Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2018, 09:50:53 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  International Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Hash)
| | |-+  British Elections 1918-1945
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print
Author Topic: British Elections 1918-1945  (Read 47950 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: January 27, 2014, 11:10:24 am »



A very safe Labour seat in Yorkshire - held at all elections during the period - seemingly made up of leftovers from other constituencies. Note that the part in Morley was not Morley town but the Ardsley area, while the bits that were (by 1940) in Denby Dale and Kirkburton were basically just the villages of Emley and Flockton.
Logged



YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,894
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: January 27, 2014, 01:46:15 pm »

Presumably the "hole" is the Wakefield parliamentary borough?

In 1918 Rothwell was defined as "The rural districts of Hunslet and Wakefield, and
the urban districts of Ardsley East and West, Emley, Flockton, Horbury, Rothwell, and Stanley."  So some of the weirdness is due to local government changes, but even so it would have been an odd seat -- a sort of badly deformed Wakefield doughnut -- in 1918.
Logged

Anybody But Conservative
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: January 27, 2014, 01:51:50 pm »

Indeed it is.

As well as being a leftovers constituency, it was also pretty clearly an attempt to draw another mining seat: Emley and Flockton are/were pit villages (with their own UDCs until the 30s!), and Hunslet RD had an important mining element at Middleton (later annexed to Leeds and the site of a huge council estate). Those that drew the boundaries in 1917 seem to have often prioritised economic similarities to geographical links.
Logged



rob in cal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,624
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: January 28, 2014, 01:40:55 am »

   I've often wondered what an election held in the late 30's, but before WW 2 started would have looked like, say some time between the Munich conference and the start of the war.  Based on all the by-elections held, I'd guess a narrower Tory victory with serious losses but comfortable enough margin to retain power. 
Logged
EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: January 28, 2014, 04:29:36 pm »

  I've often wondered what an election held in the late 30's, but before WW 2 started would have looked like, say some time between the Munich conference and the start of the war.  Based on all the by-elections held, I'd guess a narrower Tory victory with serious losses but comfortable enough margin to retain power.  

I can't link, but in a lecture titled "Britain in the Twentieth Century: The Road to War", Vernon Bogdanor writes:
Quote
The opinion polls show us that, had there been an election in 1939 or 1940, in peace-time, Labour would hardly have done better than in 1935 it would not have won a General Election, almost certainly.

In a later lecture, he notes:

Quote
Shortly after the publication of the Beveridge Report, in December 1942, they [Labour] were 18% ahead, so they had an enormous lead.

Oh - As for Rothwell, it's the old Normanton constituency from 1885, minus the expanded boroughs of Normanton and Wakefield, with those parts replaced by Ardsley and Hunslet to the north. Ardsley was associated with the Wakefield poor law union. The only alternative constituency for Hunslet was Barkston Ash, given the integrity of the Leeds borough boundary, and Rothwell was much more socially similar. In the modern era, we'd probably have "Rothwell and Wakefield North", and "Emley and Wakefield South", but that's the borough boundary question again!
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 04:32:02 pm by EPG »Logged
DistingFlyer
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: January 31, 2014, 11:17:09 am »

Here's a map for 1945, minus the new & changed seats. The orange in Chelmsford is Common Wealth and, like in the 1935, the purple in Glasgow are ILP and the brown (in Fife & London) are Communist.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 12:40:06 pm by DistingFlyer »Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,894
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: January 31, 2014, 01:32:49 pm »

It's curious, given modern patterns, that West Derbyshire was Labour while High Peak was Tory.  Both seem to have covered basically similar areas to the modern constituencies (West Derbyshire having been renamed Derbyshire Dales in 2010).

