J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 4, 2020 0:03:47 GMT
can anyone find me a link to the famous cartoon from the 1975 EEC referendum, published by the In campaign, it showed an Orangeman, a Nazi, a kilted Scotsman ands a communist all marching for Out. This one?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 4, 2020 7:33:46 GMT
Is that Ian Mikardo in the centre of the front row? (the other four are obvious enough)
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 1,961
|
Post by ColinJ on Dec 4, 2020 8:02:34 GMT
Is that Ian Mikardo in the centre of the front row? (the other four are obvious enough) Looks like it to me.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Dec 4, 2020 8:38:34 GMT
can anyone find me a link to the famous cartoon from the 1975 EEC referendum, published by the In campaign, it showed an Orangeman, a Nazi, a kilted Scotsman ands a communist all marching for Out. That cartoon was part of a very potent argument in 1975 that the No campaign was extreme and weird. Tories were the most enthusiastic Yes voters (likely 5:1 whereas Libs 2:1 and Labour evens). Our local agent ran a very effective Yes campaign.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Dec 4, 2020 12:16:56 GMT
I have been perusing, as one does, a book explaining the workings of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. It sets out the limitations of election expenses, which for English boroughs was £350 if the number of electors did not exceed 2,000. An additional £30 was allowed for every additional 1,000 voters on the register. For counties the allowance was much higher: £650 and £60, respectively. My question is: What was special about the boroughs of East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock and Aylesbury? These five boroughs were specifically allowed the expenses limits of counties. Geographical size, it seems. In the case of East Retford and Cricklade, there had been corruption and the constituncies had been explanded to take in the rest of Bassetlaw and the town of Swindon respectively. In Aylesbury, the constituency was defined as containing "The Three Hundreds of Aylesbury", meaning outlying areas like Princes Risborough were included, though I don't know why. Presumably Shoreham and Much Wenlock also had boundaries which were wider than their eponymous towns. In all these cases, logistically the expense of running a campaign there would be more comparable with county constituencies than other boroughs. Essentially yes.
In the decades prior to the Great Reform Act there were periodic outbreaks of hand-wringing when especially egregious outbreaks of corruption came to light in small Parliamentary boroughs (and it is fascinating to look back at contemporary reports to see what was and, more strikingly, what was not deemed to constitute 'corruption' by the standards of the day). Traditionally the issue had been dealt with by refusing to seat corruptly elected members but malpractice was endemic in some boroughs and, starting in 1771 with New Shoreham, more drastic action was taken. There had been calls for corrupt boroughs to be disfranchised altogether but there were fears this would set a dangerous precedent so instead, the formerly tiny borough had its boundaries hugely extended to cover the whole Rape of Bramber and the voting qualification was expanded to include 40/- freeholders (i.e. the normal county franchise). The thinking behind this was that the number of electors would be greatly increased so that bribery would no longer be practical. And it worked: New Shoreham promptly became a model constituency by contemporary standards.
Over the next few decades similar problems were encountered, and a similar remedy applied, in Cricklade (1782), Aylesbury (1804), and East Retford (1830). It was described as 'throwing the borough into the hundred', although in practice in each case except E Retford, several hundreds were included in the expanded borough.
Since, in their expanded form, the boroughs were quite populous and relatively free of corruption, their boundaries were largely left alone by the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867. But their physical extent meant they were more like counties than conventional boroughs: E Retford (324 sq mi), Cricklade (230 sq mi), and New Shoreham (181 sq mi) were all larger than the smallest county, Rutland (147 sq mi); and Aylesbury at 110 sq mi was still much larger than other borough.
Wenlock was a different case. When the abbey of Wenlock was dissolved under Henry VIII, for some reason its lands were constituted as a Parliamentary borough. It was also like a miniature county, covering 75 sq mi, much larger than any other borough until New Shoreham was expanded. It comprised a large and irregularly shaped main body plus more than two dozen exclaves of greatly varying sizes scattered across Shropshire. Here's a map.
Hope this helps.
Edited to add: All these boroughs were abolished by the Redistribution Act in 1885, even though their populations were well in excess of 15,000, which was the threshold applied in that Act that normally allowed a borough to survive.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 4, 2020 12:22:24 GMT
That cartoon was part of a very potent argument in 1975 that the No campaign was extreme and weird. Tories were the most enthusiastic Yes voters (likely 5:1 whereas Libs 2:1 and Labour evens). Our local agent ran a very effective Yes campaign. The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Dec 4, 2020 12:36:29 GMT
That cartoon was part of a very potent argument in 1975 that the No campaign was extreme and weird. Tories were the most enthusiastic Yes voters (likely 5:1 whereas Libs 2:1 and Labour evens). Our local agent ran a very effective Yes campaign. The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line. Which one? Shore, Benn, Mikardo, Powell, Foot?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,612
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Dec 4, 2020 13:07:40 GMT
The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line. Which one? Shore, Benn, Mikardo, Powell, Foot? Benn. I guessed at Powell, was uncertain about Foot, who's Shore? and isn't that a Gilbert & Sullivan play?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 4, 2020 13:08:06 GMT
On 'throwing the borough into the Hundred': It's also worth noting that the main reason why the notoriously corrupt Cornish borough of Grampound was abolished after its appalling 1820 election was that the Hundred of Powdershire was stuffed full of other boroughs, and Tregony was almost adjacent - so the option of throwing the borough into the Hundred wasn't available. After initially thinking of transferring Grampound's two MPs to create a new Parliamentary Borough of Leeds, Parliament instead added them to the County of Yorkshire.
