Talk:List of United Kingdom by-elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, another one! Droping like flys arn't they

The Conservative Party haven't won a seat at a by-election (as opposed to succesfully defending one) in over 20 years! I wonder when the last time actually was? Morwen - Talk 16:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merton, Mitcham and Morden in 1982. Though this was the result of the sitting MP moving from the Labour party to the SDP and putting himself up for re-election in his new colours - and splitting the vote. Timrollpickering 08:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Colour coding

What do the different coloured bands mean? --Phil | Talk 14:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've added an intro to explain. Warofdreams 15:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the terminology of 42nd Parliament, 43rd Parliament, etc. a standard one? Counting back, one would find the 1st Parliament to have sat sometime in the late 18th Century. Of course, Parliament was quite different, let us say, in the time of Edward III, but there has been an historical continuity. Furthermore, Parliaments such as that which sat from 1640 to 1660 have had notable achievements. Perhaps a more suitable reckoning could be devised, unless this one is indeed customary.

The numbering starts with the formation of the United Kingdom - see List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom. The various parliaments of Great Britain, England, Scotland and Ireland are considered separately. sjorford 23:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, all right. I hadn't noticed that. Thank you for the clarification.

[edit] Belfast West 1943

Was Beattie actually in the Irish Labour Party at this stage? Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency) lists him as independent Labour but I was under the impression he was from the Northern Ireland Labour Party (not the same thing as the British party) at this point and only later moved to the Irish one when in the late 1940s the NILP finally decided it agreed with the Union. Timrollpickering 19:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I can find on the net makes it clear. I got the information from a fairly reliable book but will check the full(er) results at the city library to try to clarify this. Warofdreams 10:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I have a suspicion that sources which list him as "independent Labour" derive from UK election results and mean "Labour Party (GB) minded but not an official candidate" rather than any clarity as to actual party. Not that that makes it clear just what he was. Timrollpickering 11:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I've checked the rather more completed results, which locate him in the NILP. Thanks for pointing out my error! Warofdreams 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holding party - at the last election or at the vacancy?

A thought strikes me - several of the entries here list the party affiliation of the outgoing member at the time of their death/resignation/disqualification rather than the winner at the previous election. The standard practice in much modern political reporting is to go with the previous election results (give or take boundary changes) - should we instead adopt this? Timrollpickering 20:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few of these are creeping in now, including some cases where the sitting MP breaks with their party and has a by-election, which disagrees with them. Anyone want to suggest a standard for this? Timrollpickering 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a preference either way, but you're right that we need a standard. Do you have a suggestion? Warofdreams talk 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's room to fit another set of notes onto the table, especially if we had the cause as well, but maybe treat the holding party as the one who won the last election for the seat (for instance Perth & Kinross, 1938, would be treated as a hold, despite the sitting MP losing) and have a footnote stating where the MP switched party or resigned the whip in the interim, plus things like whether or not they sought re-election.
We also have the problem of the Coalition in 1918-1922 and also the National Government in the 1930s. It wasn't always clear whether or not an individual MP was supporting the govt and there were times when the local party selected a new candidate at odds with the outgoing member - for example Newport in 1922 where the Lloyd George Coalition was seemingly on electoral trial but no candidate stood for it! Timrollpickering 15:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

RodCrosby 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC) IIRC, the standard adopted by David Butler et al is as follows:

(i) For by-elections: in assigning gains/losses, ignore floor-crossing (and by implication (see below) intervening by-elections) since the last General Election. Where the previous has occurred identify such changes in brackets if there is a change of winning party.

(ii) For General Elections: ignore floor-crossing and intervening by-elections since the last General Election.

(iii) Notional Boundary Changes overide both of the above.

e.g.

BE Mitcham & Morden 1982, Con gain from Lab(Ind-SDP) (btw was Douglas-Mann SDP or Ind-SDP?)

GE Mitcham & Morden 1983, Con gain from Lab

BE Falkirk W 2000, Lab Hold

BE Leicester S 2004, LibDem gain from Labour

GE Leicester S 2005, Lab hold

BE Brent S 2003, LibDem gain from Labour

GE Brent S 2005, LibDem gain from Labour

BE Lincoln 1973, Dem.Labour gain from Labour(Dem.Labour)

GE Lincoln F1974, Dem.Labour gain from Labour

GE Lincoln O1974, Labour gain from Dem.Labour

GE Gordon 1997, LibDem Gain from Con (notwithstanding notional result probably wildly inaccurate)

I'm not sure if a second by-election in the same Parliament necessarily comes under a "compare to general election" rule. Since most listings are showing the change made by the voters then surely a second by-election producing a different result to the first is a clear gain?

