Appendix 1: The Statistics
The House of Commons 1945-74
Feb. Oct. 1945 1950 1951 1955 1959 1964 1966 1970 1974 1974
ConselVative 213 299 321 345 365 304 253 330 297 277
Labour 393 315 295 277 258 317 363 288 301 319
Liberal 12 9 6 6 6 9 12 6 14 13
Plaid Cymru 2 3
Sc. Nat. P. 1 7 11
Others (G.B.) 20 1 2
Others (N.I.) 2 2 3 2 4 12 12
Total 640 625 625 630 630 630 630 630 635 635 J\:) c.o (.)0 N 1.0 ~ National Results, 1945-74
Electorate Welsh &: Scottish Others and turnout Votes cast Conservative Labour Liberal Nationalist Communist (mainly N. Ireland)
73.3% 100% 39.8% 48.3% 9.1% 0.2% 0.4% 2.1% 1945* 32,836,419 24,082,612 9,577,667 11,632,891 2,197,191 46,612 102,760 525,491 84.0% 100% 43.5% 46.1% 9.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.9% 1950 34,269,770 28,772,671 12,502,567 13,266,592 2,621,548 27,288 91,746 262,930 82.5% 100% 48.0% 48.8% 2.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 1951 34,645,573 28,595,668 13,717,538 13,948,605 730,556 18,219 21,640 159,110 76.8% 100% 49.7% 46.4% 2.7% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 1955 34,858,263 26,760,493 13,311,936 12,404,970 722,405 57,231 33,144 230,807 78.7% 100% 49.4% 43.8% 5.9% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 1959 35,397,080 27,859,241 13,749,830 12,215,538 1,638.571 99,309 30,897 145,090 77.1% 100% 43.4% 44.1% 11.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.6% 1964 35,892,572 27,655,374 12,001,396 12,205,814 3,092,878 133,551 45,932 169,431 75.8% 100% 41.9% 47.9% 8.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.7% 1966 35,964,684 27,263,606 11,418,433 13,064,951 2,327,533 189,545 62,112 201,032 72.0% 100% 46.4% 43.0% 7.5% 1.3% 0.1% 1.7% 1970 39,342,0l3 28,344,798 13,145,123 12,178,295 2,117,033 381,818 37,970 486,557 Feb 78.1% 100% 37.8% 37.1% 19.3% 2.6% 0.1% 3.1% 1974 39,770,724 31,340,162 11,872,180 11,646,391 6,058,744 804,554 32,743 958,293 Oct 72.8% 100% 35.8% 39.2% 18.3% 3.5% 0.1% 3.1% 1974 40,072,971 29,189,178 10,464,817 11,457,079 5,346,754 1,005,938 17,426 897,164
*University seats are excluded: other 1945 figures are adjusted to eliminate the distortions introduced by double voting in the 15 two-member seats then existing. APPENDIX 1 295 Regional Results
The tables on the following pages are based on the Standard Regions and the Conurbations, as currently defined by the General Register Office before the 1974 reorganisation of local government.
South-East includes Hants., Berks., Oxon., Beds., Herts., Essex, Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Greater London. South-West includes Dorset, Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Glos. and Wilts. East Anglia includes Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs., and Hunts. East Midlands includes Lines. (less Lindsey), Notts., Leics., Northants. and Derbys. (less the High Peak Constituency). West Midlands includes Hereford, Worcs., Warwicks., Staffs. and Salop. Yorkshire includes the East and West Ridings, the York constituency and Lindsey. North-West includes Cheshire, Lanes. and the High Peak constituency. North includes the North Riding, Durham, Northumberland, Westmorland and Cumberland. Industrial Wales includes Glamorgan, Monmouthshire and the Llanelli constituency. Industrial Scotland includes all of Ayrshire, Bute, Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire, Lanarkshire, Stirlingshire, Clackmannan, Midlothian, West Lothian and Fife (except for the East Fife constituency).
The sub-regions are largely self-explanatory. When a city or conurbation crosses the boundary or a constituency, the constituency is included if more than half its population lies within the area concerned. The Clydeside conurbation includes Hamilton but not West Dunbartonshire. The swing is calculated on the basis of all votes cast in each region or sub-region.
Seats
England 253 255 8 0 72.5 -6.5 38.9 40.1 20.2 0.8 -1.9
Wales 8 23 2 3 76.6 -3.2 23.9 49.5 15.5 11.1 -2.6
Scotland 16 41 3 11 14.8 -4.2 24.7 36.3 8.3 30.7 -4.0
Great Britain 277 319 13 14 73.0 -6.0 36.7 40.2 18.8 4.3 -2.2
Northern Ireland 12 67.7 -2.2 - 100.0
United Kingdom 277 319 13 26 72.8 -6.0 35.8 39.2 18.3 6.7 -2.1 296 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECfION OF OCfOBER 1974