The fact that Grampound was abolished completely became a vital precedent for the Reform Act.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 4, 2020 13:18:09 GMT
Which one? Shore, Benn, Mikardo, Powell, Foot? Benn. I guessed at Powell, was uncertain about Foot, who's Shore? and isn't that a Gilbert & Sullivan play? I immediately recognised all of them. and it doesn't seem that long ago they would have been among the most instantly recognisable politicians of their age. Sic gloria transit mundi!
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Dec 4, 2020 13:30:20 GMT
Which one? Shore, Benn, Mikardo, Powell, Foot? Benn. I guessed at Powell, was uncertain about Foot, who's Shore? and isn't that a Gilbert & Sullivan play?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 4, 2020 14:59:56 GMT
On 'throwing the borough into the Hundred': It's also worth noting that the main reason why the notoriously corrupt Cornish borough of Grampound was abolished after its appalling 1820 election was that the Hundred of Powdershire was stuffed full of other boroughs, and Tregony was almost adjacent - so the option of throwing the borough into the Hundred wasn't available. After initially thinking of transferring Grampound's two MPs to create a new Parliamentary Borough of Leeds, Parliament instead added them to the County of Yorkshire. The fact that Grampound was abolished completely became a vital precedent for the Reform Act. How does Grampound suddenly jump from being in Cornwall to being in Yorkshire?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 4, 2020 15:55:04 GMT
That cartoon was part of a very potent argument in 1975 that the No campaign was extreme and weird. Tories were the most enthusiastic Yes voters (likely 5:1 whereas Libs 2:1 and Labour evens). Our local agent ran a very effective Yes campaign. The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line. It is from the left : Shore, Benn, Mikado, Foot with a rather poor Conservative in ill-fitting coat, bowler and stereotypical striped trousers who must be Powell but frankly looks more like Butler.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 4, 2020 17:20:52 GMT
The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line. It is from the left : Shore, Benn, Mikado, Foot with a rather poor Conservative in ill-fitting coat, bowler and stereotypical stripped trousers who must be Powell but frankly looks more like Butler. Mikado? So it really was the G&S operetta?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 4, 2020 17:44:41 GMT
The passage of time means I only recognise one of those in the front line. It is from the left : Shore, Benn, Mikado, Foot with a rather poor Conservative in ill-fitting coat, bowler and stereotypical stripped trousers who must be Powell but frankly looks more like Butler. No, he's still wearing them!
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 4, 2020 19:24:28 GMT
Benn. I guessed at Powell, was uncertain about Foot, who's Shore? and isn't that a Gilbert & Sullivan play? I immediately recognised all of them. and it doesn't seem that long ago they would have been among the most instantly recognisable politicians of their age. Sic gloria transit mundi! Only Mikardo caused me any difficulty, though Powell is very poorly drawn.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 4, 2020 19:25:52 GMT
I thought it was Eric Heffer, but could be Mikardo. Too handsome for Heffer. Is this an excuse for my Eric Heffer/ Gwyneth Dunwoody story/ joke?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 4, 2020 19:35:49 GMT
I thought it was Eric Heffer, but could be Mikardo. Too handsome for Heffer. Is this an excuse for my Eric Heffer/ Gwyneth Dunwoody story/ joke? yes, please.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 4, 2020 22:14:26 GMT
Too handsome for Heffer. Is this an excuse for my Eric Heffer/ Gwyneth Dunwoody story/ joke? yes, please. I take you back to the 1983 Labour leadership (and deputy leadership) election. Heffer was a candidate for Leader; Dunwoody for Deputy Leader. It is said that the following exchange took place at an NEC meeting. Eric Heffer: "mutter, mutter ... this bloody election, there's nothing about policy it's all about image. It's a bloody beauty contest and everybody knows I'd come last in any beauty contest ..."Dennis Skinner: "Not if Gwyneth's on the ballot paper"Of course, it would work better if they'd been candidates for the same position.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Dec 4, 2020 23:51:39 GMT
impeccable source
|
|