RodCrosby 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) since such examples are invariably sui generis you may see why I said 'by implication'. The only examples I can think of are Bootle 1990 (straightforward) and Mid-Ulster 1955/6 (anything-but straightforward).

Ach, I forgot the dreary steeples of Fermanagh & South Tyrone.

I suppose using the above rubric.

BE F&ST 1981 (i) Anti-H Block gain from Ind. Republican

BE F&ST 1981 (ii) Anti-H Block gain from Ind. Republican (Anti-H Block)

GE F&ST 1983 UU gain from Ind.Republican

I'd disagree - I think the second should be listed as an Anti-H Block hold (with a footnote that they upheld their gain in the first by-election). Similarly Bristol South-East in 1963 is rightly listed as a Labour gain since the 1961 result is listed as a Conservative gain (on petition). There were some seats in the 1935-1945 Parliament with several by-elections in which the parties changed a bit, not least due to the National Government trying to bring coalition partners and non-party men into Parliament.
We also have the problem on multi-member seats. The Combined Scottish Universities had 3 MPs and one of those seats went Conservative (or Scottish Unionist) -> National Labour -> National in the space of two and a half years. Timrollpickering 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

With regards Douglas-Mann, I suspect he may have announced his decision to seek re-election at the same time as joining the SDP, so probably never took the SDP whip in the Commons. Timrollpickering 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) so he never actually 'joined' the SDP?
Not quite. He would have joined the party, but in the Commons he probably had not yet taken the whip (i.e. joined the parliamentary party - there is a distinction) as he was intending to put himself up for election. Timrollpickering 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preston 1929

The outgoing MP is listed as Alfred Ravenscroft Kennedy but my recollection is that it was William Allen Jowitt, who was given a job in the second Labour government (Attorney General) and opted to put himself up for re-election in his new party colours. Does anyone have a source list for sure? Timrollpickering 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of by-elections

It might be interesting to make a column for the cause of the by-election, and maybe a total and subtotals by some time period. I'm struck by there being vastly more by-elections in the 1960s and 1970s than today - I suppose politicians are younger these days. Morwen - Talk 10:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That's one reason, and improved healthcare is another, but by no means the only ones. One of the key reasons is that in the last few decades being an MP has been increasingly seen as a full-time job and so there's less career changing - a good number of the by-elections listed in earlier years were caused by people becoming High Commissioners, judges, leaving to work in the City or abroad and the like. Nowadays there are far fewer in the Commons who are likely to pursue such a course.
Also many MPs would stay to die in the saddle rather than step down at a general election. There were far more heirs to peerages in the Commons in those days and many would still opt to take the title even after the law was changed to allow disclaimages. Some MPs who changed party or fundamentally disagreed with a major political development would put themselves up for re-election to seek a mandate for their personal backing. And of course by-elections were not so frowned upon as they are now, and so many more MPs would retire or go to the Lords mid Parliament rather than hang around until the next general election. Going back into even earlier periods, the requirement that an "appointment to offices of the Crown" automatically negated the MP's current mandate to sit in the Commons generated quite a lot of by-elections, though many were unnoticed unopposed returns.
Nowadays the party machine will do everything and anything to prevent a by-election where they can help it, even putting pressure on old and ill MPs to step down at a general election rather than risk staying in the Commons, privately raising money to help a financially struggling MP so they can stay in the Commons for the moment, doing their damndest to ensure that potential jobs outside Westminster will still be open until the election or (until the hereditaries were thrown out of the Lords) promising them a life peerage upon retirement if they agree to disclaim the seat in the Lords that they've just inherited. The voters frequently seem to indicate that they don't like "unnecessary" by-elections - although this may be hard to quantify, it seems that a defending candidate has a better chance of retaining the seat if it's been vacated in unfortunate circumstances (usually death) than if the previous MP has "deserted" the constituency for a better paid job. There are also very few by-elections with the incumbent MP restanding, not least because it's usually very difficult for them to secure the nomination of their new local party whilst it's very difficult to keep an election for the local member of a representative assembly foused upon a single issue. Timrollpickering 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To start on this

RodCrosby 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby Have added as much info on causes since 1945 as possible. Source: "Who's Who of British Members of Parliament - Volume IV 1945-1979 Editors: Stenton & Lees", the standard work.