Seats oJ c= y ~ '~ ~ ~ 0 ... '.Q ~ ~ ~ ... 0 ~'~ ... I:! > I:! .""If .,Q '.• r-- i :e -5 0 i ,g ..s ~"'a> REGIONS 8 0 ~ ~; U 0 South-West Region 32 8 3 o 77.0 -5.0 43.1 29.1 27.4 0.4 -1.2 Devon and Cornwall 11 1 3 o 77.1 -4.5 44.6 23.4 31.5 0.5 -1.1 Rest of Region 21 7 0 o 77.0 -5.1 42.4 31.9 25.4 0.3 -1.3 East Anglian Region 12 4 o 75.9 -6.1 43.8 35.5 20.6 0.1 -1.3 East Midlands Region 15 21 0 o 74.9 -6.1 38.2 43.1 17.2 1.5 -1.9 West Midlands Region 21 35 0 o 72.1 -5.7 37.5 43.9 17.8 0.8 -2.1 Conurbation 6 21 0 o 68.8 -5.7 35.3 47.5 15.7 1.5 -2.6 Rest of Region 15 14 0 o 74.9 -5.7 39.3 41.0 19.5 0.2 -1.6 Yorkshire Region 15 38 1 0 71.3 -7.6 31.9 46.9 20.4 0.8 -2.2 Conurbation 4 16 1 0 72.0 -7.7 32.4 46.1 21.0 0.5 -2.3 Rest of Region 11 20 0 0 70.9 -7.6 31.7 47.3 20.0 1.0 -2.0 North-West Region 26 51 1 0 73.1 -5.0 37.0 44.6 18.0 0.4 -2.1 S.E. Lancashire Conurbation 7 21 0 72.5 -5.6 34.6 45.1 19.7 0.6 -2.3 Merseyside Conurbation 4 10 0 0 70.0 -5.2 36.7 49.0 14.0 0.3 -2.5 Rest of Region 15 20 0 0 75.1 -4.4 38.9 42.5 18.3 0.3 -1.8 Northern Region 9 29 1 o 71.2 -6.0 31.7 49.9 17.1 0.3 -3.1 Tyneside Conurbation 2 8 0 o 69.1 -6.0 28.8 55.2 15.7 0.3 -3.5 Rest of Region 7 21 1 o 71.9 -6.0 32.5 48.3 17.6 1.6 -3.0 Wales 8 23 2 3 76.6 -3.2 23.9 49.5 15.5 11.1 -2.4 Industrial Wales 4 19 0 0 75.4 -3.3 21.9 56.5 12.8 8.8 -2.6 Rural Wales 4 4 2 3 78.8 -3.1 27.4 37.0 20.5 15.1 -2.1 Scotland 16 41 3 11 74.8 -4.2 24.7 36.3 8.3 30.7 -4.0 Clydeside Conurbation 4 19 0 72.9 -4.1 21.1 45.1 5.4 28.4 -4.5 Rest of Industrial Belt 6 18 0 1 76.9 -3.4 22.5 40.2 6.8 30.5 -4.3 Highlands 1 1 2 3 70.5 -5.1 24.6 18.9 21.0 35.5 -1.2 Rest of Scotland 6 3 1 7 75.0 -5.1 32.9 22.6 11.6 32.9 -3.3 APPENDIX 1 297 Seats I:l .J be .~ be u .13 ~.!3 ~ 0 .... ~ ~ ~ .... bel '0 I:l ... I:l • C .D .c: > d .D .c: .~~ 0 .D " '" ~ 0 .D ..." BIG CITIES u ....'" ~ 0 ~ a~ U ....'" ~ 0 "'>« Greater London 41 51 -- 66.6 -8.1 37.4 43.8 17.1 1.7 -1.9 Glasgow 2 11 -- 68.7 -4.4 20.2 49.0 4.2 26.6 -4.3 Birmingham 2 10 -- 65.9 -5.7 34.7 49.8 14.3 1.2 -3.1 Liverpool I 7 -- 65.5 -3.8 32.6 54.6 12.5 0.3 -3.5 Manchester 1 7 -- 65.5 -5.4 31.5 52.9 15.0 0.6 -2.8 Edinburgh 4 3 -- 73.7 -5.5 32.2 33.3 10.7 23.8 -4.1 Leeds 2 4 -- 64.7 -9.4 30.9 49.0 19.8 0.3 -3.8 Sheffield 1 5 -- 67.7 -8.5 26.7 54.0 14.9 4.4 -1.5 Bristol 1 4 -- 72.5 -5.1 34.7 45.6 18.8 0.9 -2.3 Cardiff 2 2 -- 72.9 -3.7 35.5 43.2 17.3 4.0 -3.7 Coventry - 4 -- 73.4 -5.5 30.6 52.8 15.4 1.2 -2.0 Newcastle 1 3 -- 67.3 -5.0 31.4 54.2 14.4 - -3.1 Teesside - 4 -- 68.1 -6.6 31.4 54.9 13.3 0.4 -2.7 Bradford - 3 -- 70.6 -9.1 33.2 48.5 18.0 0.3 -2.4 Kingston upon Hull - 3 - - 66.6 -6.5 24.7 57.1 18.2 - -2.9 Leicester - 3 - - 69.8 -6.7 36.2 46.8 11.7 5.3 -2.6 Nottingham - 3 -- 66.7 -9.5 33.5 49.5 15.5 1.5 -3.4 Plymouth 2 1 -- 74.7 -2.5 42.5 40.1 17.2 0.2 -2.8 Stoke on Trent - 3 - - 68.1 -5.7 25.7 60.8 13.5 - -3.5 Wolverhampton 1 2 -- 68.7 -5.3 32.2 48.4 15.4 4.0 -3.1 Constituency Results On. the left-hand side of these tables there are listed for the 623 constituencies in Great Britain (but not for the 12 in Northern Ireland) some of the most significant characteristics revealed by the 1971 census. % Owner-occupiers: the proportion of households in dwellings owned or being bought by their occupiers. % Council tenants: the proportion of households in accommodation rented from local councils. % Professional and managerial: the proportion of economically active and retired persons in the Registrar-General's Occupational Categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13. % Non-manual: the proportion of economically active and retired persons in the Registrar-General's Occupational Categories 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6 and 13. % In manufacturing: the proportion of employed persons in standard industrial classifications 3-19. % With A levels: the proportion of employed persons who have Ordinary National, or School, Certificate or A Levels (or Scottish equivalents). The last four categories are based on the more detailed questions put to 10% of the respondents to the census. In The British General Election of February 1974 constituency data is 298 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 available for (a) % over 65 (b) % with cars and (c) % with new Commonwealth roots. On pp. 326-8 the constituencies with significant numbers engaged in agriculture, mining or full-time study, as well as those with most Irish-born and most from the New Commonwealth. Distribution of Census Characteristics by Constituency This table is designed to show the approximate rank ordering of all constituencies in the following tables as well as the range between the highest and lowest figures for any characteristic. Ranking Rank % % % % % % order in order in Owner- Council Professional & Non- In Manu- With A decile number occupiers tenants Managerial Manual facturing Levels 0% 1 0.7 4.0 3.0 18.3 5.8 1.9 10% 62 24.1 13.9 6.3 27.1 18.8 3.9 20% 124 34.1 17.8 8.0 30.0 22.5 4.8 30% 187 40.6 21.1 9.0 32.4 26.2 5.5 40% 259 47.8 24.3 10.5 34.5 29.5 6.2 50% 317 51.4 27.3 11.9 36.5 33.1 6.9 60% 374 54.5 31.3 13.1 38.8 35.9 7.8 70% 436 57.8 35.4 14.4 41.9 40.3 8.8 80% 498 60.8 40.9 15.9 44.8 44.2 10.0 90% 561 65.8 54.7 18.5 50.6 49.6 12.1 100% 623 82.2 96.9 28.3 69.0 68.7 26.0 On the right-hand side the following tables present the election results in virtually the same form as in previous Nuffield Studies, except that the old distinction between borough and county seats is abandoned and the constituencies are grouped