swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on Feb 24, 2018 9:31:45 GMT
I know it was common in those days, but I've always been annoyed at how so many people used to refer to the Labour Party as "Socialists" even though there were already various Socialist parties existing. Did they do it deliberately to annoy? Or were they genuinely ignorant of the difference? Yes, I can confirm that in the 50s and 60s in Maidstone there was a deliberate and persistent use of 'Socialist' in place of Labour, so as to remind some of the nature of the beast and that it was not just an extension of their friendly union connection, but mainly to cause irritation and offence. Once at the expense of junking our Year Book half way through a print run because Labour had been used and the Chairman and Agent felt it was worth the added expense to junk and start again. All documents were proof read and corrected to Socialist before issue and print by the Agent and had to be submitted to him. And it was a course of irritation and did stir up enough ill-feeling to make them more tribal and more combative which was the whole point. When cross they contested far more wards and spread their strength and diminished available cash for the next GE. Also it helped a lot to stall the Liberals if we could ensure Labour stood as well. Those were the days when we were strategic, well organized and rather effective. Perhaps it's time to refer to Labour as "Socialists" again, certainly under their current leadership. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2018 9:34:13 GMT
Yes, I can confirm that in the 50s and 60s in Maidstone there was a deliberate and persistent use of 'Socialist' in place of Labour, so as to remind some of the nature of the beast and that it was not just an extension of their friendly union connection, but mainly to cause irritation and offence. Once at the expense of junking our Year Book half way through a print run because Labour had been used and the Chairman and Agent felt it was worth the added expense to junk and start again. All documents were proof read and corrected to Socialist before issue and print by the Agent and had to be submitted to him. And it was a course of irritation and did stir up enough ill-feeling to make them more tribal and more combative which was the whole point. When cross they contested far more wards and spread their strength and diminished available cash for the next GE. Also it helped a lot to stall the Liberals if we could ensure Labour stood as well. Those were the days when we were strategic, well organized and rather effective. Perhaps it's time to refer to Labour as "Socialists" again, certainly under their current leadership. Or the 'The Marxist Momentum Tendency'? |
|
swanarcadian
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 2,651
Member is Online
|
Post by swanarcadian on Feb 24, 2018 9:35:33 GMT
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 24, 2018 16:11:04 GMT
There are associations where members refer to Labour as 'the brothers.'
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on May 29, 2018 20:14:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 29, 2018 20:21:14 GMT
You had to have a license to be a grocer in Edinburgh in 1923?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 29, 2018 20:42:39 GMT
You had to have a license to be a grocer in Edinburgh in 1923? I assume licensed grocers were those who sold alcohol in addition to rice, sugar and boiled ham. * * Other products were available. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 31, 2018 0:47:25 GMT
You had to have a license to be a grocer in Edinburgh in 1923? Quite possibly, there were some areas where you required a tobacco licence and there used to be some restrictions on the sale of 'loose' foodstuff (eg, sugar loaves etc). When I did my original alcohol licence (I grandfathered it over in 2005) it was a topic of conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Jan 14, 2019 20:03:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 14, 2019 20:16:55 GMT
National secretary of the Clarion Fellowship apparently. Interesting to see a local candidate of the National Democratic Party. I wonder where he went afterwards....? |
|
|
|
Post by David Ashforth on Jan 14, 2019 21:27:37 GMT
National secretary of the Clarion Fellowship apparently. Interesting to see a local candidate of the National Democratic Party. I wonder where he went afterwards....? The National Democratic Party had “one or two” [1] candidates in the 1919 Sheffield municipal elections, but none were elected. It was an interesting year politically, there was a wave of strikes as “The land fit for heroes” was not providing some with either a home or a job. The Sheffield Trades and Labour Council announced they were going to stand a Labour candidate in every ward in the city. This resulted in an arrangement between the Conservative and Liberals in which they agreed not to stand candidates against each other. In July 1919 a branch of the Middle Class Union was formed in Sheffield, although it didn’t stand any candidates in the 1919 elections Con Lib Lab Discharged Soldiers
