UK North - South Divide

[ChrisDR68]

According to various health, income, house price and life expectancy factors there is thought to be a north - south divide in the UK.

The north includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plus most (but not all) of the midlands region (Google image it for a better visual reference point).

By my estimates the three main parties' seat totals in each half at the last general election was as follows:

Conservatives          ....    81 seats in the north.... 225 seats in the south
Labour                     ....  207 seats in the north....    51 seats in the south 
Liberal Democrats    ....    27 seats in the north....    30 seats in the south

Would I be correct in thinking the Tories used to be a lot stronger in the north while Labour were also stronger in the south in past elections?

[afleitch]

I think the north south divide is only useful in terms of England. Scotland which has an economic output comparable to the 'south' has it's own internal divides.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's always been a North/South divide of some kind - there was even before the Industrial Revolution, which 'merely' changed the character of the division - and it's always had more to it than just economic patterns; landscape and land-use patterns, urban geography, culture, language, religion, and all that.

But, yeah, while a North/South divide was a visible feature of electoral geography before the Thatcher government, it wasn't as stark. Ancient traditions of Tory support in some very working class parts of Lancashire survived up until the 1970s and Labour were far stronger in (for instance) Kent than has been the case since. Essentially as the North/South divide became more pronounced in economic terms (as Thatcherite economic policies shifted economic power further and further south), so it became more pronounced in electoral terms.

[DC Al Fine]

I think the north south divide is only useful in terms of England. Scotland which has an economic output comparable to the 'south' has it's own internal divides.

Indeed. Scotland has the Scottish National Party, which mucks up comparisons between Scottish and English politics.

However to answer your question, I think the Tories are definitely much weaker in the "North" than they used to be. In Scotland for example, they used to have respectable share of the vote and seats. I think they only have one seat in the whole of Scotland now, and they form government!

[Leftbehind]

It'll be interesting to see the 2015 seat distribution, where it looks set to become even more pronounced.

[ChrisDR68]

I've read that the industrial revolution of the 19th century was the only time in British history where London wasn't top dog in terms of the nation's wealth and power. It was concentrated in the industrial manufacturing regions.

London's present cultural and economic dominance which obviously is located in the south appears to be only getting more and more exaggerated.

Would possibly creating regional assemblies based on the 8 official EU regions of England (outside of London) be helpful in watering down the centralisation that's occured over the last 34 years or so and by extension easing the north - south divide to a degree?

I haven't included Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London in my question as they already have their own established assemblies (or parliament).

[Citizen Hats]

I think the north south divide is only useful in terms of England. Scotland which has an economic output comparable to the 'south' has it's own internal divides.

Indeed. Scotland has the Scottish National Party, which mucks up comparisons between Scottish and English politics.

However to answer your question, I think the Tories are definitely much weaker in the "North" than they used to be. In Scotland for example, they used to have respectable share of the vote and seats. I think they only have one seat in the whole of Scotland now, and they form government!

Scotland was once not only a respectable region for the Tories, it was dominated by the old Unionist Tories until the 1960s.

I like to point this fact out against separatists- that present political alignments are an absurd reason to create a country, considering how radically they can change over a human lifetime. 50 years ago Scotland was ruled by the Tories and Quebec by Union Nationale

[Phony Moderate]

Then there's London of course, which often goes its own way. Lots of big swings to the Tories in 1987 (especially against candidates on the Labour left), bigger-than-average swing to Labour in 1997, bigger-than-average swing to the Tories in 2005 and lower than average swing to the Tories in 2010.

[Gary J]

The observed effect is largely an urban-rural divide. The midlands and north have more urban areas than the south (apart from London). Historic coal mining activity is also more common in the north and midlands, which made some more rural districts more Labour friendly than most less urban areas. The only south eastern English coal mines were in Kent. Superimposed upon the urban-rural divide is a core-periphery division, which has probably grown more pronounced since the 1960s, depressing the Conservative vote somewhat depending upon distance from the capital.

The strongest Conservative region is (and has been since about the mid nineteenth century) the south east. The south west is also distinctive, because Labour is weaker than in the north and midlands, so the Liberals/Liberal Democrats have often benefited from the core-periphery dimension.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The observed effect is largely an urban-rural divide.