by county (using the old administrative boundaries). The Swing (the average of the Conservative % gain and the Labour % loss) is given only where the two main parties shared in the top two places in the poll, both in February and October 1974. The 'Change in Lib.' colqmn shows the change in the Liberal % of the total vote in seats fought in both 1974 elections. A * denotes Liberal intervention in October 1974. The Other column gives all individual percentage votes. The 29 Communists are identified by a c. F or England there is a separate column for the 89 National Front Candidates. For Scotland, the single National Front candidate is identified by an f. (There were no National Front candidates in Wales.) England ~ OJ ' 52.3 28.6 14.7 43.5 26.7 8.9 City of Chester 75.4 -4.9 44.0 35.2 20.8 - - -2.9 -1.7 58.8 27.5 8.6 33.0 46.4 6.6 Crewe 73.2 -4.5 32.9 49.7 17.4 -- -0.8 -2.8 75.2 16.2 23.5 55.7 38.1 12.4 Hazel Grovet 82.4 -4.5 44.9 15.3 39.8 -- -6.5 - 60.8 22.4 22.7 47.0 32.3 11.9 Knutsford 76.8 -5.4 51.0 22.6 26.4 - - -1.4 - 58.8 25.4 17.8 40.8 40.5 8.5 Macclesfield 78.7 -5.5 50.3 29.5 20.2 - - -3.6 -0.3 54.3 29.2 13.6 34.9 35.9 6.1 Nantwich 76.2 -5.3 43.7 36.5 19.8 - - -3.9 -1.6 56.6 28.5 14.5 36.5 39.0 7.9 Northwich 78.6 -5.0 45.1 34.0 20.9 -- -2.8 -1.6 62.0 26.3 17.4 43.3 44.2 9.7 Runcorn 77.6 -5.3 46.1 36.1 16.9 - 0.9 -4.0 -1.3 44.7 41.2 9.1 31.2 54.1 4.4 Stalybridge BeHyde 73.2 -6.7 31.7 51.7 15.9 - 0.7 * -2.4 62.6 16.0 11.4 41.7 38.0 6.8 Stockport, North 78.0 -4.0 39.2 43.6 17.2 - - -4.4 -2.0 51.1 31.4 8.6 34.1 41.3 4.8 South 74.5 -4.9 34.0 45.8 20.2 - - -4.5 -1.8 51.9 21.2 11.8 44.0 30.5 6.8 Wallasey 76.3 -3.1 43.9 40.5 14.3 1.5 - -8.8 -0.4 61.7 25.5 20.6 50.5 27.7 10.4 Wirral 75.5 -6.0 50.8 31.6 17.6 -- -1.2 -0.9 59.7 19.5 14.3 54.0 16.1 5.9 Cornwall, Bodmint 82.3 -1.0 45.5 10.5 44.0 - - -0.2 - 58.8 15.8 16.4 33.6 9.7 5.8 Cornwall, North 80.5 -5.7 42.0 6.4 51.2 - 0.4 -6.7 - 62.7 18.0 12.3 34.4 27.2 5.6 Falmouth BeCamborne 75.8 -5.1 47.2 35.7 12.7 - 4.4 -11.5 +1.8 55.0 19.2 15.2 33.1 10.5 7.8 St. Ives 73.7 -5.6 45.3 24.8 29.9 - - -1.8 - 60.4 19.0 15.8 39.2 11.9 7.0 Trurot 78.7 -2.8 39.0 20.5 39.8 - 0.7 +3.9 - 42.5 45.1 9.1 35.0 28.5 5.8 Cumberland, Carlisle 78.8 -2.0 36.0 51.1 12.9 - - * -1.6 49.9 16.7 16.5 36.6 19.5 6.7 Penrith Bethe Border 73.0 -6.8 58.1 24.1 17.8 - - -0.9 -2.8 38.8 39.2 9.5 29.2 38.9 5.9 Whitehaven 77.1 -0.3 30.5 55.5 14.2 -- * -3.2 47.4 23.1 11.2 30.8 41.8 5.5 Workington 75.8 -0.6 32.3 56.0 11.7 - - * -2.2 57.2 22.1 11.8 50.7 41.9 6.5 Derbyshire, Belper 81.6 -2.2 37.4 47.1 15.5 - - * -3.2 37.1 36.8 5.9 21.0 26.2 3.1 Bo1sover 74.5 -3.8 16.1 70.5 13.4 - - * -0.8 40.6 36.0 7.6 31.9 38.5 4.8 Chesterfield 72.6 -7.5 25.9 59.9 14.2 -- -3.3 -3.4 53.4 31.8 11.5 41.1 41.9 6.8 Derby, North 73.3 -5.8 37.6 44.5 17.5 0.4 -4.1 -2.5 54.2 25.2 8.1 33.2 49.9 5.4 South 69.5 -6.7 32.9 51.0 14.6 1.5 -3.5 -2.7 49.5 33.6 11.0 34.3 34.2 5.7 Derbyshire, North-East 75.7 -2.7 29.7 49.9 20.4 * -3.1 58.6 22.1 11.2 35.9 46.2 5.3 Derbyshire, South-East 80.2 -4.8 43.7 41.4 14.9 -3.6 -2.2 54.6 18.8 16.2 36.5 27.3 7.9 Derbyshire, West 78.5 -5.6 47.9 24.5 27.6 -0.5 56.0 22.8 12.5 34.5 39.0 6.5 High Peak 80.5 -4.8 41.4 37.1 21.5 -3.6/-0.2 57.3 24.8 7.0 23.7 50.3 3.0 Ilkeston 74.9 -6.6 27.3 55.5 17.2 -2.1 -2.4 61.8 15.8 15.3 35.8 17.5 5.5 Devon, Devon North 79.7 -6.8 36.6 14.2 48.1 1.0 -5.8 57.8 15.3 16.6 34.3 12.8 6.8 Devon, West 78.7 -3.6 50.0 13.1 36.9 -2.1 56.0 24.1 12.8 43.1 14.5 10.8 Exeter 80.3 -4.9 40.7 36.4 22.9 -5.9 1-2.3 62.3 17.2 17.7 40.6 14.0 8.6 Honiton 75.7 -6.3 53.8 16.4 29.8 -0.9 33.0 29.3 6.4 24.0 28.3 4.0 Plymouth, Devonport 73.5 -1.8 41.1 47.3 10.7 0.9 -6.1 1-2.5 39.5 42.5 8.8 35.6 29.2 5.9 Drake 75.4 -2.6 41.3 41.2 17.5 -2.9 -3.0 60.9 18.4 9.3 37.6 25.6 6.2 Sutton 75.2 -3.9 44.6 33.3 22.1 -4.4 -2.8 54.1 21.5 16.8 38.8 18.1 7.1 Tiverton 77.5 -4.9 46.7 16.5 36.8 -1.1 66.4 12.1 17.3 43.4 15.4 7.4 Torbay 73.0 -7.4 48.4 23.1 28.5 -1.9 59.1 18.7 16.9 38.0 16.3 8.1 Totnes 76.8 -4.5 45.2 20.0 34.8 +2.7 62.5 16.7 17.7 41.3 22.3 8.8 Dorset, Dorset North 79.2 -5.2 51.2 12.8 36.0 -3.2 57.0 19.5 13.0 36.3 16.0 8.2 Dorset, ::>outh 75.4 -6.8 45.9 33.2 20.9 -0.3 I -1.2 50.1 22.6 16.0 38.5 14.5 7.6 Dorset, West 77.9 -5.2 49.2 22.4 28.4 -3.8 65.3 16.5 14.2 39.0 33.2 6.8 Poole 75.3 -6.5 46.1 25.9 28.0 -3.2 42.0 39.5 9.4 28.8 37.1 4.7 Durham, Bishop Auckland 70.9 -7.5 31.3 52.8 15.9 -1. 9 1-3.8 48.0 37.9 10.1 37.6 33.4 5.3 Blaydon 72.9 -3.2 24.8 57.3 17.9 * -2.8 39.0 50.6 9.0 34.2 37.1 5.1 Chester-Ie-Street 74.7 -8.8 16.2 65.7 18.1 -8.1 38.0 39.1 6.8 28.5 40.8 4.3 Consett 68.6 -7.8 18.9 67.0 14.1 -4.6 -3.6 58.3 23.2 9.5 39.1 34.2 5.8 Darlington 74.4 -6.3 37.6 45.6 16.8 -5.8 -1.9 38.4 44.7 10.4 36.3 26.7 9.5 Durham 71.6 -9.2 24.7 58.5 16.8 -3.6 -4.2 38.0 42.1 7.7 24.8 37.5 4.3 Durham, North-West 71.1 -7.9 21.1 64.2 14.7 -3.6 -3.3 31.3 48.8 8.2 26.1 30.3 5.2 Easington 69.0 -4.9 18.3 65.8 15.9 * -1.8 26.3 57.9 7.9 31.5 44.4 4.6 Gateshead, East 70.3 -8.3 22.4 61.9 15.7 -5.0 -4.2 21.5 34.8 4.6 25.5 48.3 3.5 West 65.7 -8.5 21.9 68.6 9.5 -5.9 -4.7 46.4 40.7 8.0 27.8 48.9 4.4 HartieDool 72.4 -4.4 35.0 51.7 13.3 -4.0 C,)O * ,....0 (,)0 o J\:) .,...... '"~ ]-; ~ ~ CII 0·': .;: .... .:.. ~ 0:i ~ s:: .Jy ~w ~ :c !'