Salience, Valence, Positions and Voting: International Affairs and British Electoral Politics in the 1960s

Abstract

This article provides a detailed study of the British public and foreign policy issues in the context of electoral politics in the 1960s, a time when the country had to adjust to the shifting geopolitical realities and economic constraints affecting its international role. It analyses several key areas of electoral politics: the general and electoral salience of external and domestic issues; valence evaluations of the parties' competence on international affairs; and the bivariate and multivariate associations between foreign policy attitudes and voting behaviour in 1964 and 1966. Undertaking detailed analyses of data from quantitative sources relating to public opinion and electoral behaviour, it shows that positional and valence considerations relating to foreign and defence policy were associated with voting for or against Labour at these general elections, even though more generally foreign policy issues were of lower salience than domestic issues during this period of flux and uncertainty in Britain's international role. The findings contribute to psephological debates concerning the nature of the electoral landscape in the 1960s and the role of external issues at post-war elections. It also extends the scope of scholarly research on the foreign policies and related party politics of the 1964-70 Labour governments.

Power Politics: How Electric Grievances Shape Election Outcomes

“…A traditional approach to analyzing how energy expenditures affect politics, especially voting, involves applying the framework of retrospective economic voting, according to which voters judge politicians on the basis of what is known as valence issues. A valence issue is one on which a consensus is found among voters on preferable outcomes (see Clements, 2020, for a discussion on valence and salience). For example, most voters in recent decades have agreed that unemployment and inflation should be kept low and economic growth high, and prefer to elect politicians, who appear competent in accomplishing these goals (Duch and Stevenson, 2008;Palmer and Whitten, 1999).…”