Yet the South East (in a functional sense, including London, most of Essex, etc) is the most thoroughly urbanised region of the country. Of course many of its inhabitants would dispute this (despite throughly urban lifestyles, occupations... and many people actually working in the centre of London for Christssake etc) but then there's a very strong national delusion about such things in Britain.

The key thing isn't so much urban/rural, but industrial/non-industrial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though the reason for this has changed; in the 19th century the most important electoral cleavage was religion, and so solidly Anglican counties in the South East were also solidly Tory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Scotland was once not only a respectable region for the Tories, it was dominated by the old Unionist Tories until the 1960s.

Its more complicated than that. Scotland has always had more volatile politics than England or Wales. It was - usually and for the most part - dominated by the Liberals until the First World War, when the Liberals split and collapsed. In the interwar years, Scottish politics was very dramatic with a strong and unusually radical Labour movement (Red Clydeside and all that), and a strong reaction against that leading to solid support for the Unionists (who were linked to anti-socialist political machines in municipal government). The swing in 1945 was lower than the rest of the UK, but it was still strong. The Unionists benefited greatly from postwar prosperity and sense of stability in the 1950s, but things were already on the slide for them by the late 50s (when it became clear that the West of Scotland was not benefiting - for structural economic reasons - from the postwar boom as much as the rest of Britain) and in the 60s they basically fell off a cliff.

[minionofmidas]

The observed effect is largely an urban-rural divide.

Yet the South East (in a functional sense, including London, most of Essex, etc) is the most thoroughly urbanised region of the country. Of course many of its inhabitants would dispute this (despite throughly urban lifestyles, occupations... and many people actually working in the centre of London for Christssake etc) but then there's a very strong national delusion about such things in Britain Suburbia Worldwide.

No quibbles elsewhere.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The observed effect is largely an urban-rural divide.

Yet the South East (in a functional sense, including London, most of Essex, etc) is the most thoroughly urbanised region of the country. Of course many of its inhabitants would dispute this (despite throughly urban lifestyles, occupations... and many people actually working in the centre of London for Christssake etc) but then there's a very strong national delusion about such things in Britain Suburbia Worldwide.

No quibbles elsewhere.

I was just also on my way to point this out. This is certainly the case in Sweden. I've heard people who've grown up in Lidingö claim they grew up in a rural area.
Not to mention the Americans here who also seem to think the suburban parts of Memphis for example count as rural. 

[ChrisDR68]

I keep hearing on political tv programmes that HS2 will narrow the north - south divide because it will increase connectivity between the two regions.

Then others chime in saying the north needs better rail communications between east and west (essentially from Hull to Liverpool and everywhere in between) rather than a fast rail link down to London.

Will London and the south east be the region that actually benefits from HS2 as it will encourage more people to move from the north to the south to find high earning jobs thus reinforcing the existing economic division of the country?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Not to mention the Americans here who also seem to think the suburban parts of Memphis for example count as rural. 

Hey now

This is where I think the term "exurb" is particularly useful.  Exurbs are places where people think they are living a rural or small-town lifestyle but are likely to work, shop, and play in the major city.

[Peeperkorn]

The north includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plus most (but not all) of the midlands region (Google image it for a better visual reference point).

"Peripheral" would be a better definition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The north includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plus most (but not all) of the midlands region (Google image it for a better visual reference point).

"Peripheral" would be a better definition.

Except that it wouldn't, because any sane reading of 'peripheral' into British political geography would have to include the West Country, which is... er... politically quite different again...

[afleitch]

'Finlay, we are apparently in 'The North.'

[njwes]

Not to mention the Americans here who also seem to think the suburban parts of Memphis for example count as rural. 

This is where I think the term "exurb" is particularly useful.  Exurbs are places where people think they are living a rural or small-town lifestyle but are likely to work, shop, and play in the major city.

Agree, it's similar in NW New Jersey. People live on large plots of land in big old homes, the towns are quite small (really more villages in places), lots of protected land/state parks, there's a lot of horse breeding and a scattering of traditional farms, but you'd be hard-pressed to really call it rural.
From what I've heard Nashville actually does become rural pretty quickly outside of the city without too many suburbs, but I heard that maybe 10 years ago so could have changed.

