|
Post by greenchristian on May 20, 2018 3:55:53 GMT
Amazing that it took 23 years for someone from 1974(O) to get around the big table especially when considering that Brittan and Lawson had departed the Commons by that point and that Beckett had a break from 79-83. Who were the new Tory MPs elected in October 74? Didn't October 74 have an unusually small intake, though? Not many seats changed hands, and there were presumably far fewer retirements than in a more normal Westminster election. With a significantly smaller pool of talent, you'd expect a much longer wait than normal for one of them to become a cabinet minister.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 20, 2018 8:35:16 GMT
Amazing that it took 23 years for someone from 1974(O) to get around the big table especially when considering that Brittan and Lawson had departed the Commons by that point and that Beckett had a break from 79-83. Who were the new Tory MPs elected in October 74? Didn't October 74 have an unusually small intake, though? Not many seats changed hands, and there were presumably far fewer retirements than in a more normal Westminster election. With a significantly smaller pool of talent, you'd expect a much longer wait than normal for one of them to become a cabinet minister. That's right. There were only 36 new MPs in the October 1974 intake. There were eight new Conservatives in the October 1974 intake: Tom Arnold (Hazel Grove) Michael Brotherton (Louth) Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh West) Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) Charles Irving (Cheltenham) Michael Mates (Petersfield) Anthony Nelson (Chichester) Colin Shepherd (Hereford)
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 20, 2018 22:51:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 20, 2018 23:25:40 GMT
Increased diversification of London, combined with house price increases that have priced many Conservative voters out of Greater London (caused by the very market forces they crowed about so often in the 1980s!) has ensured these highs will never again be reached in London.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 20, 2018 23:48:10 GMT
Didn't October 74 have an unusually small intake, though? Not many seats changed hands, and there were presumably far fewer retirements than in a more normal Westminster election. With a significantly smaller pool of talent, you'd expect a much longer wait than normal for one of them to become a cabinet minister. That's right. There were only 36 new MPs in the October 1974 intake. There were eight new Conservatives in the October 1974 intake: Tom Arnold (Hazel Grove) Michael Brotherton (Louth) Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh West) Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire) Charles Irving (Cheltenham) Michael Mates (Petersfield) Anthony Nelson (Chichester) Colin Shepherd (Hereford) Also, most of the Labour MPs elected in October 1974 lost their seats in 1979 or 1983 (Millie Miller died in 1977, John Mackintosh died in 1978, and Kenneth Weetch lost in 1987). Of those Labour MPs first elected in October 1974 who were defeated in 1979/1983, Ronald Thomas, Robert Bean, Helene Hayman, Frank White, Michael Ward and John Watkinson (the latter two of whom joined the SDP) never returned to the House of Commons.
Tom Litterick and Michael Noble died (in 1981 and 1983 respectively) before having a chance to return.
Robin Hodgson, who won the Walsall North by-election in 1976 for the Conservatives but was defeated in 1979, also never returned to the House of Commons.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 21, 2018 0:01:18 GMT
Increased diversification of London, combined with house price increases that have priced many Conservative voters out of Greater London (caused by the very market forces they crowed about so often in the 1980s!) has ensured these highs will never again be reached in London. Never say "never". It might happen, although it would probably take decades.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 21, 2018 18:18:48 GMT
Con % v Lab % in England, October 1974:- Con % v Lab % in England, 2017:- Same correlation for both elections -0.88 but quite a range for the long-term 2-party swings:- Finally the Lib/LD decline since October 1974:-
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 21, 2018 18:47:53 GMT
Separating Herefordshire and Worcestershire for this calculation is appropriate for this purpose. Leominster included only a tiny portion of Worcestershire (the village of Tenbury Wells) from 1983 to 2010 and that did not make very much difference.