In West Derbyshire's case an Independent Labour candidate, Charles White, had won a 1944 by-election and stood as an official Labour candidate in 1945, when he held on narrowly.
Logged

Anybody But Conservative
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: January 31, 2014, 01:42:17 pm »

Charles White (Labour MP from 1944 until he retired in 1950 - the seat immediately reverted to type) was the son of Charles White (Liberal MP from 1918 until his death in 1923 - in that case the seat also immediately reverted to type). Both were popular local government figures in Matlock.
Logged



Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: January 31, 2014, 02:23:40 pm »

Regarding High Peak, it seems to have included about half of Marple UD in 1945. Might that have made some difference? There's also the issue that most of the population was (is) on the eastern fringes of Manchester, where in '45 Labour performances were generally less stunning than in Derbyshire.
Logged



Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: February 02, 2014, 11:08:23 am »

Oh - As for Rothwell, it's the old Normanton constituency from 1885, minus the expanded boroughs of Normanton and Wakefield, with those parts replaced by Ardsley and Hunslet to the north. Ardsley was associated with the Wakefield poor law union. The only alternative constituency for Hunslet was Barkston Ash, given the integrity of the Leeds borough boundary, and Rothwell was much more socially similar. In the modern era, we'd probably have "Rothwell and Wakefield North", and "Emley and Wakefield South", but that's the borough boundary question again!

Ah, so more an attempt (a successful one, obviously) to preserve a mining constituency, rather than to create one. Makes sense.

Though Hunslet Rural (which may win the coverted prize for most absurd sounding local government area name) didn't actually include Hunslet, which was in Leeds South.
Logged



EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: February 02, 2014, 12:46:07 pm »

It's curious, given modern patterns, that West Derbyshire was Labour while High Peak was Tory.  Both seem to have covered basically similar areas to the modern constituencies (West Derbyshire having been renamed Derbyshire Dales in 2010).

In West Derbyshire's case an Independent Labour candidate, Charles White, had won a 1944 by-election and stood as an official Labour candidate in 1945, when he held on narrowly.

The Conservatives won a bigger percentage vote in Western Derbyshire than High Peak in 1945, as in every election since 1923, I think. However, High Peak had a Liberal who won 16%. As was mentioned by Ippikin earlier, Charles White in Western Derbyshire was the son of a Liberal MP. He faced no Liberal opposition.

Oh - As for Rothwell, it's the old Normanton constituency from 1885, minus the expanded boroughs of Normanton and Wakefield, with those parts replaced by Ardsley and Hunslet to the north. Ardsley was associated with the Wakefield poor law union. The only alternative constituency for Hunslet was Barkston Ash, given the integrity of the Leeds borough boundary, and Rothwell was much more socially similar. In the modern era, we'd probably have "Rothwell and Wakefield North", and "Emley and Wakefield South", but that's the borough boundary question again!

Ah, so more an attempt (a successful one, obviously) to preserve a mining constituency, rather than to create one. Makes sense.

Yes - the bias towards continuity of constituency arrangements, where possible.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: February 02, 2014, 12:53:40 pm »

A phenomenon that also saw the highly questionable retention of the Caernarvon Boroughs constituency, of course.
Logged



DistingFlyer
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: February 02, 2014, 01:12:34 pm »

A phenomenon that also saw the highly questionable retention of the Caernarvon Boroughs constituency, of course.

One of the most remarkable results of the election, given that the Tories hadn't won it in nearly sixty years, but a close three-way contest (only 807 votes separating first from third) allowed them to squeak in.
The same thing happened in Caithness & Sutherland - another Tory gain - where only 59 votes separated first from third.
Logged
EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: February 02, 2014, 01:40:55 pm »

In Carnarvon DoB, Conservatives kept their 1935 support while many Lloyd George voters (as well as new voters, I presume) chose Labour, who stood their first candidate since 1929.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: February 02, 2014, 01:50:59 pm »

The 1917 boundary changes are the key to that result: in order to make the seat even vaguely excusable, they added the upmarket coastal resort of Llandudno (a much larger town than any of the Boroughs the constituency was named for) and also a couple of granite quarrying towns (Llanfairfechan and Penmaenmawr) which boosted the population nicely. Llandudno would normally have been a Tory stronghold and the quarrying towns would likely have leaned towards Labour, but this wasn't an issue so long as Lloyd George was the Liberal candidate, because otherwise staunchly Labour working class people in North Wales loved him. Once removed from the picture, the seat was always going to be highly vulnerable. I think the Liberals blamed the loss of the seat (a loss they'd expected) on 'wartime changes' to the constituency (i.e. BBC people in Bangor and so on), which remains one of the worst excuses for a lost seat I've ever come across.
Logged



stepney
Full Member
***
Posts: 123
United Kingdom
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: March 06, 2014, 08:43:56 am »



Report of the Boundary Commission (England & Wales), Volume 1, 1917 (Cd. 8756)
Logged

The inevitable conclusion of the Forum: a child-molesting nonce berates a Tory for being beyond the Pale.

Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2014, 10:34:06 am »

Grin
Logged



EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: March 06, 2014, 05:46:33 pm »

Gosh - but, then again, this was a parliament that included extra seats for certain university graduates...
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: March 09, 2014, 06:39:05 am »

Here's a shaded map for 1935 - the outline comes from an Alternate History forum but is obviously based on the Boothroyd drawing. I've removed most of the urban insets but have kept London, which has so many tiny seats that it can't be illustrated very well on the larger map.



I love these strength of seat electoral maps. Brilliant Cheesy

The striking thing about this 1935 map is how similar the pattern is to most post 1945 maps. This looks very similar to the 1979 map when Maggie Thatcher luckily defeated Jim Callaghan mainly due to the Winter Of Discontent and winning the subsequent vote of no confidence by 311 votes to 310.

That's despite Labour winning only 154 seats in 1935 compared to 269 in 1979.
Logged

"A leader has to 'appear' consistent. That doesn't mean he has to be consistent" -
James Callaghan
stepney
Full Member
***
Posts: 123
United Kingdom
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: March 09, 2014, 07:19:48 am »

So I finally got round to taking Al's map and added in the boundary review for 1945:



Bigger map here.

I also spotted a few tiny errors with Al's 1918-35 map in Herts, Surrey and Warwicks, so I'm taking the liberty of posting a revised version so that the boundaries that didn't change match up with the 1945 map.



Bigger map here.

E&OE, of course. And all kudos to Al whose map it is.

(EDIT: Worcestershire exclaves)
(EDIT: Amending Warks/Leics border)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 11:50:44 am by stepney »Logged

The inevitable conclusion of the Forum: a child-molesting nonce berates a Tory for being beyond the Pale.

EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: March 09, 2014, 07:26:04 am »

It's not so easy to see the 1935-79 changes because 1935 was a very good election for the Conservatives and allies in the urban constituencies.

The main changes between 1935 and 1979 were in the Scottish Central Belt and south Lancashire. They picked up about 50 seats in those two regions by gaining strength in, or taking over completely, cities like Liverpool, Glasgow and Salford, and the nearby towns. Birmingham, Newcastle, Nottingham and Leicester, outside those two regions, behaved similarly, as did those parts of London outside the inner-city areas that stayed strongly Conservative or Labour.
Logged
EPG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 994
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: March 09, 2014, 07:33:15 am »

So I finally got round to taking Al's map and added in the boundary review for 1945:

That's great.

Comparing them to my own map, the only major difference is that the Evesham/Cirencester boundary mess isn't quite perfect in the amended 1918-35 map, though it's right in the 1945 map.
Logged
stepney
Full Member
***
Posts: 123
United Kingdom
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: March 09, 2014, 08:03:27 am »

So I finally got round to taking Al's map and added in the boundary review for 1945:

That's great.

Comparing them to my own map, the only major difference is that the Evesham/Cirencester boundary mess isn't quite perfect in the amended 1918-35 map, though it's right in the 1945 map.

Damn it, I thought I'd put them in. And now, thanks to the power of ninja editing, I have!
Logged

The inevitable conclusion of the Forum: a child-molesting nonce berates a Tory for being beyond the Pale.

Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,215
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: March 09, 2014, 09:30:46 am »

Most excellent.
Logged



stepney
Full Member
***
Posts: 123
United Kingdom
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: March 09, 2014, 02:24:54 pm »

If only to tread on Al's toes: another mining seat.



I would go one stage further and add the Coventry wards, but my computer's not playing ball with Davies and Morley.
Logged

The inevitable conclusion of the Forum: a child-molesting nonce berates a Tory for being beyond the Pale.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines