'I Went with What I Always Do ...': A Qualitative Analysis of 'Cleggmania' and Vote Choice in the 2010 British General Election

Abstract

*Correspondence: edziacarvalho@gmail.com We use focus group transcripts from the innovative Qualitative Election Study of Britain data set to provide insights into why ‘Cleggmania’ failed to translate into electoral success for the Liberal Democrats in 2010. Analyses conducted on participants’ vote choice stories indicate the effect of ‘Cleggmania’ was limited to strengthening the resolve of wavering Liberal Democrats. Long-time Labour and Conservative supporters who leaned Liberal Democrat before the election found their latent party identification made voting for a different party psychologically uncomfortable. Qualitative electoral research can advance our understanding of people’s voting calculus by analysing narratives for values, identity, utility maximising and constituency dynamics. After campaign polls put their support as high as 31%, the Liberal Democrats 1 failed to increase their electoral vote share and seats in Westminster substantively on election day 2010 (BBC, 2010b). Using narrative and discourse analyses on the Qualitative Election Study of Britain (QESB) data set we differentiate between those who cited a pre-election vote choice dilemma or not and those who, post-election, cited partisanship or strategic considerations in their vote choice. Through this typology we will show where Cleggmania succeeded and failed in converting individual support into Lib Dem votes. Our dilemma/partisanship structure identifies the values and identity-based accounts of stable voters who ‘started loyal and stayed loyal’, unaffected by Cleggmania. We reveal the psychological obstacles of undecided voters with prior party identities who