, his rival, Major, constantly led him with a margin of 10-20% when respondents were asked, “Who would make the best Prime Minister?” Even within the Labour Party, he was less popular than John Smith.
Traditionally, there is a tendency to dislike a coalition government in Britain. This was advantageous to the Conservatives. If the LDP had gained more seats, the possibility of a coalition would have increased. So the voters who disliked a coalition government had to choose between the Conservatives and the Labour. Most of Conservative supporters who were not completely satisfied with the Conservatives distrusted the Labour as well. In the end, they could not help voting for the Conservatives. The Labour ended up winning fewer votes than expected despite many factors favorable to the Labour.
The distrust of Labour came from the British view of the nature of parties. In Britain, parties are seen as presenting competing philosophies or ideologies. This view portrays the public as being invited to choose between programs informed by insights into the real needs and hopes of the public.
In Britain, reliable parties should not change their policies lightly, regardless of popular opinions,