The Liberal Democrat decline for Herefordsire since October 1974 is -31.2%, and the Liberal Democrat decline for Worcestershire since October 1974 is (on reasonable estimates adjusted for boundary changes) -14.1%.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,638
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 21, 2018 20:17:57 GMT
Separating Herefordshire and Worcestershire for this calculation is appropriate for this purpose. Leominster included only a tiny portion of Worcestershire (the village of Tenbury Wells) from 1983 to 2010 and that did not make very much difference. The Liberal Democrat decline for Herefordsire since October 1974 is -31.2%, and the Liberal Democrat decline for Worcestershire since October 1974 is (on reasonable estimates adjusted for boundary changes) -14.1%. Tenbury Wells calls, and insists it's a town, not a village. That's certainly how it looks to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 21, 2018 20:47:59 GMT
The Lewisham East by-election has just set the record for highest number of different recognised and registered political parties (13) in any British by-election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 9:48:16 GMT
The Lewisham East by-election has just set the record for highest number of different recognised and registered political parties (13) in any British by-election. The contrast between the by-elections in the "registration of parties era" and the height of the 80s/90s by-elections is really stark, now. I watched a number of by-election declarations on YouTube recently and it shows how, if I can put it like this, "amateur" a lot of the independent and maverick candidates were at the time. One of the many consequences of registration is the almost complete removal of the charming eccentric or nut-case wanting to have their time on the platform and in front of the camera. No more "Sack Graham Taylor" candidate or random anti-everything. It has brought about a more "professional" approach, maybe, less quirks and eccentricities.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,638
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 23, 2018 10:00:35 GMT
The contrast between the by-elections in the "registration of parties era" and the height of the 80s/90s by-elections is really stark, now. I watched a number of by-election declarations on YouTube recently and it shows how, if I can put it like this, "amateur" a lot of the independent and maverick candidates were at the time. One of the many consequences of registration is the almost complete removal of the charming eccentric or nut-case wanting to have their time on the platform and in front of the camera. No more "Sack Graham Taylor" candidate or random anti-everything. It has brought about a more "professional" approach, maybe, less quirks and eccentricities. The Chesterfield byelection of 1984 may be the exemplar for this. I particularly liked the "Buy Your Chesterfield in Thame" guy, blatant advertising in the guise of a candidature. He got 24 votes. Screaming Lord Sutch got 178.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 10:08:05 GMT
The contrast between the by-elections in the "registration of parties era" and the height of the 80s/90s by-elections is really stark, now. I watched a number of by-election declarations on YouTube recently and it shows how, if I can put it like this, "amateur" a lot of the independent and maverick candidates were at the time. One of the many consequences of registration is the almost complete removal of the charming eccentric or nut-case wanting to have their time on the platform and in front of the camera. No more "Sack Graham Taylor" candidate or random anti-everything. It has brought about a more "professional" approach, maybe, less quirks and eccentricities. The Chesterfield byelection of 1984 may be the exemplar for this. I particularly liked the "Buy Your Chesterfield in Thame" guy, blatant advertising in the guise of a candidature. He got 24 votes. Screaming Lord Sutch got 178. Exactly. I also thought of Liverpool Walton, where Militant stood a rival Labour candidate. Under registration rules, the ballot paper name would not have been accepted. Not that I'm completely against registration, I just like thinking about the consequences, both intended and otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 23, 2018 20:21:20 GMT
The contrast between the by-elections in the "registration of parties era" and the height of the 80s/90s by-elections is really stark, now. I watched a number of by-election declarations on YouTube recently and it shows how, if I can put it like this, "amateur" a lot of the independent and maverick candidates were at the time. One of the many consequences of registration is the almost complete removal of the charming eccentric or nut-case wanting to have their time on the platform and in front of the camera. No more "Sack Graham Taylor" candidate or random anti-everything. It has brought about a more "professional" approach, maybe, less quirks and eccentricities. The Chesterfield byelection of 1984 may be the exemplar for this. I particularly liked the "Buy Your Chesterfield in Thame" guy, blatant advertising in the guise of a candidature. He got 24 votes. Screaming Lord Sutch got 178. Which was also more than all the other independents using a variety of different labels. These included within that by-election, "Four wheel drive hatchback road safety", "Prisoner: I am not a number", "Reclassify The Sun as a comic", "Independent: The Welshman", "Elvisly Yours Presley Party", among others.
