Between 1945-1970 voting behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking in the UK was fairly predictable. The behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking wing Labour party tended to support the redistribution of wealth from the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking to the poor through higher behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking and high welfare spending. They also supported the socialistic measure of the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking of industry. Labour was therefore clearly associated as a party of the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking class.
The Conservative Party however was perceived as behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking wing favouring lower taxes and lower welfare spending and the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking of industry. The Conservatives were thus clearly associated as a party of the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking classes.

In a famous study in 1974 Butler and Stokes identified voting behaviour as centrally influenced by social behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking. Most of the working class voted Labour and most of the middle classes voted behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking. The result was class based politics and a strong behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking party system. People were socialised by their behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking and their school experience into supporting a particular party. There were a few behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking voters but most people stayed loyal to the party they perceived as representing their particular social class.

Butler and stokes identified the phenomenon of the behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking voter (a voter who votes outside of his or her class) and a number of theories were put forward to explain such phenomena. Working class Conservatives for instance were said to have been experienced a degree of social behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking.

Since 1974 voting behaviour has become more complicated and more volatile. A number of features have been discerned and contested by sociologists.

1. It has been suggested that the influence of class on voting has diminished and voter behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking has increased
2. It has been suggested that voters are more likely to switch allegiance more readily (behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking voters)
3. It has been suggested the third party (behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking Democrats) have gained significant support in the period breaking down to an extent the Two Party system.
4. It has been suggested that the political parties have become less behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking and therefore appeal less on social class grounds
5. It has been suggested that non class factors have become more important in explaining voting behaviour - e.g. behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking, age, gender, behaviourclassConservativedeviancydeviantethnicityfloatingideologicalleftLiberalmobilitynationalisationparentsprivatisationregionrichrighttaxationtwovolatilewealthierworking, sexual identity etc.