Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1951
|WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United Kingdom||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
"This was largely because, unlike 1950, not every seat had a Liberal candidate, and those that did tended to be Conservative rather than Labour seats. Hence more Conservative votes were diverted to the Liberals than Labour votes, thus obscuring the true position. In addition (but less significantly) under the first past the post electoral system, the Labour votes translated into increased majorities for MPs in already safe seats, rather than into gaining new seats."
This analysis strikes me as being possibly quite right, but also (i) debatable and (ii) perhaps tending towards POV. I think it certainly needs a source, or it surely qualifies as original research. Any thoughts? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue attracted that much attention at the time, though Attlee himself blamed the collapse of Liberal candidates in a radio interview.
- One key factor is that in ten seats the Conservatives couldn't get votes. Four of them were unopposed Conservative returns in Northern Ireland where votes were somewhat static and going by other 1950s elections some 160,000 extra votes could have been added. Three seats in Wales saw them decline to stand against sitting Liberal MPs who were considered sufficiently agreeable to not waste resources against (and one had a marginal over Labour though the other two had rare safe Liberal seats) and again going by other 1950s results 22,000 additional votes could have been found. In another constituency Churchill secured no Conservative candidate against Violet Bonham Carter (due to their personal friendship) and otherwise aother 18,000 votes could have been garnered. And in Bolton and Huddersfield the Conservatives and Liberals had pacts to stand in just one of each town's two seats. Had both parties contested both then the Conservatives could have had an additional 12,000 in Bolton and Labour 2,000 less and probably similar in Huddersfield. Overall this would have made the popular vote figures much tighter, and Labour would have probably had four more seats and the Conservativs one less (they never actually took a Huddersfield seat under the pact). Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well spotted - they didn't even stand in this election (see  for source). Warofdreams talk 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is Labour in "poll position" if the Tories actually won? Shouldn't it be Conservative listed first, then Labour? Crowqueen 03:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- As with all articles in the series, the parties are listed in order of number of votes. If we used number of seats won, a party contesting a single seat which narrowly won would appear above a party which won a decent vote across the country, without winning any. Warofdreams talk 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The vote figures are wrong, labour only polled around 200,000 more votes, not over a million more i think the 1950 figures have become mixed with the 1951 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The vote figures are correct, I suspect that you are thinking of figures which combine the Conservative and National Liberal tallies. There are arguments for doing so, but they did remain two separate parties at this date. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
File:1951 UK Election Map.png Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:1951 UK Election Map.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
By my calculation, there's a discrepancy of 349 votes behind the total of all votes listed in the table, and the total given beneath the table as votes cast. I presume a small party is missing?--220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)