~ ",'"bO .... .8 .~ CII ~ - ::s .... .:l ~ e 0 '" '" :2 ..c: '" ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fa 6] o~ t t~!' I. 8 ~ J:~Z «I .s.~.~ y s:l ..c: oB " :> 0.0 0 i :9 ~ .~il ~8 ~~ ~~ ~::e~ § ~~Constituency ~o ~~ U ..:l ..:l Z 0 0:3 CIl~ 30.3 54.8 6.1 26.6 21.1 3.6 Houghton-Ie-Spring 72.5 -2.6 10.1 68.5 21.4 - - * - 26.7 59.9 9.4 33.9 48.0 5.2 Jarrow 71.4 -5.3 22.3 62.8 14.9 - - * -3.6 24.1 46.4 7.9 30.7 37.4 4.0 South Shidds 64.7 -6.8 24.8 56.4 17.3 1.5 - * -4.1 32.1 51.9 6.0 26.7 44.6 3.7 Sunderland, North 67.0 -6.9 27.5 58.5 14.0 - - -2.3 -5.2 34.5 51.1 9.1 34.2 35.7 5.8 South 68.1 -7.1 30.0 55.0 15.0 - - -0.9 -5.0 39.4 56.2 11.6 39.6 43.6 5.5 Essex, Basildon 73.8 -8.2 32.2 47.9 19.0 - 0.9 -5.0 -0.6 48.4 35.1 14.2 41.6 35.6 6.7 Braintree 79.4 -4.9 39.5 37.4 23.1 -- -4.7 -0.8 60.5 24.7 22.0 55.3 27.0 8.9 Brentwood &: Ongar 77.2 -6.6 46.9 29.3 23.8 - - -4.0 - 60.1 25.7 17.4 50.6 33.2 8.4 Chelmsford 79.2 -4.7 41.6 23.2 35.2 -- +2.3 - 57.4 22.2 12.9 38.7 24.5 6.4 Colchester 76.2 -6.4 44.5 35.6 19.9 - - -3.6 -0.7 55.3 32.4 20.1 53.0 28.5 7.9 Epping Forest 73.3 -8.4 47.7 33.2 19.1 -- -3.1 -0.7 82.2 9.0 14.8 45.3 30.8 5.7 Essex, South East 73.7 -8.4 48.8 33.3 17.9 -- -4.5 +0.3 19.7 75.1 12.4 41.5 48.0 6.4 Harlow 75.2 -8.6 24.3 52.7 23.0 - - -2.5 - 72.3 11.1 14.4 39.6 24.7 6.9 Harwich 72.3 -8.4 46.7 29.8 23.5 -- -4.6 - 71.1 14.7 15.3 41.8 29.3 6.1 Maldon 76.3 -5.9 43.5 30.0 26.5 -- -3.0 - 54.0 23.4 17.3 39.3 28.9 8.1 Saffron Walden 78.1 -5.3 43.7 26.0 30.3 -- +0.4 - 50.8 14.9 13.0 39.2 23.3 6.4 Southend, East 68.8 -9.0 45.9 34.2 19.9 -- -2.6 +0.2 66.9 9.7 17.4 51.3 24.1 7.5 West 73.2 -7.0 47.6 19.1 33.3 - - -3.8 - 42.2 46.5 7.7 33.9 38.4 4.4 Thurrock 68.6 -9.8 24.4 55.6 20.0 -- -2.4 -2.2 G loucestershire 53.3 32.7 7.3 30.2 36.0 3.8 Bristol, North-East 71.2 -4.9 29.9 53.1 17.0 - - -3.7 -3.9 42.0 50.7 13.3 42.7 33.1 10.3 North-Westt 79.3 -3.3 40.9 42.1 17.0 -- -3.9 -1.2 40.0 52.0 5.6 28.0 37.4 3.4 South 69.4 -5.4 23.9 59.3 14.9 1.9 - -1.8 -3.1 64.6 23.3 9.3 36.2 38.8 5.4 South-East 76.2 -5.7 31.4 49.1 17.0 1.5 0.9 -0.5 -1.9 0.1 43.2 4.0 16.4 53.9 22.7 19.8 West 65.4 -7.3 47.0 23.7 29.3 -0.6 55.0 23.7 12.8 45.0 28.0 9.2 Cheltenham 75.0 -6.3 46.1 25.8 28.1 -3.2 52.2 22.9 16.4 39.0 24.7 8.4 Cirencester & Tewkesbury 76.7 -5.9 46.9 22.7 30.4 -1.4 59.8 23.8 9.9 38.7 34.0 5.6 Gloucester 78.7 -5.0 46.1 38.9 15.0 -4.6 -1.1 66.6 20.3 15.5 45.5 37.8 9.7 Gloucestershire, South 79.6 -4.2 42.0 35.2 22.8 -3.4 -1.5 61.6 21.9 12.6 33.4 37.7 6.3 Gloucestershire, West 80.2 -3.7 41.0 41.7 17.3 -3.9 +1.1 70.3 22.3 12.3 42.2 4,2.8 6.1 Kingswood 84.1 -2.6 38.5 44.0 17.5 -8.5 -1.0 59.8 23.7 14.4 36.8 41.1 7.8 Stroud 80.4 -5.0 43.8 31.1 24.7 0.4 -1.7 -0.9 58.4 19.0 14.6 43.5 21.2 9.0 Hampshire, Aldershot 72.8 -8.4 45.1 25.5 27.5 1.9 -1.5 46.6 33.9 13.5 41.0 29.5 6.8 Basingstoke 77.5 -5.7 43.2 33.9 21.8 1.1 -2.8 -0.8 61.0 5.8 14.8 44.4 17.0 7.4 Bournemouth, East 70.5 -8.1 51.7 21.0 25.2 2.1 -4.0 50.7 14.6 15.1 40.8 19.1 7.4 West 68.7 -7.4 50.7 25.1 24.2 -3.2 69.1 14.8 20.7 47.9 25.0 9.0 Christchurch & Lymington 74.7 -6.5 57.4 18.8 23.8 -1.4 63.9 22.0 14.5 43.4 33.4 8.1 Eastleigh 78.8 -6.5 45.0 31.9 23.1 -3.7 74.5 13.8 13.0 43.6 29.8 8.3 Fareham 77.0 -5.3 43.1 18.5 33.1 1.4 3.9 +2.3 52.9 22.4 7.3 30.4 25.6 5.9 Gosport 75.3 -6.0 47.5 28.9 23.6 +4.6 I +0.2 53.5 36.8 13.6 40.7 34.4 7.1 Havant & Waterloo 73.8 -6.2 44.7 26.3 29.0 -1.5 65.5 14.9 15.2 39.9 28.3 7.4 New Forest 74.2 -6.5 49.6 23.9 26.5 -4.2 59.6 16.1 14.4 37.3 19.5 8.3 Petersfie1d 76.5 -4.6 50.5 14.6 34.7 0.2 -0.8 48.1 31.9 8.3 31.8 28.3 4.7 Portsmouth, North 76.9 -3.0 43.3 45.9 9.8 1.0 -3.6 -1.0 54.5 9.8 8.7 34.6 26.4 7.8 South 69.4 -6.5 47.6 31.2 20.0 1.2 +0.7 -2.1 47.8 31.5 8.3 34.3 29.0 5.4 Southampton, Itchen 70.3 -6.9 35.4 48.9 15.7 -5.3 -2.3 43.8 31.9 11.5 40.7 26.7 9.5 Testt 73.1 -6.1 41.2 42.2 16.6 -4.0 -1.7 44.2 27.3 14.8 40.1 19.5 8.8 Winchester 75.2 -6.2 44.4 26.0 29.6 -0.8 50.8 28.8 12.5 37.4 29.4 6.1 Herefordshire, Hereford 75.8 -3.1 38.9 24.7 36.4 +2.7 50.6 17.6 14.0 30.4 18.2 5.9 Leominster 78.4 -1.7 45.6 10.5 43.9 +2.2 Hertfordsbire 41.0 47.7 16.0 46.3 40.8 8.5 Heme1 Hempsteadt 81.7 -3.5 42.0 42.7 15.3 -6.9 -0.5 27.8 62.6 13.7 45.6 45.0 8.2 Hertford & Stevenage 76.3 -7.3 32.7 47.1 18.2 2.0 -4.5 -1.2 60.9 24.7 16.3 45.5 33.5 7.7 Hertfordshire, East 74.1 -6.9 44.6 31.9 23.5 -2.6 -1.6 52.2 36.3 17.4 51.4 32.7 8.8 Hertfordshire, South 76.1 -6.1 42.7 38.2 19.1 -6.3 -0.7 57.7 28.6 19.1 51.1 32.3 10.0 Hertfordshire, South·West 77.0 42.6 32.7 24.7 (,)0 -6.7 -3.8 -1.3 0 CJO (,)() o ~ ~ "u .... *'" 201 .M ~ 0> ::l ·a ... :-::: .