|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 11, 2021 10:43:19 GMT
The Tories had only just scraped to power in 1951 (Labour winning the popular vote, and probably so even if you allowed for the four unopposed returns in Northern Ireland). I remember doing some calculations that showed that Labour's popular vote lead was pretty much eliminated once you also factor in the Conservatives not standing against some Liberal MPs and having pacts in a couple of two seat towns. Back in 1944 Labour were certainly opposed to them when the Speaker's Conference was set up: www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1944-02-02a.1288.0&s=speaker%3A17624However the conference as a whole didn't recommend abolition and I assume Labour had agreed with the outcome as part of an overall agreement. The late 1940s debates did see a number of Conservatives bring up what had and hadn't been agreed in 1944. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 11, 2021 10:52:54 GMT
The Tories had only just scraped to power in 1951 (Labour winning the popular vote, and probably so even if you allowed for the four unopposed returns in Northern Ireland). I remember doing some calculations that showed that Labour's popular vote lead was pretty much eliminated once you also factor in the Conservatives not standing against some Liberal MPs and having pacts in a couple of two seat towns. Back in 1944 Labour were certainly opposed to them when the Speaker's Conference was set up: www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1944-02-02a.1288.0&s=speaker%3A17624However the conference as a whole didn't recommend abolition and I assume Labour had agreed with the outcome as part of an overall agreement. The late 1940s debates did see a number of Conservatives bring up what had and hadn't been agreed in 1944. Apologies, the pacts/candidate pattern had slipped my mind. Likely equal shares but 25 seat bonus for us because Labour piling up votes in their strongholds. Looking back we were right in not reviving the uni seats but utter fools for passing the 1958 'Boundaries' Act. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 11, 2021 11:19:34 GMT
I remember doing some calculations that showed that Labour's popular vote lead was pretty much eliminated once you also factor in the Conservatives not standing against some Liberal MPs and having pacts in a couple of two seat towns. Back in 1944 Labour were certainly opposed to them when the Speaker's Conference was set up: www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1944-02-02a.1288.0&s=speaker%3A17624However the conference as a whole didn't recommend abolition and I assume Labour had agreed with the outcome as part of an overall agreement. The late 1940s debates did see a number of Conservatives bring up what had and hadn't been agreed in 1944. Apologies, the pacts/candidate pattern had slipped my mind. Likely equal shares but 25 seat bonus for us because Labour piling up votes in their strongholds. Looking back we were right in not reviving the uni seats but utter fools for passing the 1958 'Boundaries' Act.Perhaps more 'honour' from both sides in those reading that and earlier comments. Hard to say re the popular vote in 1951-could have gone narrowly either way. I think From Votes to Seats have some different figures for party seats leads at equal shares based on taking a UK rather than GB calculation |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 17, 2021 9:15:54 GMT
Of course, even a "real" dead heat in the popular vote in 1951 would mean that election was still significantly "biased" towards the Tories.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 17, 2021 9:59:25 GMT
Of course, even a "real" dead heat in the popular vote in 1951 would mean that election was still significantly "biased" towards the Tories. You were piling up votes in your heartlands:-  (Seats v % Maj) Wasn't it Herbert Morrison who said that Labour should have appealed more to the aspiring home owner in the suburbs? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 17, 2021 10:01:14 GMT
Herbert Morrison's Labour LCC did appeal to the aspiring home owner in the suburbs.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 17, 2021 10:13:25 GMT
Of course, even a "real" dead heat in the popular vote in 1951 would mean that election was still significantly "biased" towards the Tories. Some of that started to be offset in 1955 due to lower Labour turnouts and the Tories missing some seats that would have gone on national swing, plus the 1958 act helped! |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 17, 2021 10:14:07 GMT
Herbert Morrison's Labour LCC did appeal to the aspiring home owner in the suburbs. Seemed from what I've read as shifty as his grandson. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 17, 2021 10:15:24 GMT
Herbert Morrison's Labour LCC did appeal to the aspiring home owner in the suburbs. Perhaps if Attlee had had a better relationship with Morrison Labour would have held on in 1951? |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jul 17, 2021 10:24:02 GMT
Herbert Morrison's Labour LCC did appeal to the aspiring home owner in the suburbs. Seemed from what I've read as shifty as his grandson. That may have been his undoing. Too many enemies. Attlee really should have stood down before the 1955 election. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 17, 2021 10:34:52 GMT
Seemed from what I've read as shifty as his grandson. That may have been his undoing. Too many enemies. Attlee really should have stood down before the 1955 election. It seemed to me he wanted to do anything to keep Morrison from the top job. Attlee left as a relative spring chicken of 72! |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 17, 2021 10:41:57 GMT
That may have been his undoing. Too many enemies. Attlee really should have stood down before the 1955 election. It seemed to me he wanted to do anything to keep Morrison from the top job. Attlee left as a relative spring chicken of 72! With very good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 17, 2021 13:49:18 GMT
Seemed from what I've read as shifty as his grandson. That may have been his undoing. Too many enemies. Attlee really should have stood down before the 1955 election. Herbert Morrison was one of the big political beasts of his day and has left a huge and enduring legacy in London, but he did seem to have something of a knack for rubbing people up the wrong way.