I have to say though, when I read about/see pictures of rural England or the UK, it often does often seem more exurban in the American sense than truly rural.

[traininthedistance]

Not to mention the Americans here who also seem to think the suburban parts of Memphis for example count as rural. 

Hey now

This is where I think the term "exurb" is particularly useful.  Exurbs are places where people think they are living a rural or small-town lifestyle but are likely to work, shop, and play in the major city.

They work, shop and play within metro areas, but especially in the larger metros exurbanites (and many inner suburbanites too!) are more likely to gravitate to peripheral office parks, malls, "edge cities" instead of the central city.

Neither the truly urban nor the truly rural can, or IMO should want, to claim them for their own.

[Harry Hayfield]

Notional Election 1979
Northern England (North West, North East, Yorkshire)
Con 61, Lab 100, Lib 2
Southern England (East Anglia, London, South East, South West)
Con 159, Lab 15, Lib 3

Notional Election 1983
Northern England (North West, North East, Yorkshire)
Con 68, Lab 89, All 6
Southern England (East Anglia, South East, South West)
Con 169, Lab 3, All 5

[StateBoiler]

I post on a board with a high number of British posters, and one thing that's pointed out by a few is how if Scotland actually did become independent, the Labour electoral map toward victory becomes completely screwed because Labour are the nationally dominant party there (so far people haven't voted SNP en masse to Westminster) and the Conservatives don't exist in Scotland outside of the Borders. So Scottish independence means Labour would have to become more competitive in the South as far as their policies if they wanted to take power again.

[You kip if you want to...]

I post on a board with a high number of British posters, and one thing that's pointed out by a few is how if Scotland actually did become independent, the Labour electoral map toward victory becomes completely screwed because Labour are the nationally dominant party there (so far people haven't voted SNP en masse to Westminster) and the Conservatives don't exist in Scotland outside of the Borders. So Scottish independence means Labour would have to become more competitive in the South as far as their policies if they wanted to take power again.

The last time Labour won in 2005, they would've still won a majority government even without Scotland.

[YL]

I post on a board with a high number of British posters, and one thing that's pointed out by a few is how if Scotland actually did become independent, the Labour electoral map toward victory becomes completely screwed because Labour are the nationally dominant party there (so far people haven't voted SNP en masse to Westminster) and the Conservatives don't exist in Scotland outside of the Borders. So Scottish independence means Labour would have to become more competitive in the South as far as their policies if they wanted to take power again.

The last time Labour won in 2005, they would've still won a majority government even without Scotland.

Yes, there is an anti-Labour shift if you remove Scotland, but it isn't that big.  In both 2005 and 2010 Labour's lead over all other parties in terms of Scottish seats was 23; it might be a bit higher next time but it's not likely to be more than 40, so if Labour can do well enough to get a majority of 40 or so in the whole UK (i.e. a useful but not overwhelming majority) they'd still have done well enough to get a majority without Scotland.

Also, if Scotland does vote for independence (which I don't think will happen) there would surely be an effect on the political situation in the rest of the UK with specific consequences for 2015.  It's hard to imagine David Cameron's reputation being high if he's just lost Scotland, for example.

[DC Al Fine]

I post on a board with a high number of British posters, and one thing that's pointed out by a few is how if Scotland actually did become independent, the Labour electoral map toward victory becomes completely screwed because Labour are the nationally dominant party there (so far people haven't voted SNP en masse to Westminster) and the Conservatives don't exist in Scotland outside of the Borders. So Scottish independence means Labour would have to become more competitive in the South as far as their policies if they wanted to take power again.

The last time Labour won in 2005, they would've still won a majority government even without Scotland.

Yes, there is an anti-Labour shift if you remove Scotland, but it isn't that big.  In both 2005 and 2010 Labour's lead over all other parties in terms of Scottish seats was 23; it might be a bit higher next time but it's not likely to be more than 40, so if Labour can do well enough to get a majority of 40 or so in the whole UK (i.e. a useful but not overwhelming majority) they'd still have done well enough to get a majority without Scotland.

Why is Labour's vote so efficient?