|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 8, 2015 15:55:05 GMT
Someone who calls themselves an election anorak really shouldn't need to ask that question
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2015 16:33:31 GMT
You can tell a lot about a country from the number of Communist MPs it elects. We've only ever had four, which arguably fits in with our national psyche; compare that with the PCF in France which still has representation at all levels of government.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 8, 2015 17:53:11 GMT
Though only Gallacher and Piratin were elected against Labour opposition.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 8, 2015 18:13:07 GMT
Someone who calls themselves an election anorak really shouldn't need to ask that question I have never called myself an election anorak, merely a psephlogist (and only then since 1950) |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 8, 2015 19:24:55 GMT
You can tell a lot about a country from the number of Communist MPs it elects. We've only ever had four, which arguably fits in with our national psyche; compare that with the PCF in France which still has representation at all levels of government. It has rather less to do with our psyche than with the fact we never needed a resistance movement. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 9, 2015 3:34:27 GMT
Question: Is this the closest a Communist have ever come to winning a seat at a British general election and if not, which seats have elected a Communist?Battersea North (Shapurji Saklatvala 1922-3, 1924-9) Motherwell (Walton Newbold 1922-3) West Fife (Willie Gallacher 1935-50) Mile End (Phil Piratin 1945-50) There have been five Communist MPs in the UK; the other one was Cecil Malone (1920-1922) who was elected as Liberal MP for Leyton East in 1918, and subsequently defected to the British Socialist Party and then joined the CPGB when it was founded in 1920. He later became Labour MP for Northampton 1929-31. It is likely that the CPGB would have won Rhondda in 1945 (in addition to the other two seats) if the candidate had been Arthur Horner (the local mineworkers' leader) rather than Harry Pollitt (the General Secretary of the CPGB). |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 9, 2015 9:46:19 GMT
You can tell a lot about a country from the number of Communist MPs it elects. We've only ever had four, which arguably fits in with our national psyche; compare that with the PCF in France which still has representation at all levels of government. It has rather less to do with our psyche than with the fact we never needed a resistance movement. That and the small matter of electoral systems, of course...... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 9, 2015 21:24:01 GMT
It has rather less to do with our psyche than with the fact we never needed a resistance movement. That and the small matter of electoral systems, of course...... Sure, but the PCF were the largest party on the left in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1939 that wasn't on the cards regardless of the electoral system. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Aug 31, 2015 20:39:53 GMT
That and the small matter of electoral systems, of course...... Sure, but the PCF were the largest party on the left in the aftermath of WW2, and in 1939 that wasn't on the cards regardless of the electoral system. The PCF remained the largest party on the left right through to the 1970s when Mitternand formed the PS. The electoral system in the Fourth Republic was designed specifically to keep the Communists (and the Gaullists) out. The system used list PR but with the proviso that if an alliance of parties took an overall majority in a constituency, they collected all seats. The Gaullists and the PCF were unlikely to find any allies. The Centre parties (SFIO, MRP, Radicals, UDSR, etc) formed shifting coalitions throughout after the explosion of PCF from the ruling coalition as a condition of an IMF loan. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Aug 31, 2015 23:27:15 GMT
Electoral systems have little to do with it: the PCF established itself as the primary vehicle for left-wing working class politics during the 1930s when the electoral system was FPTP. They were able to expand to a broader social base (and double down on what they had) due to their role in the Resistance. And apart from the Fourth Republic and that brief period in the mid 1980s France has always used single member districts.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 1, 2015 0:54:03 GMT
It has rather less to do with our psyche than with the fact we never needed a resistance movement. That and the small matter of electoral systems, of course...... The French electoral system makes it more difficult for Communist MPs to be elected than the British electoral system. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 7, 2015 2:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 9, 2015 14:09:26 GMT
Bowan's personal vote (9) outweighed by a miner's coach trip to Porthcawl in 1950 which prevented 38 people voting. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Mar 28, 2016 10:48:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 28, 2016 11:13:08 GMT
Have to be careful with the Liberals in 1931. The official Liberal Party at the time counted the 'Liberal Nationals' (NB not 'National Liberals' until 1948) as part of the party; and the 'Independent Liberals' were all official candidates even though they were in opposition. David Dutton's book "Liberals in Schism: A History of the National Liberal Party" is quite good at showing how the Liberal Nationals did not fully leave the fold for many years. This was almost the last time in the UK when a political party was divided into multiple factions that took different positions on governments and alliances. (The absolute last I can think of was the Ulster Unionists in February 1974.) |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Mar 28, 2016 17:27:27 GMT
I have copies to hand beside me of both Whitakers Almanack 1932 and the Constitutional Year Book 1932. They must both have been published in the dying weeks of 1931; literally six weeks after the 1931 election. They both make plain the distinction between "L." and "N.L." It is quite plain both L. and N.L. are part of the National Government, but certainly that they are different parties, not sub-divisions of a united party.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 28, 2016 19:12:20 GMT
They were effectively different parliamentary parties by this stage but it was much messier in the wider party - a lot of Liberal National MPs had associations still affiliated to the National Liberal Federation (and Runciman was still a Vice President until 1934) despite it still backing the Samuelites. It took a while for the Lib Nats to develop their own apparatus and even longer to finish off all the difference.
|
|