~"S ,,~ c:: c:: 54.1 32.1 18.8 54.4 22.3 10.0 Chislehurst 76.1 -8.2 46.3 36.8 16.9 - - -3.5 -1.4 73.2 17.9 21.6 61.4 22.2 9.9 Orpington 79.0 -7.1 47.0 15.6 37.4 - - -3.3 - 68.6 13.3 22.7 63.2 18.3 10.5 Ravensboume 74.0 -8.5 51.0 20.1 27.3 1.6 - -1.7 - 18.8 13.0 21.5 63.3 16.7 19.0 Camden, Hampstead 63.1 -7.6 44.9 40.6 13.7 - 0.4 -4.7 -0.4 0.3 0.1 Holbom & St. Pancras 3.5 38.1 13.5 44.0 17.2 12.6 South 53.8 -11.0 30.1 56.0 13.9 - - -4.4 -4.6 15.6 30.2 11.7 43.6 20.6 11.9 St. Pancras North 58.1 -9.4 27.3 58.5 14.2 - - -3.1 -3.4 42.5 35.4 14.8 47.9 26.9 7.2 Croydon, Central 72.6 -7.1 42.1 41.7 16.2 -- -5.3 -1.1 55.5 12.6 13.9 51.1 24.5 7.5 North-East 71.0 -7.7 43.3 38.1 17.5 - 1.1 -5.9 -1.6 57.4 11.7 13.1 49.2 25.5 7.2 North-West 69.3 -8.2 42.0 38.1 17.2 2.7 - -5.7 -1.7 75.0 9.0 27.7 68.8 21.1 12.9 South 73.9 -8.3 57.9 16.2 25.9 -- -0.8 - 34.1 13.7 14.7 51.6 31.7 12.0 Ealing, Acton 69.0 -6.7 45.2 43.1 11.7 -- -5.1 -0.7 57.6 22.2 14.1 49.9 35.5 8.8 North 73.9 -7.0 39.7 45.0 15.3 - - -3.1 -0.6 56.3 12.7 8.5 36.2 41.1 7.2 Southall 63.6 -9.8 31.6 53.8 14.6 -- -2.2 -2.6 58.0 25.1 9.7 36.6 42.9 4.6 Enfield, Edmonton 67.1 -8.3 32.5 49.1 13.8 4.6 - -4.0 -2.1 57.1 26.0 9.1 37.6 43.4 4.8 North 70.5 -8.2 33.6 43.7 19.9 2.8 - -5.9 -1.8 68.6 9.7 23.3 61.3 26.9 10.8 Southgate 67.7 -9.3 53.9 22.8 20.7 2.6 - -4.8 - 27.1 37.2 10.9 41.7 25.0 8.8 Greenwich, Greenwich 65.3 -9.7 26.8 55.5 16.9 - 0.8 -3.1 -3.1 38.5 40.7 6.6 36.7 27.8 4.2 Woolwich East 64.4 -10.0 22.5 60.3 14.1 3.1 - -2.9 -3.0 43.5 40.1 11.4 50.0 19.8 8.0 Woolwich West 73.9 -7.9 38.6 47.1 14.3 -- -2.9 -1.6 12.4 40.0 5.3 27.7 38.0 5.0 Hackney, Central 52.8 -9.9 18.7 68.9 12.4 - - -5.0 -4.6 16.0 33.1 8.3 37.1 33.7 6.7 North & Stoke Newington 52.8 -9.3 21.4 59.2 13.6 3.7 1.5c -4.6 -4.6 0.6 5.8 56.3 4.9 25.1 37.2 3.5 South & Shoreditch 54.7 -8.7 14.9 64.0 11.7 9.4 -7.7 -5.3 20.2 15.0 10.2 46.3 17.5 10.4 Hammersmith, Fulham 71.0 -7.6 37.0 49.8 11.1 2.1 -2.3 -2.5 15.4 24.9 8.6 40.7 23.2 8.9 North 64.6 -9.1 29.4 53.4 15.3 1.9 -4.1 -2.8 32.7 8.5 14.8 52.9 23.4 13.5 Haringey, Homsey 68.5 -7.4 43.2 41.2 13.2 2.4 -6.5 -1.5 39.3 15.1 6.9 30.8 38.7 4.5 Tottenham 56.2 -9.4 24.3 58.8 8.6 8.3 +0.6 -2.6 34.3 35.6 8.1 37.6 33.9 5.6 Wood Green 62.3 -8.8 25.9 51.3 14.8 8.0 -4.8 -2.3 66.1 7.9 15.3 51.9 28.6 9.9 Harrow, Central 73.0 -7.6 43.5 37.2 16.8 2.5 -4.3 -0.9 68.1 15.5 19.4 53.7 29.5 8.9 East 74.9 -7.4 46.2 36.8 17.0 -4.9 -0.9 75.3 9.6 22.7 60.7 28.3 12.0 West 74.5 -8.3 52.0 24.5 23.5 -2.5 70.3 18.4 10.0 44.5 35.4 4.6 Havering, Homchurch 72.8 -8.0 33.1 48.5 16.6 1.8 -4.9 -1.3 68.6 18.7 13.7 47.5 31.5 5.7 Romford 71.5 -8.4 43.4 36.7 19.4 0.5 -8.5 -0.2 60.3 32.2 14.8 49.3 32.7 6.5 Upminster 76.2 -6.3 42.7 41.3 16.0 -6.1 -0.3 54.4 29.9 8.9 40.3 42.2 5.4 Hillingdon, Hayes & 69.5 -6.3 28.0 52.2 16.3 3.0 0.5 * -0.2 Harlington 59.5 27.0 10.1 Ruislip-N orthwood 70.8114.1 1 20•4 174.61 -8.0 151.5126.0121.41 -1.91- 0•1 51.6 33.6 11.8 43.5 34.0 6.5 Uxbridge 75.1 -7.3 44.5 39.7 15.8 -ILl-- I -5.0 -0.1 45.3 17.9 13.8 50.4 30.6 10.1 Hounslow, Brentford & 73.3 -5.7 43.2 42.7 11.5 2.6 - -5.5 -0.4 Isleworth 53.5 30.4 9.9 41.0 32.3 6.3 Feltham & Heston 67.9 -9.5 32.6 49.6 14.1 3.7 -4.0 -1.9 14.4 27.1 7.9 35.9 27.4 7.9 Islington Central 55.4 -9.2 21.1 58.5 15.1 5.3 -7.1 -3.8 17.8 21.2 7.6 37.0 24.4 8.9 North 54.2 -8.9 27.4 57.9 12.2 2.5 -5.1 -2.5 7.7 38.5 7.6 34.4 27.6 7.3 South & Finsbury 56.0 -10.0 20.9 61.4 15.5 2.2c -4.1 -4.8 Kensington & Chelsea 16.01 5.9 123.7164.1 112.2122.81 Chelsea 150.0 1-10.0 161.0 120.2117.81 1.0 I -2.9 15.8 9.6 19.1 54.7 15.5 18.4 Kensington 56.4 -9.4 45.2 39.6 15.2 =1 - -5.5 I -3.6 Kingston upon Thames Kingston 71.8 28.9 22.5 60.5115.4119.7155.1 124.9111.0 -8.71 48.6 4•3 62.9 10.4 17.9 55.3 27.8 9.3 I Surbiton 72.9 -9.4 45.7 27.7 26.6 -1-- -1.7 13.7 33.2 6.4 37.4 20.5 6.8 Lambeth, Central 52.6 60.0 12.6 0.9 -4.8 I -4.7 -~7126" 0.3 26.4123.7110.2144.7121.0 7.1 1 Norwood 61.9 -9.4 35.7 50.2 13.4 0.71 -5.01- 1•9 31.3 19.2 13.8 55.4 19.6 I11.3 Streatham 64.1 -8.7 45.7 37.7 13.8 2.2 0.6 -4.5 -1.5 (,,):l 0 1.0 (.)0 ,...... , o ...., ca .... ~ ~ ""0'> .f '!il .... §:e .... +l =-= 'S ~ g ..,"" .5 u ~ .. oS f!f;!. § Dt .< • ~ 0'> f!fl;; .. ~ 0 ~ .!::~s!:ca ~ oS .... ~ ~ ~~ '6. g ~ o oS ;S.!l ~ .. o g .~ .., [; f!f I. ~:; '""' . .~ .c ~~ oS Jl 08 z .s.