Ernest Bevin famously overheard someone comment, "Poor Herbert is his own worst enemy."
"Not while I'm around," growled Ernie.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 17, 2021 18:16:58 GMT
That may have been his undoing. Too many enemies. Attlee really should have stood down before the 1955 election. Herbert Morrison was one of the big political beasts of his day and has left a huge and enduring legacy in London, but he did seem to have something of a knack for rubbing people up the wrong way.
Ernest Bevin famously overheard someone comment, "Poor Herbert is his own worst enemy."
"Not while I'm around," growled Ernie.
A story also told about Bevan. Morrison always thought he should be leader of the Labour party. His problem was that not many others agreed with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 21, 2021 14:22:16 GMT
Are the university seats really that more of an anachronism than hereditary Lords and Lords Spiritual?
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 21, 2021 14:27:21 GMT
Are the university seats really that more of an anachronism than hereditary Lords and Lords Spiritual? I'd say about the same |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 21, 2021 14:37:13 GMT
Are the university seats really that more of an anachronism than hereditary Lords and Lords Spiritual? I suppose it depends what you mean by anachronism.
The bishops have been in the Lords since the 14th century, The Oxford and Cambridge seats in the commons since the very early seventeenth, and the other University seats since the mid nineteenth.The Lords however is not an elected body (elected by the 'people' that is) and the Commons is, or has become so. So.... the Lords could be seen as more anachronistic as they are older and less 'democratic' as democracy rose, but the University seats could be seen as more anachronistic in the context of an ever widening franchise, as they gave a double vote to a certain section of society, where the Lords aren't pretending to be.
Etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jul 21, 2021 14:41:17 GMT
Are the university seats really that more of an anachronism than hereditary Lords and Lords Spiritual? They don't exist so they are now less of an anachronism than the House of Lords itself. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jul 22, 2021 17:56:51 GMT
I have always assumed that the university constituencies were, by 1945, regarded as a ridiculous anomaly and anachronism, and that the abolition of them would have been completely non-controversial – in the sense that some people might have voted against their abolition, but (once they were gone) nobody would think about bringing them back again. A bit like the introduction of same-sex marriage or the abolition of the death penalty. It is surprising to discover that it was considered a viable possibility for them to be restored as late as 1951.
Aren't about 50% of the population still *in favour* of the death penalty, even decades after abolition?
I know it was an inconveniently high percentage, so they stopped regularly polling on it. Think how popular and relevant a 'pro-death penalty' SNP would be...
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on Jul 22, 2021 19:13:19 GMT
I have always assumed that the university constituencies were, by 1945, regarded as a ridiculous anomaly and anachronism, and that the abolition of them would have been completely non-controversial – in the sense that some people might have voted against their abolition, but (once they were gone) nobody would think about bringing them back again. A bit like the introduction of same-sex marriage or the abolition of the death penalty. It is surprising to discover that it was considered a viable possibility for them to be restored as late as 1951.
Aren't about 50% of the population still *in favour* of the death penalty, even decades after abolition?
I know it was an inconveniently high percentage, so they stopped regularly polling on it. Think how popular and relevant a 'pro-death penalty' SNP would be...
I'm sure I remember the British Attitudes Survey (or some such) reporting a majority against the death penalty for the first time ever two or three years ago. |
|