Sometimes it is unclear whether a peerage and new job/office of profit are precisely contemporaneous, but in such cases for practical purposes it is assumed they are.

e.g. (Stenton/Lees) "Boyd-Carpenter:...sat until Mar.1972 when he was created Baron Boyd-Carpenter (Life Peerage) and appointed Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. ..." (explicit)

"Hill: ...sat until June 1963 when he was created Baron Hill of Luton (Life Peerage). ... Chairman of Independent Television Authority 1963-67. ..." (implicit)

Notice 5 suicides and 3 car-crashes. 3 killed by IRA. Airey Neave would have been 4th but was overtaken by 1979 GE. Tom Swain 1979 another car crash overtaken by GE.

Unsafe job. Still believe Stephen Milligan was murdered though!

3 "wrong-way" by-elections, Opposition->Government: Mitcham & Morden 1982, Brighouse & Spenborough 1960, Sunderland S, 1953.

3 by-election holds unusually lost in subsequent General Election: Darlington 1983, Dundee E 1973, Bolton E 1960.

Having narrowed down the reasons for most by-elections using Stenton/Lees Vol IV, the following are outstanding, with my tentative suggestions(if any); Can you help shed light?

1979 Geoffrey Dodsworth - ill-health? aged 51, still alive 2006 aged 78?

1971 Walter Alldritt - out of his depth?/disillusioned(sic)? aged 52, died late 1990s in his 80s? (very distant family relation by marriage of contributer RodCrosby)

1969 Francis Noel-Baker - ?? aged 49, still alive 2006 aged 86?

1969 Sir William Teeling - ill-health? aged 66, died 1975 aged 72.

1968 Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre - ill-health? aged 55, died 1978 aged 64.

1968 Leslie Hale - ill-health? aged 65, died 1985 aged 82.

1968 William Roots - ill-health? aged 56, died 1971 aged 59.

1967 Frank Cousins - disillusioned with HofC? aged 62, died 1986 aged 82.

1961 James Carmichael - ill-health? aged 67, died 1966 aged 71.

Not wishing to step on Morwen's toes, but do we really need *all* causes of death. My idea of including car-crash, suicide, IRA, etc. was to identify the more unusual ones which could conceivably have had a political impact on the ensuing by-election, one way or another. I think listing all just misses the point. Less is more, surely? RodCrosby Can we keep it to commonly-understood "un-natural deaths"? BTW, if it's not clear, the ones I added since 1945 are this entire subset. Common-or-garden causes would be best left to the biographies, IMHO.

[edit] 1997-2001

  • dead: Michael Shersby, Gordon McMaster, Derek Fatchett, Roger Stott, Alan Clark, Michael Colvin, Bernie Grant, Clifford Forsythe, Donald Dewar, Audrey Wise
  • resigned due to scandal: Piers Merchant
  • re-run: Mark Oaten
  • resigned for govt job: Alastair Goodlad (ambassador to .au), George Robertson (NATO sec-gen)
  • resigned for Welsh Assembly/Scottish Parliament: Cynog Dafis, Dennis Canavan
  • resigned for retirement: Betty Boothroyd

[edit] 2001-2005

  • dead: Jamie Cann, Raymond Powell, Paul Daisley, Jim Marshall
  • resigned for govt job: Terry Davis (CoE sec-gen), Peter Mandelson (European Commissioner)

[edit] 2005-

  • dead: Patsy Calton, Robin Cook

Some of the incumbents and victors seem to be in the wrong place on the chart. For instance, the Anti-Waste League is listed as incumbent when they were actually the victors in an upset. Homey 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, the 1918 Parliament list contains quite a few inaccuracies - I will attempt to fix it ASAP. All the others should be correct. Warofdreams talk 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Completeness

How complete is this listing for some of the earlier Parliaments?