The Christchurch by-election of 1993 is the worst example of misusing by-elections for advertising purposes. Such descriptions on that ballot paper included "Buy the Daily Sport", "Highlander IV Wednesday Promotion Night", "Ian for King", and "Alfred the Chicken". Two of these were mentioned in the Hansard debate on the Registration of Political Parties Act as examples of frivolous and commercial parties.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 24, 2018 7:01:18 GMT
The Chesterfield byelection of 1984 may be the exemplar for this. I particularly liked the "Buy Your Chesterfield in Thame" guy, blatant advertising in the guise of a candidature. He got 24 votes. Screaming Lord Sutch got 178. Which was also more than all the other independents using a variety of different labels. These included within that by-election, "Four wheel drive hatchback road safety", "Prisoner: I am not a number", "Reclassify The Sun as a comic", "Independent: The Welshman", "Elvisly Yours Presley Party", among others.
The Christchurch by-election of 1993 is the worst example of misusing by-elections for advertising purposes. Such descriptions on that ballot paper included "Buy the Daily Sport", "Highlander IV Wednesday Promotion Night", "Ian for King", and "Alfred the Chicken". Two of these were mentioned in the Hansard debate on the Registration of Political Parties Act as examples of frivolous and commercial parties.
Alfred the Chicken sounds like a considerable improvement on the 2 leading candidates in that election.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,866
|
Post by YL on May 24, 2018 7:20:29 GMT
The Chesterfield byelection of 1984 may be the exemplar for this. I particularly liked the "Buy Your Chesterfield in Thame" guy, blatant advertising in the guise of a candidature. He got 24 votes. Screaming Lord Sutch got 178. Which was also more than all the other independents using a variety of different labels. These included within that by-election, "Four wheel drive hatchback road safety", "Prisoner: I am not a number", "Reclassify The Sun as a comic", "Independent: The Welshman", "Elvisly Yours Presley Party", among others.
The Christchurch by-election of 1993 is the worst example of misusing by-elections for advertising purposes. Such descriptions on that ballot paper included "Buy the Daily Sport", "Highlander IV Wednesday Promotion Night", "Ian for King", and "Alfred the Chicken". Two of these were mentioned in the Hansard debate on the Registration of Political Parties Act as examples of frivolous and commercial parties.
Personally I find that sort of thing silly but essentially harmless. "Literal Democrats" (and that character's other descriptions), "Conversatives" and fake Labour candidates (Slough 1992) are a much better argument for registration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 7:57:14 GMT
Which was also more than all the other independents using a variety of different labels. These included within that by-election, "Four wheel drive hatchback road safety", "Prisoner: I am not a number", "Reclassify The Sun as a comic", "Independent: The Welshman", "Elvisly Yours Presley Party", among others.
The Christchurch by-election of 1993 is the worst example of misusing by-elections for advertising purposes. Such descriptions on that ballot paper included "Buy the Daily Sport", "Highlander IV Wednesday Promotion Night", "Ian for King", and "Alfred the Chicken". Two of these were mentioned in the Hansard debate on the Registration of Political Parties Act as examples of frivolous and commercial parties.
Personally I find that sort of thing silly but essentially harmless. "Literal Democrats" (and that character's other descriptions), "Conversatives" and fake Labour candidates (Slough 1992) are a much better argument for registration. Might start a thread.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 24, 2018 8:50:32 GMT
Two of these were mentioned in the Hansard debate on the Registration of Political Parties Act as examples of frivolous and commercial parties. Got a direct link to hand?
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 24, 2018 11:35:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 24, 2018 19:49:12 GMT
This outfit on Twitter are putting out data of this type for every constituency:
|
|