AO1: at times, the public tires of the personalities and policies of the government AO2: the electorate has been known to 'punish' failure or misconduct, in 1992 and 1997 there were a series of sleaze allegations against MPs. AO3: this is clear evidence that governments lose elections if they fail to deliver or if their conduct and behaviour places them out of step with the ordinary voter, voters want governments to be trustworthy and moral. AO1: government management of the economy is key and this relates to personal financial security AO2: in the run up to the 1997 election, the Conservatives gained a poor reputation for economic competence, as did Labour before the 2010 election, and voters reacted to this mismanagement of a key area of policy. AO3: this is a vital area that needs the public's backing, poor performance can be costly, as the voters' wealth and the country's economic welfare is such an important factor. AO1: a government that is not united and has internal divisions is prone to defeat AO2: disunity in political parties is damaging, for example the Conservative split over Europe in the 1990s, the Labour split between the Blairite and Brownite factions. AO3: a governing party at war with itself cannot win general elections and as splits seem to be prevalent in large parties these issues will continue to have an impact. AO1: elections are won on the basis of the leader's credibility, whether in government or in opposition AO2: the opposition often has less experience and its policies are alternatives, whereas the government holds the experience of office. AO3: the government is a tried and tested brand whereas the opposition is a leap into the unknown, this will always have a significant effect on voters and there is little the opposition can do to remedy it.

AO1: oppositions can and do win general elections and run effective campaigns that undermine the government AO2: the evidence of success of New Labour in the 1997 general election and that of Thatcher in 1979, shows that these parties had learned lessons from their period in opposition, this enabled them to run slick campaigns to become elected. AO3: this shows that being in opposition can work in a party's favour and is not necessarily a weakness. AO1: oppositions can win by winning over the media in a general election contest, this can have a huge bearing on who wins the election AO2: opposition leaders perceived as 'strong' and 'fresh', such as Blair in 1997, win votes. In an age of personalities and image – it is how charismatic the leaders are that determines the outcome, or it is how well they win over the media and gain their backing, some have claimed that whoever The Sun newspaper supports will determine who holds office. AO3: therefore oppositions have the potential to win elections and overthrow an existing government, particularly if the leadership is strong and they can win over the media. This trend is likely to continue as media influence grows. AO1: governments make mistakes in office and lose the credibility of the electorate; governments can be seen to run out of ideas and momentum, and the impetus falls to the opposition. AO2: in the early 1990s, the Conservatives failed to produce a radical or visionary agenda for the future and instead the initiative passed to New Labour under Blair. AO3: consequently brand fatigue happens frequently in UK politics and governing parties are likely to make mistakes and be exposed for them, losing credibility with voters.