Before 32 27 5 0
Gain/(Loss) (2) (4) 6
Gain/(Loss) (2) (1) 3
After 28 22 11 3
As you can see a number of seats changed hands in 1919, but unfortunately I don’t know which wards. Not a single Liberal candidate was elected, although I don’t know how many candidates they had. There were 16 wards in Sheffield in 1919 and 14 of those were contested that year [2], and 9 of those changed hands. Among those seeking re-election who were defeated were three former Lord Mayors. [1] Hawson, Herbert Keeble, Sheffield: The Growth of a City, 1893-1926 (1968) [2] Hampton, William, Democracy and Community: A Study of Politics in Sheffield (1970) |
|
|
|
Post by BucksDucks on Jan 18, 2019 15:16:23 GMT
I found a copy of the The Times book of the 1945 General Election in a second handbook store and picked it up. It has definitely seen better days but does come with small biographies of all the candidates for every constituency and every result. Plus it has a very nice map (though unfortunately torn in half). |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2019 15:23:19 GMT
I found a copy of the The Times book of the 1945 General Election in a second handbook store and picked it up. It has definitely seen better days but does come with small biographies of all the candidates for every constituency and every result. Plus it has a very nice map (though unfortunately torn in half). You lucky, lucky bastard. How much did that set you back? |
|
|
|
Post by BucksDucks on Jan 18, 2019 15:30:18 GMT
It cost £7.49 from the local Oxfam shop. They had put it up in their window display and had been grabbing my eye for the past couple of days.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2019 15:31:57 GMT
It cost £7.49 from the local Oxfam shop. They had put it up in their window display and had been grabbing my eye for the past couple of days. Bargain!
Only copy currently on abebooks is priced at £49.99 plus postage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 18, 2019 15:41:02 GMT
It cost £7.49 from the local Oxfam shop. They had put it up in their window display and had been grabbing my eye for the past couple of days. You walked past it for two days ?! |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2019 16:25:20 GMT
It cost £7.49 from the local Oxfam shop. They had put it up in their window display and had been grabbing my eye for the past couple of days. You walked past it for two days ?! i've checked their online inventory Pete, in case that bargain was part of a larger donated stash of psephology, but nothing leapt out.  |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jan 18, 2019 20:23:07 GMT
I found a copy of the The Times book of the 1945 General Election in a second handbook store and picked it up. It has definitely seen better days but does come with small biographies of all the candidates for every constituency and every result. Plus it has a very nice map (though unfortunately torn in half). I picked up a copy of the 1950 Times Guide in a second hand bookshop in Great Yarmouth in 1970 for 5 shillings. Maybe a new thread could be opened to allow content to be shared? |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Jan 18, 2019 20:56:40 GMT
The Times series of books need to be cross-referenced against other sources (such as Craig) as they have been prone to misprints over the years.
I don't like to boast - but I will (!) - but my earliest Times guide is for 1931. Every Conservative candidate in the volume is shown thus: A.N.Other (U). So it is quite surprising to find Labour candidates shown (Lab) and not the more pejorative (Soc)!
The biographies are fantastic. For example, B.W. Gardner (Lab), defeated in West Ham (Upton), "has been a waterside labourer, and later was with Mr. Keir Hardie on the staff of the Labour Leader". Another titbit: L. McCree (Com), in Liverpool Scotland "was expelled from the Liverpool Trades Council and Labour party as a delegate from his union for opposing a Labour candidate at a municipal election."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 0:22:07 GMT
The Times series of books need to be cross-referenced against other sources (such as Craig) as they have been prone to misprints over the years. I don't like to boast - but I will (!) - but my earliest Times guide is for 1931. Every Conservative candidate in the volume is shown thus: A.N.Other (U). So it is quite surprising to find Labour candidates shown (Lab) and not the more pejorative (Soc)! The biographies are fantastic. For example, B.W. Gardner (Lab), defeated in West Ham (Upton), "has been a waterside labourer, and later was with Mr. Keir Hardie on the staff of the Labour Leader". Another titbit: L. McCree (Com), in Liverpool Scotland "was expelled from the Liverpool Trades Council and Labour party as a delegate from his union for opposing a Labour candidate at a municipal election." Surely they could not make such a massive mistake as to accidentally call every Conservative candidate "A.N. Other"?  |
|