In the 1935-45 Parliament, I can think of a few missing to start with: Lewes (1936) and Bodmin (1940, may have been uncontested, can't recall). New Progressive 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It should be complete back to 1959, before which only seats which changed hands at the by-election are listed. Warofdreams talk 10:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to make it more complete, there is a list of all by-elections (and their results) dating back to 1945 on this website. New Progressive 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If a complete list is desired then it's not difficult to find the information - F. W. S. Craig's 'Chronology of British Parliamentary Byelections' is the book. However I think the article would probably have to be split by timeframe if it included every byelection since 1918. David | Talk 12:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to table

I've made various changes to the table, including using reverse chronological order and experimentally merging the last three Parliaments. Does anyone have any opinions on the the advantages or disadvantages of these? Warofdreams talk 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it now looks weired as chronologically one has to go in both directions. Also we've lost the note on the 1918-1922 Parliament about the confusion of the Coalition and this should stay. Timrollpickering 09:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to go through and change the whole article into reverse chronological order, if there are no objections to this. Reversing the order has the advantages that the most recent by-elections are listed first. It should also permit a more natural division of the article should it grow further and need to be split over more than one page. I'm not concerned either way about the note; I was unsure it was needed, but if there is a desire to keep it, that's fine with me. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid Ulster

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby Serious confusion(well it was confusing, in a way only NI can be!) over the 1955/56 by-elections, not just here but in other sources, mostly having Charles Beattie incorrectly standing in and winning the 1956 by-election. Have corrected the entry. The candidate in 1956 was George Forrest.

Source: "Who's Who of British Members of Parliament - Volume IV 1945-1979 Editors: Stenton & Lees"

On Mitchell... "b. in Cork 1931. A Building Inspector. Served a sentence of 10 years' penal servitude..for taking part in the raid on the depot of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers on 17 Oct 1954. A Sinn Fein Member. Elected for Mid Ulster in May 1955 but was declared incapable of election on 18 July 1955, when a new writ was moved. Again elected at the by-election on 11 Aug 1955 but a petition to unseat him on the grounds that he was a felon was upheld by the Northern Ireland High Court on 7 Oct 1955 and by the House of Commons on 25 Oct 1955; his opponent was declared elected. Unsuccessfully contested Mid-Ulster again at a by-election in May 1956 and in 1959, 1964 and 1966 * [1955]" (The * means that Mitchell was definitely alive at the time of publication in 1981. The [1955] means Dod 1955 was the source of the bulk of the information.)

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby comments: Wikipedia states that the 1955 general election result was nullified on 18 July 1955 by a 197 to 63 vote of Parliament. Does that mean that his service ended on 18th July 1955, or retrospectively, so in fact he was never elected? If the former, did he technically have a second term from the date of the 1955 by-election until the second nullification on 25 Oct 1955? If the latter, why the second nullification? Very confusing.


On Mitchell's unfortunate successor, Charles Beattie, Stenton/Lees says... "A Farmer and Auctioneer. Member of Omagh Rural District Council. An Ulster Unionist Member. Unsuccessfully contested Mid Ulster at the 1955 General Election and after his opponent had been declared incapable of election, at the by-election in Aug. 1955. Declared elected by the Northern Ireland High Court on 7 Oct 1955, after his opponent had again been declared incapable of election, and took his seat on 25 Oct 1955. On 15 Dec 1955 the House of Commons Select Committee on Elections recommended that his election be declared invalid because he held an office of profit under the Crown as a member of three Northern Ireland National Insurance and National Assistance Tribunals; this recommendation was accepted by the House on 7 Feb 1956. A Bill was passed in Mar. 1956 indemnifying him from all the consequences of sitting and voting while disqualified but it did not validate his election; a new writ was moved on 19 Apr 1956 * [1956]"

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby comments. Beattie has no year of birth given. He is described as an Ulster Unionist, by implication 'official', although he is often cited in other sources as 'Independent Unionist.' (His successor, George Forrest, was elected in 1956 as 'Independent Unionist' but later became 'official' Ulster Unionist.) David Boothroyd says Beattie did not take his seat and has the date of his service as starting on 7th Oct 1955, apparently the date of the election petition decision. Would it not be retrospective from the date of the by-election? Not sure myself. Stenton/Lees says he took his seat on 25th Oct 1955, coincidentally the day they say Mitchell was declared incapable by the HofC for the second time. An interesting point is that Beattie's 'election' was never validated. Was this man really ever a member of the HofC or just an embarrassing 'accident'? Never 'elected', never validated and ineligible to sit at all, yet apparently took 'his' seat! Undoubtedly the most chimeral person ever associated with the House of Commons...

It's also pretty unclear who gained what from whom...

1955 GE: SF gain from Irish Republican? Vacant Seat?

1955 BE: SF hold? or UU gain from SF ? Neither??

1956 BE: Ind U gain from UU? or Ind U gain from SF? Neither??

Must also hold the record for number of MPs in shortest space of time. 4 in less than 12 months. O'Neill, Mitchell(?), Beattie(?), Forrest.

There's a bit of confusion, in part because SF MPs don't actually take their seats, but if they had done so then I reckon Mitchell would have been able to vote in the Commons in the interim as MP for Mid Ulster. With regards who gained what from whom, I think the best precedents to follow (or if not then these also need changing) are the 1961 Bristol South-East by-election (Labour's Tony Benn tops the poll but the seat is awarded to his Conservative opponent on petition due to Benn being ineligible - we list this as a Conservative gain) and the 1997 Winchester by-election (Mark Oaten's original narrow election is declared void on petition and he wins the by-election by a rather larger result - we list him as the sitting MP and the seat as not being a gain). So to answer your questions:
1955 GE: I'd list this as SF gain from Independent Republican.
1955 BE: Trickier but I'd list SF as the holding party. The Bristol precedent suggests we should declare this to be an UU gain.
1956 BE: ...so this would make the UU the holdng party and an Ind Unionist gain.
And another confusing point - Forrest held his seat in 1959 in official Unionist colours so was this retained or not? Normally when an MP's change of party is "upheld" by the voters this is listed as a gain so I'd suggest this was not retained by the "party" (though there wasn't one!) but add a footnote stating that the person did. Timrollpickering 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this would best be explained by a timeline:
May 26, 1955: General election in Mid-Ulster: Mitchell 29,737, Beattie 29,477. Mitchell declared elected. He does not (can not? in Belfast Gaol) take the oath.
July 8: No petition having been presented but the member being apparently disqualified, a resolution of the House of Commons calls for a certificate of his conviction to be presented.
July 18: The certificate having been presented, a resolution of the House of Commons declares the seat vacant and orders the warrant for the electing of a new member.
August 11: Byelection: Mitchell 30,392, Beattie 29,586. Mitchell declared elected. He does not (can not? in Belfast Gaol) take the oath.
August 16: Mid-Ulster Unionist Association announces that it will petition against the return on the grounds that the successful candidate is disqualified as a felon.
August 25: Petition lodged.
October 7: High Court of Northern Ireland allows the election petition and declares the return of Mitchell undue, and that Beattie is duly elected.
October 25: Beattie takes the oath. However, he never makes a maiden speech. He votes in 19 divisions during his Parliamentary career before notice is taken that he may be disqualified. Technically, he is liable to a £500 fine for each.
December 19: Select Committee of the House of Commons reports that Beattie was disqualified by virtue of offices of profit under the crown. (Interestingly there had been many cases after the 1955 general election in which members were found to have such offices, and were given indemnities and kept their seats, but Beattie was distinguished because the issue was so widely canvassed at his byelection)
January 20, 1956: Mid-Ulster Unionist Association decides not to nominate a candidate.
February 7: Resolution of the House accepts the findings of the Select Committee and declares Beattie incapable of election.
February 9: Bill introduced to indemnify Beattie against the fines for voting while disqualified. It passes.
April 19: Edward Heath successfully moves for a writ for the electing of a new member.
April 28: When nominations close, George Forrest is in the field as an Independent Unionist.
May 8: Byelection: Forrest 28,605, Mitchell 24,124, O'Neill 6,421. Forrest declared elected.
May 15: Forrest takes the oath.
What I haven't been able to find is when exactly it was realised Beattie might be disqualified. David | Talk 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Any idea when Forrest became an official Unionist? Did he take the whip immediately upon arrival in the Commons? Timrollpickering 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


RodCrosby 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby
Keele says that Mid-Ulster 1959 was an Ind.Unionist hold and 1964 an Ulster Unionist Hold(sic), implying taking the whip between 1959 and 1964.
Wikipedia says a UU hold in 1959(sic) and UU hold in 1964, implying taking the whip between 1956 and 1959. Take your pick!
ElectionsIreland.org lists Forrest as a UU candidate in 1959 but is a little confused on other details. A Google search doesn't reveal much else of specific substance.
In the 1960s Forrest was a prominent pro O'Neill Unionist and reviled by some (in 1967 he was pulled off a July 12th platform and kicked unconscious by Orange Order members) - could it be that his taking the whip in the Commons and local endorsement by the Mid Ulster Unionist Association were significantly separate matters?
(By the way can you not break up other people's comments - it makes it very difficult to read them.) Timrollpickering 16:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Fred Craig, Forrest joined the Unionist group before his first re-election, and was an official candidate at every election after then. The Who's Who of British MPs has him joining the Ulster Unionist Group but does not give a date. The Times, May 11, 1956 (immediately after the election) reports his intention to take the Unionist whip. He was an official Unionist candidate in East Tyrone at the 1958 Stormont election. David | Talk 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And if all this isn't complicated enough, several of the other party identifications for the 1950s are unclear - see Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)#History and Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)#Members of Parliament. The MPs elected in 1950 and 1951 are described on Wikipedia as various Independent Nationalists, Independent Republicans and the Irish Nationalist Party - which, from recollection, in this period was little more than a collection of effectively independents! Does anyone feel brave enough to sort all that out! Timrollpickering 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the side issue of whether it is a record number of MPs in twelve months, I think it may be, for a single-member constituency. Belfast West came close in 1950/1, but it was several months over, and the first and last MPs were the same person. Warofdreams talk 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little sceptical given the poorer state of health care and turnover in some earlier periods, especially when it was easier to change seat and full ministers had to seek re-election. There may be some, especially in the 1885-1886 and c 1910 period that had three elections each delivering a new MP in twelve months. Timrollpickering 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Unionist Party 1912-1965

Just to float an idea before mass changes - the Scottish Unionist Party was a nominally separate entity between 1912 and 1965 - so should we list all Conservatives in Scotland in the period as "Scottish Unionist" and use colour #5555FF rather than #3333CC? We do the same for the Ulster Unionists. Timrollpickering 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My view is no, because the Unionist Party was part of the National Union at this time and there was no difference in policy. It's analagous with not having a different colour for the Labour/Co-operatives. The Ulster Unionists are substantially different because they had the Stormont Parliament and a different policy. David | Talk 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWI & WW2

RodCrosby As this page becomes more comprehensive and detailed, I'll say in advance (having calculated these figures 20 years ago) that I think it's notable that 23 MPs died on active service during the Second World War, and 22 MPs died on active service during the First World War. Remarkable figures given the average age of MPs at that time (how many were even eligible for national service?), and that 8-10% casualties is considered by modern military commanders as unacceptable. By the way, how many MPs are on active service in Iraq?

  • There is a difference in that national service isn't in place in Iraq. You could equally ask how many MPs died in the Second Boer War (I believe the answer is none). Warofdreams talk 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby Did I say 'National Service'? I said active service, and I think you will find that a large number were volunteers...

Many MPs signed up even though some were in their 60s. The most remarkable was Hitchin Conservative MP Sir Arnold Wilson, who spent most of the 1930s saying what a reasonable chap Hitler was, but eventually realised he had been duped and rejoined the RAF. He was shot down and killed in 1940. Austin Hopkinson, the Independent MP for Mossley whose article I wrote the other week, rejoined the Navy. One of those killed in the Second World War was Private P.M. Munro of the Palace of Westminster Home Guard. I think there may have been some sitting MPs killed in the South African War in 1900 - there is a list in Fred Craig's Chronology of British Parliamentary byelections. David | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Powell & Pressburger film "One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)" has a character Sir George Corbett, K.C.I.E., C.M.G., F.R.G.S., D.S.O., M.P., Rear-Gunner of "B for Bertie". Based on Sir Arnold Wilson, who was considered to play the part, before he was posted missing...RodCrosby
I have now checked Craig and no MPs died in South Africa, although three were killed in the Crimea. Now I remember, there is a complete list of MPs who served in the Second World War in Quintin Hogg's book "The Left was never Right", pages 11-13. David | Talk 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(Although it doesn't seem to be complete because it doesn't list Hopkinson) David | Talk 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent victors who hold seats for parties

We need to get a consistent position on this. In addition to Mid Ulster 1956, there were a lot of Independents who took seats during the Second World War in defiance of the truce between the parties and then joined a party (usually Labour) in Parliament, sometimes holding the seat in their new colours. We also have a few cases of MPs being elected by renegade local associations who weren't happy with the official candidate and again becoming full party men by the general election. Plus we have the problem of multiple labels meaning the same thing (e.g. Lipson in Cheltenham 1937 - elected as an Independent Conservative, holding his seat as an National Independent supporting a basically Conservtaive government).

I'm inclined towards the view that everything is a gain unless the seat is held by the same basic label - so the independents are not retaining their seats. But does anyone have a better rule to follow? Timrollpickering 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby basically agreed I think. As I said previously, the convention is to compare changes with the winning party-label at the previous GE. Irrespective of candidate changes, floor-crossing and by-elections. Where necessary, clarify the position using notes or brackets.

I would say if the same member is re-elected, that's the key point for whether a byelection change is 'retained'. As for gains, yes, I agree. I would still count Liverpool Scotland in 1929 as a gain although in real terms it was nothing of the sort. David | Talk 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • btw, am I right in thinking Wing Commander Millington, Chelmsford(Common Wealth) is still alive? AFAIK, he and John Profumo, Kettering(Con) are the last of the pre-1945 GE intake.

[edit] Time for a split?

128K long at last edit. Growing like topsy. Time to split it up and "fork off"? I would think the best splits would be byelections up to 1918, 1918-1945, and 1945-date. David | Talk 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • which follows Stenton/Lees Vols II,III & IV. Makes sense.RodCrosby
    • Yes, please go for it. Only problem could be that the 1945-date article will still be very long. Warofdreams talk 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps another split at 1979. David | Talk 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Can I suggest 1950 and 1983 as better divisions? That way the breaks would coincide with boundary reviews (and in the former case, Craig's volume). Also it would be easier for notes on the multi-member seats and the University constituencies if they didn't run five years into the new page. If 1918-1950 is too long we can always create another split with the 1931 election. Timrollpickering 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appointments to ministerial office

Anyone got a good box sized summary and link for by-elections caused by appointment to Ministerial office? Timrollpickering 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Appointed as Minister for Administrative Affairs" (insert name of office)? Warofdreams talk 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, though I think a link explaining the law of the day would be useful as well. Timrollpickering 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As this would affect a great deal of by-elections were we to have complete lists, perhaps the law should be explained in the introduction? Warofdreams talk 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh East, some record?

Just noticed that the electors of Edinburgh East endured 7 parliamentary elections in 10 years. 1945(ge), 1945(be), 1947(be), 1950(ge), 1951(ge), 1954(be), 1955(ge). RodCrosby

Ormskirk another - 5 in 5 years. 1950(ge), 1951(be), 1951(ge), 1953(be), 1955(ge)

Try Middlesex - five in two years, six in four: 1766 (be), Mar 1768 (ge), Dec 1768 (be), Feb 1769 (be), Mar 1769 (be), Apr 1769 (be).
The voters of North Down had similarly frequent votes: 1921 (be), Feb 1922 (be), Apr 1922 (be). They then became part of Down, which voted in 1922 (ge), 1923 (ge), 1924 (ge). Warofdreams talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another party winning at the general election

Putting in footnotes for all cases where a different party from the one defending/holding/gaining the seat at the next general election is getting chaotic - look especially at List of UK by-elections (1931 - 1950). How about expanding the infomation in the "Retained?" box to include things like "No - won by Labour" for all cases where another party wins?

Also for both completeness and tidyness I'd include a "Yes" in all cases when the same party defends, holds and retains the seat - otherwise no box appears at all. Timrollpickering 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Shouldn't the colours that are used to signify a gain be standardised? Currently, we've got different schemes for Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff, as regards LibDem and SNP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full dates

I'd like to include the full date of each by-election in the tables. As they go back, there are more and more each year. However, I don't want to increase the width of the table any further, so I'd like to remove the "Retained" column, turn the information in it into notes, and make the notes more prominent by placing the reference numbers in the "By-election" column, after the name of the constituency. Does anyone object to this proposal? Warofdreams talk 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done the two most recent Parliaments, as an example. Warofdreams talk 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_807e.html"