§ u 0-5 5 :51 ~ ~8 ~~~Od ~~ ~:I ~~Constituency ~O (,) ~ ...:I Z 0 o~ 00,"",~ " ~'""' 5.3 49.4 5.6 34.2 19.3 5.8 Vauxhall 52.8 -9.4 23.3 63.2 13.5 - - -4.4 -4.9 24.3 35.9 6.1 36.0 27.2 5.2 Lewisham, Deptford 58.5 -10.4 22.6 58.9 13.7 4.8 - -5.8 -4.3 35.6 39.1 11.1 46.1 20.2 7.8 East 68.8 -8.7 32.2 50.9 16.9 - - -2.9 -3.5 36.9 29.2 10.5 46.7 22.1 7.4 West 70.1 -8.8 35.6 48.2 13.6 2.6 - -2.7 -3.9 50.9 30.8 9.6 42.7 32.5 4.7 Merton, Mitcham & Morden 71.1 -8.0 34.9 48.2 16.0 - 0.6c -4.4 -3.5 0.2 0.1 58.1 8.5 17.2 55.5 23.1 11.5 Wimbledon 68.8 -8.9 48.5 30.7 20.8 -- -3.9 -2.2 46.5 20.2 5.5 35.3 31.9 4.0 Newham, North-East 59.2 -8.7 22.2 56.9 12.5 6.9 1.5 -6.6 -2.4 27.9 25.4 5.6 30.7 35.1 3.9 North-West 51.6 -7.7 18.2 66.6 15.2 - - -4.9 - 21.2 44.8 5.3 26.4 34.5 2.7 South 53.5 -9.8 11.2 69.3 11.7 7.8 - -3.1 - 66.0 19.9 13.0 49.3 30.7 6.5 Redbridge, llford Northt 74.5 -5.1 40.9 42.5 16.6 - - -6.8 -1.1 59.1 12.9 12.4 50.1 29.6 7.6 llford South 69.8 -7.2 40.3 44.7 14.6 - 0.4 -7.9 -0.9 67.3 13.5 21.7 60.4 22.6 9.6 Wanstead & Woodford 68.3 -8.6 53.2 26.0 20.8 - - -4.3 - Richmond upon Thames 42.9 15.3 21.5 60.1 20.3 16.2 Richmond 75.1 -7.5 43.2 21.6 32.7 2.5 - -2.8 - 59.1 11.5 18.0 54.9 24.0 11.1 Twickenham 74.4 -8.7 46.5 28.8 24.2 - 0.5 -2.8 - 1.4 68.2 4.0 27.3 28.6 3.9 Southwark, Bermondsey 56.4 -9.5 13.8 73.3 8.1 4.8 - -2.3 -4.0 29.1 31.0 10.4 43.1 22.6 8.3 Dulwich 65.1 -8.8 32.6 49.5 17.9 - - -2.0 -3.1 5.4 55.5 4.9 30.2 27.4 3.7 Peckham 54.2 -10.4 16.8 71.6 11.6 -- -4.3 -5.2 52.4 32.5 15.5 49.6 27.6 7.5 Sutton, Carshalton 74.3 -8.6 45.4 37.9 16.7 - - -4.7 -1.5 74.7 5.5 20.4 59.1 22.1 9.9 Sutton & Cheam 76.9 -5.7 47.6 15.3 36.5 - 0.6 -5.5 - 3.3 60.1 4.3 22.9 38.5 2.8 Tower Hamlets, Bethnal 53.1 -7.9 10.5 68.9 13.0 7.6 - -6.7 - Green & Bow 1.6 74.0 4.8 25.3 32.3 3.1 Stepney & Poplar 51.5 -7.9 10.2 77.6 10.2 - 2.0c * -1.0 64.2 19.7 13.3 47.6 35.2 5.6 Waltham Forest, Chingford 73.4 -8.3 45.5 34.3 20.2 -5.9 -0.6 40.2 17.2 7.6 36.0 33.3 5.2 Ley ton 62.7 -10.0 26.3 54.9 13.4 5.4 -5.3 -3.6 34.3 28.0 6.3 33.0 39.6 4.3 Waltham stow 66.2 -8.6 24.3 55.2 15.0 5.5 -6.0 -4.2 13.6 37.2 7.0 36.5 20.8 6.7 Wandsworth, Battersea 61.6 -9.1 21.8 62.2 11.1 4.5 0.4 -3.8 -3.6 North 29.3 13.9 10.0 46.1 22.4 9.0 Battersea South 64 2 -8.8138.3147.7113.41 0.6/-4.1 /-2.3 26.1 38.2 14.5 51.3 20.3 12.0 Putney 171.8. 1 -7.8 39.4 45.3 15.0 0.3 -5.2 -1.5 31.5 20.2 8.7 43.5 23.5 7.7 Tooting 63.4 -9.4 31.3 54.3 13.6 0.8c -4.7 -3.7 Westminster, 9.31 22•5 19.4 49.0 10.7 14.3 C. of London & W'ster S. 53.2 -8.2 51.7 30.9 14.9 2.5 -4.0 1-2.6 8.3 21.8 15.4 49.6 14.9 13.4 Paddington 61.7 -7.3 41.2 47.5 10.4 0.5 -5.7 -2.2 0.4 13.0 14.9 27.0 61.8 13.6 18.0 St. Marylebone 57.0 -9.0 54.9 28.8 16.3 -3.2 -2.1 64.3 14.7 14.3 37.6 23.7 5.9 Norfolk, Norfolk North 76.6 -6.8 48.1 32.0 19.9 -3.9 -1.5 47.6 28.1 13.4 31.6 23.8 4.5 Norfolk, North·West 78.5 -4.6 44.0 41.8 14.2 -2.4 +0.5 53.8 25.5 13.6 36.3 25.8 5.9 Norfolk, South 76.2 -6.5 45.5 32.8 21.2 0.5 -4.4 -1.1 48.3 24.7 12.0 28.1 21.0 4.7 Norfolk, South-West 76.9 -6.0 47.9 36.0 16.1 -4.2 -0.9 27.0 49.2 7.1 27.1 39.0 5.4 Norwich, North 71.2 -7.6 27.3 55.9 16.8 -5.3 -4.0 35.2 43.8 11.5 39.3 30.4 8.8 South 78.5 -5.4 37.5 47.1 15.4 -3.8 -4.0 58.3 25.2 12.3 35.8 29.3 5.4 Yarmouth 73.7 -7.5 43.3 39.0 17.7 -4.2 -2.2 57.1 28.0 14.3 38.5 34.1 6.6 N orthamptonshire, Daventry 77.1 -7.2 46.4 32.3 21.3 -2.9 +0.1 41.4 48.1 8.3 28.7 56.9 5.6 Kettering 73.2 -7.9 31.5 49.3 19.2 -3.2 -1.8 54.2 34.3 9.5 33.0 42.5 3_6 Northampton, North 76.0 -6.5 39.7 43.8 16.5 -4.6 -0.8 63.3 13.3 9.3 33.0 41.0 5.0 South 75.5 -5.3 43.0 42.6 14.4 -5.5 -0.0 55.0 30.1 11.0 30.9 48.4 4.7 Wellingborough 79.6 -5.3 42.8 40.2 17.0 -4.0 -0.3 32.7 33.3 14.9 32.7 12.7 5.7 Northumberland, Berwick- 81.4 -3.7 42.9 14.0 43.1 -1.4 upon-Tweed 34.8 46.7 6.8 28.8 29.8 4.1 Blytht 74.3 -5.11 11.9 36.7 14.8 36.6 -2.6 45.2 31.8 17.9 40.9 19.1 9.3 Hexham 75.4 -6.7 43.5 34.1 22.4 -1.6/-2.8 34.5 36.5 9.5 31.2 15.4 5.5 Morpeth 73.3 -7.81 22.5 63.8 13.7 -6.9 -4.0 9.1 48.4 4.3 22.0 35.3 3.8 Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 58.4 -7.0 16.5 71.8 11.7 * -3.2 Central -~ (.)0 ..... I\:) I ... U .... g ""0'1 ~7ao·c ~ .; ~ :::I ~ ..s .; u c e01 :s: ~~ u"" § .5 t ~.s ~:;; ... ~ - ~= !!:7a 0 ~~ 01- ~ ~ 101. ~~ ~'a o = :::!l 1>0 £ '" . ~ t ~ I. ~ ~8 .~~ ..s .c: 8 .t::1 >..s ,g 01 .~ oe IS -e ~= .§= u .. ~8 ~~ ~~ ~::1 ~.!:!Constituency ~o ~~U ~ ..:I Z 0 ~~00101. 34.7 40.6 8.9 38.6 36.8 5.7 East 71.8 -5.1 33.8 52.8 13.4 - - * -0.8 34.0 18.8 12.2 42.0 24.0 15.3 North 65.0 -8.4 42.9 41.1 16.0 - - -7.0 --4.2 33.8 56.0 8.9 37.4 30.0 5.1 West 68.9 -4.9 28.3 56.7 15.0 - - * -4.1 51.3 25.6 14.9 43.4 34.2 8.0 Tynemouth 74.3 -5.7 43.1 37.7 19.2 - - -2.9 -2.5 32.7 45.1 9.4 38.4 35.0 6.3 Wallsend 70.9 -4.6 24.9 58.1 16.3 - 0.7 * -3.8 50.6 33.3 6.7 22.2 40.8 3.0 N ottinghamshire, Ashfield 74.7 -7.3 22.3 63.4 14.3 - - -3.1 -2.6 40.7 32.8 10.1 29.8 28.1 5.3 Bassetlaw 74.5 -4.6 30.9 53.7 14.6 - 0.8 * -1.4 60.7 22.4 10.8 37.1 44.5 6.0 Beeston 80.5 -4.3 42.0 41.8 16.2 -- -3.2 -1.9 59.7 21.1 13.7 42.1 33.1 5.7 Carlton 77.7 -6.7 44.1 35.9 17.7 2.3 - -1.1 -1.8 48.5 27.8 8.8 27.4 28.9 3.8 Mansfield 72.6 -4.8 23.2 57.4 18.5 - 0.9c * -2.0 41.2 28.8 11.0 31.4 27.9 5.9 Newark 77.9 -5.1 37.5 47.9 14.6 - - * -1.4 22.8 28.1 6.5 23.2 41.7 5.5 Nottingham, East 60.0 -9.1 32.7 51.2 13.8 - 2.3 -3.3 -3.8 31.2 39.6 7.6 30.1 42.0 4.8 North 67.1 -7.7 34.8 48.1 14.6 1.5 1.0c -2.4 -2.8 25.0 65.7 8.3 31.2 44.9 6.9 West 70.9 -7.9 32.9 49.7 17.4 - - -1.1 -3.6 61.1 15.6 18.5 49.7 27.1 10.6 Rushcliffe 77.4 -7.1 54.7 24.5 20.8 - - -1.0 -1.4 45.7 29.8 12.5 35.4 26.6 7.1 Oxfordshire, Banbury 75.7 -7.0 47.4 35.2 16.3 - 1.1 -5.2 -0.2 58.4 20.4 18.1 44.7 25.3 10.4 Henley 73.6 -7.6 49.1 24.2 26.7 - - -4.0 - 56.5 18.8 12.2 37.8 27.3 7.6 Mid-Oxon 76.4 -6.3 46.0 29.9 24.1 - - -0.7 -0.1 44.6 24.2 12.5 42.2 27.9 18.2 Oxfordt 70.8 -7.7 40.8 42.7 15.3 1.1 0.1 -6.4 -1.6 50.1 20.3 15.7 33.1 26.7 5.8 Shropshire, Ludlow 74.8 -4.7 47.1 23.0 29.9 -- +2.1 - 47.4 27.2 14.0 32.6 20.7 6.0 Oswestry 71.9 -6.0 47.3 26.5 26.2 - - -4.6 - 55.2 25.4 13.8 40.4 20.5 7.1 Shrewsbury 73.4 -6.3 43.1 26.0 30.9 - - -0.5 - 43.8 41.9 8.5 29.4 37.6 5.9 TheWrekin 75.5 -5.3 37.8 48.7 13.5 - - -3.8 -0.6 50.2 23.4 11.6 45.5 21.0 8.8 Somerset, Bath 78.6 -4.4 37.7 28.6 33.4 - 0.3 +2.7 - 55.2 25.0 13.5 34.1 31.9 5.8 Bridgwater 77.3 -5.0 44.3 32.8 22.4 - 0.5 -4.4 -1.1 64.3 23.4 18.3 46.6 30.4 9.3 Somerset, North 80.5 -4.6 44.9 31.7 22.9 0.5 -1.1 1-1.5 52.4 28.7 12.9 42.8 18.7 6.7 Taunton 79.4 -4.4 44.6 31.1 23.7 0.6 -2.0 -1.2 51.7 25.8 13.2 33.9 31.8 6.3 Wells 78.9 -4.4 43.7 25.3 29.6 1.4 -1.1 62.0 18.7 17.7 43.3 25.0 8.9 Weston· super-Mare 74.8 -5.3 48.8 22.1 28.6 0.5 -1.3 53.0 28.9 12.6 34.5 37.3 5.9 Yeovil 79.4 -4.4 41.4 29.0 29.0 0.6 -0.6 Staffordshire 61.0 32.2 12.8 38.3 51.4 5.7 Aldridge-Brownhills 79.7 -3.5 38.4 43.5 17.7 0.4 -5.7 -2.2 55.0 24.6 11.0 33.5 40.1 4.8 Burton 78.0 -1.5 44.4 40.5 15.1 * -1.1 46.2 37.2 9.3 30.1 36.9 4.9 Cannock 76.1 -6.7 27.1 55.6 17.3 -3.6 -2.3 39.0 53.0 7.9 27.4 59.8 3.7 Dudley, East 68.3 -3.8 27.7 57.3 12.2 2.8 * -1.3 55.5 37.5 11.2 34.2 55.1 4.4 West 75.2 -5.0 36.0 51.1 12.9 * -3.7 65.9 19.9 11.2 31.9 44.5 4.7 Leek 78.5 -4.6 46.7 40.2 13.1 -4.1 -0.9 55.0 31.7 14.6 37.0 41.0 6.5 Lichfield & Tamwortht 78.2 -4.6 42.1 42.6 15.3 -3.9 -1.5 54.2 32.2 11.8 34.3 40.3 8.5 Newcastle·under·Lyme 78.1 -6.0 36.6 49.6 13.4 0.4 -1.2 -1.8 54.8 25.8 14.2 42.3 36.9 8.9 Stafford & Stone 76.0 -6.3 45.4 34.8 19.2 0.6 -1.2 -1.7 60.5 25.4 17.2 43.6 39.1 7.6 Staffordshire, South·West 75.4 -5.3 49.1 32.7 18.2 -3.1 -1.8 47.9 33.8 5.2 22.4 49.6 3.3 Stoke-on·Trent, Central 65.3 -4.9 23.8 60.4 15.8 * -4.6 55.0 32.7 5.9 23.6 53.1 3.0 North 69.6 -4.3 24.4 60.6 15.0 * -3.9 50.0 34.4 7.1 25.2 52.3 3.8 South 69.i -8.2 28.3 61.2 10.5 -3.1 -2.4 26.3 63.6 5.9 22.8 62.9 2.2 Walsall, North 66.6 -5.4 26.1 59.5 13.4 1.0c * -2.3 42.0 36.8 11.6 33.1 57.8 5.7 South 73.6 -4.7 37.3 48.0 11.6 2.8 0.3 -1.6 -3.6 43.1 48.7 8.5 32.2 60.3 3.5 West Bromwich, East 67.6 -4.2 31.4 50.5 13.8 4.3 * -3.3 25.7 64.9 5.1 21.6 68.7 1.9 West 62.8 -4.6 22.8 62.2 9.6 5.4 * -2.9 32.1 60.2 6.8 27.3 59.3 3.4 Wolverhampton, North· East 66.2 -4.2 24.2 56.0 15.6 4.2 * -2.9 33.3 54.7 6.7 24.5 63.1 3.3 South-East 66.1 -6.1 26.7 58.7 9.9 4.7 -4.0 -2.2 58.4 19.8 16.2 44.1 41.5 8.9 South·West 73.7 -5.9 44.2 33.0 19.5 3.3 +0.4 -1.2 42.9 32.7 11.8 32.2 27.0 5.6 Suffolk, Bury St. Edmunds 73.2 -8.0 50.4 33.0 16.6 -7.2 -0.8 51.2 21.4 13.8 31.9 20.0 6.1 Eye 77.4 -5.2 44.0 27.4 28.6 -8.0 53.7 28.5 8.9 34.6 32.9 4.3 Ipswicht 79.5 -4.0 42.8 45.3 11.9 -4.41-1.4 62.2 17.6 12.1 32.1 35.5 5.0 Lowestoft 78.2 -5.6 42.4 39.0 18.6 -5.3 -1.1 56.8 20.1 14.2 36.6 24.1 7.1 Sudbury & Woodbridge 75.1 -6.8 47.5 28.5 24.0 -2.7 63.8 16.4 20.4 50.3 34.7 10.4 Surrey, Chertsey & Walton 73.5 -8.4 50.7 29.9 18.5 0.9 (.)0 -6.31 -0.5 ..... (.)0 (jO >-' ~ ~ .. f,) .... Oi g ""a. ~ ';l ~ §:e .,I t>I) .... i:: ,S f,) ~ ': t'c S < 2!';:!: .."" 0 ~!l . ,~ t oS - a. ~ J: I!:Oi ..c: .. ca. ~ .. 0 ~'6. c o ; ~ oS- ~ ~ ~ t'c~ 5 t>I) .... 2!'I • o _c c I:l ,~ ~ t:t~ 8 - ~-: .J ; . .tl u oS f,) ..c: 08 z ,e oS .... ~ ~ 01i 6 .. ~8 ~~ ~.Id ~::s '§ :5 Constituency ~O ~~ u ~ ~ Z 0 o:J tIJ~ 60.3 18.4 21.3 49.5 23.7 10.1 Dorking 75.0 -7.6 50.7 22.0 27.3 - - -2.7 - 73.2 12.3 24.4 59.9 21.7 12.0 Epsom &: Ewell 73.7 -8.3 54.1 19.3 26.6 - - -2.2 - 69.7 13.0 28.2 59.3 25.1 13.5 Esher 74.3 -8.0 55.9 19.0 25.1 - - -3.4 - 60.0 19.6 19.2 47.3 19.4 10.5 Farnham 76.2 -6.7 49.9 17.4 32.7 - - -4.6 - 56.1 21.5 19.5 49.6 21.0 11.2 Guildford 71.9 -8.5 49.2 22.6 28.2 - - -3.5 - 59.3 24.2 22.9 55.0 21.7 10.4 Reigate 75.3 -8.0 50.7 25.9 22.9 - 0.5 -3.9 - 65.8 16.0 16.7 52.0 31.7 8.4 Speltborne 74.5 -7.6 44.7 33.2 19.8 2.3 - -4.4 -1.4 64.1 17.6 21.8 54.0 19.9 10.6 Surrey, East 76.2 -7.4 52.4 18.4 29.2 - - -4.6 - 59.8 21.4 20.0 47.5 27.0 12.0 Surrey, North-West 70.9 -9.4 52.3 24.4 23.3 - - -2.1 - 62.7 19.7 19.4 49.6 29.6 10.5 Woking 73.0 -7.9 46.0 23.7 28.4 1.9 - -4.0 - East Sussex 42.6 28.7 9.5 36.2 21.6 8.5 Brighton, Kempton 72.3 -6.4 45.9 40.3 13.1 - 0.3 -2.4 -1.1 0.3 0.1 49.9 10.1 15.2 45.4 20.1 11.4 Pavilion 68.6 -7.6 48.4 29.6 22.0 -- -0.5 -2.8 60.2 15.8 15.8 46.7 14.1 8.5 Eastbourne 74.6 -8.0 54.7 19.4 25.9 - - -13.2 - 65.8 12.4 20.3 47.5 18.8 10.8 East Grinstead 74.5 -6.9 53.2 16.0 30.8 - - -3.4 - 49.4 15.4 12.1 39.8 17.9 6.1 Hastings 71.6 -7.4 44.9 33.5 21.6 -- -4.6 -2.2 44.7 11.9 15.6 44.9 21.2 9.2 Hove 69.8 -7.5 53.6 21.9 24.5 - - -9.3 - 65.5 15.7 18.9 47.6 18.7 9.0 Lewes 73.8 -6.5 51.9 22.3 25.8 -- -2.3 - 66.5 13.7 21.5 52.2 20.2 9.5 Mid-Sussex 76.4 -6.8 53.9 18.0 28.1 - - -1.9 - 64.5 13.4 19.2 43.9 12.7 8.6 Rye 74.3 -6.5 56.9 15.5 27.6 - - -2.5 - 66.1 13.9 17.3 42.8 21.1 8.5 West Sussex, Arundel 73.0 -6.6 56.2 18.5 25.3 -- -1.6 - 53.1 20.3 17.1 40.7 16.5 8.4 Chichester 73.6 -5.5 52.5 17.1 30.4 - - -2.0 - 43.5 43.8 15.8 47.4 37.6 8.0 Horsham &: Crawley 78.1 -5.4 42.1 36.9 19.5 1.5 - -4.7 -1.9 67.2 19.2 16.9 42.8 24.1 7.2 Shoreham 74 7 -6.1 151.2119.9128.91 -I -4.6 68.4 9.4 16.6 47.7 15.4 8.2 Worthing 1 71.1. 1 -7.3 58.2 17.2 24.6 =1 - -1.4 Warwickshire 39.4 31.5 13.9 40.9 39.6 10.4 Birmingham, Edgbaston 63.3 -6.1 44.0 38.5 17.5 * -3.4 39.7 44.6 6.1 28.8 56.2 4.9 Erdington 65.5 -6.8 31.1 51.4 14.2 3.3 -0.6 -2.8 52.7 37.5 11.8 43.2 42.7 6.5 Hall Green 70.2 -2.4 43.7 38.2 18.1 * -3.7 53.5 14.5 8.6 30.6 55.5 5.7 Handsworth 66.5 -5.8 36.6 49.4 10.6 2.8 0.3 -6.4 -3.9 0.3 29.5 40.1 3.7 19.3 57.4 4.3 Ladywood 56.9 -7.3 22.1 64.5 13.4 -1.1 -3.8 34.9 53.3 7.3 34.0 50.0 5.4 Northfield 67.9 -5.5 32.0 52.1 14.9 0.7 * -2.5 0.3c 55.8 37.2 6.6 30.1 56.0 3.8 Perry Barr 73.4 -4.9 39.2 47.5 11.0 2.1 0.2 -3.8 -1.7 49.0 18.1 12.6 41.1 42.5 10.7 Selly Oakt 67.2 -6.9 40.3 41.1 18.6 -2.4 -3.5 28.6 51.6 3.3 18.5 57.2 3.5 Small Heath 57.6 -8.4 19.1 66.5 14.4 -7.7 39.5 31.7 4.8 23.2 57.6 3.8 Sparkhrook 60.2 -5.6 29.9 58.5 9.8 1.8 * -2.9 34.9 55.0 5.2 26.1 54.5 3.2 Stetchford 64.1 -7.9 27.8 57.6 14.6 -1.5 -3.4 50.0 38.3 7.3 32.8 50.6 4.9 Yardley 73.1 -5.6 38.6 48.3 10.5 2.4 0.2 -4.5 -2.7 55.1 29.0 5.6 26.3 59.8 4.9 Coventry, North-East 70.0 -5.5 23.6 59.5 15.4 0.8 * -1.8 0.7c 69.7 17.2 8.1 34.6 57.8 5.4 North-West 75.2 -4.6 31.6 51.9 15.7 0.8 * -1.6 45.4 30.7 6.8 28.4 58.4 6.7 South-East 67.7 -7.9 25.2 60.4 14.4 +2.7 -3.6 68.4 20.8 13.1 42.9 55.8 9.8 South-West 79.4 -4.7 39.2 43.1 15.9 1.5 0.3 -4.1 -1.5 43_8 43.7 ll.8 33.7 41.9 5.5 Meriden 75.1 -4.3 35.1 47.4 17.5 * -3.2 59.4 27_0 8.2 27_2 54_5 4.5 Nuneaton 74.0 -8.4 25.3 56.1 18.6 -1.2 -1.7 65.3 19.5 13.8 41.5 48.1 8.9 Rugby 79.8 -6.3 37.3 48.2 14.2 0.3 +1.4 +0.6 75_6 13.3 23.7 58.7 37.4 9.8 Solihull 75.3 -6.0 52.7 21.0 26.3 -1.2 54.6 23.3 18.9 42.6 29.8 8.2 Stratford-on-Avon 74.1 -7.5 51.0 21.7 27.3 -1.7 72.1 15.5 26.2 60.5 36.6 ll.8 Sutton Coldfield 74.5 -7.8 57.1 15.4 27.6 -2.8 57.5 22.7 16.8 44.3 40.5 9.5 Warwick & Leamington 74.8 -6.7 47.1 33.1 19.8 -3.1 I -1.9 52.9 20.5 17.0 39.6 21.7 7.0 Westmorland 72.4 -6.9 50.8 17.4 31.8 -3.5 64.1 12.5 14.9 40.4 24.0 6.3 Isle of Wight 76.8 -4.6 42.0 13.0 45.0 -5.1 50.2 26.3 12.5 35.0 30.6 7.4 Wiltshire, Chippenham 78.4 -4.2 42.7 17.7 39.1 0.5 +0.3 (.)0 ,.... tJt (,)0 ..- O'l ta_ .... ., ~ ~ 0\ .~ '" §.~ .f::I • ...... :.. rIl := .,~ .,I ~ ..( ~;t .S u u ~ v (1,1 ': =os • bIl'" = .~ 0\ 8 ~ ., ~ ~ ~ ..c ., =0\ o ~'a eta '0 .... os .... ~ ~ ~ bIl~ gC o~ o ::I ~ bI) .~"il I:l I. ~ ~;s = ;>.,1 '"" .~ o 8 u Z Iii O~ ~ ..c §~ ..c ""·2 ~ g ~ ~ ., ~ C5 ~ ~ ~Od ~~ ~::I ~....lI Constituency ~O ~~ u ....l ~ Z o O~ 00,"" 5~2 2~6 12.1 34.8 26.5 6.1 Devizes 75.2 -6.0 42.4 30.5 27.1 +0.3 -1.9 4~6 2~6 11.8 36.9 12.4 ~8 Salisbury 74.7 -5.2 43.7 21.6 34.7 +1.5 5~6 3~6 7.0 31.4 46.8 4.3 Swindon 74.0 -6.8 29.8 51.9 17.9 0.4 -3.1 -2.4 5~2 2~7 13.0 36.5 33.1 6.8 Westbury 78.7 -4.8 41.7 27.0 31.3 +2.1 Worcestershire 58.9 27.1 14.7 40.8 47.7 7.6 Bromsgrove & Redditch 79.6 -4.6 44.6 41.6 13.8 -0.8 -1.0 59.0 29.9 13.3 38.3 49.3 6.8 Halesowen & Stourbridge 76.2 -5.2 39.0 37.6 23.4 -2.9 -2.4 58.0 26.1 13.2 34.7 44.2 5.5 Kidderminster 75.0 -6.3 43.3 31.8 24.9 -3.7 -1.1 42.1 40.0 6.2 28.1 56.8 3.7 Warley, East 67.1 -6.4 33.4 54.5 12.1 * -1.6 37.8 48.4 6.0 22.9 67.1 2.7 West 67.0 -4.0 24.1 60.4 15.5 * -1.2 53.8 29.2 12.1 38.5 36.2 6.4 Worcester 73.9 -7.1 45.6 36.5 17.9 -3.3 -1.7 53.4 25.9 16.7 41.8 21.5 8.4 Worcestershire, South 75.2 -6.6 48.4 19.6 32.0 -3.1 Yorkshire, East Riding 61.5 19.6 15.2 38.8 21.3 5.4 Bridlington 67.9 -8.8 49.1 22.3 2~4 2.2 -2.9 64.9 18.9 19.8 51.5 29.0 9.1 Haltemprice 75.0 -7.9 49.3 21.7 H~ -2.8 52.6 21.0 15.5 34.1 21.4 7.5 Howden 72.6 -6.0 46.9 17.6 3~5 +0.5 34.5 33.2 8.2 33.8 31.8 7.1 Kingston upon Hull, Central 67.7 -5.8 29.4 52.4 1&2 3 2 25.7 55.8 5.3 27.8 37.5 3.0 East 67.1 -6.0 19.0 62.4 1&6 * 1--1.7. 37.7 26.2 5.9 29.3 35.2 3.1 West 64.6 -9.0 27.6 54.9 17.5 -2.7 -4.2 Yorkshire, North Riding 59.0 21.9 13.9 35.6 38.2 7.7 Cleveland & Whitby 76.2 -6.2 43.2 39.9 16.9 -5.41- 2.0 30.5 55.1 6.3 26.4 44.0 3.8 Middlesbrough 61.2 -8.2 24.4 61.8 13.8 * -2.5 49.3 40.1 8.2 29.6 52.9 5.3 Redcar 69.1 -7.5 29.6 53.9 16.5 * -2.3 48.3 21.1 14.5 34.2 13.1 7.1 Richmond 65.7 -9.8 56.9 19.7 23.4 -1.9 61.2 20.3 14.5 37.2 16.9 7.1 Scarborough 68.1 -10.8 49.7 24.9 25.4 - . -11.1 Stockton 49.2140.41 9.5135.3146.41 6.51 169.1 1 -6.8131.3155.7111.71 1.31 * 1- 2.6 5~2 1~0 1~7 3~3 lLO ~5 Think &: Melton 7~9 -L5 5&2 2&3 2&5 - -21 - 64.6 19.0 9.3 35.9 39. 7 ~2 Thornaby 72.3 -7.3 38.8 49.1 12.1 =1 - -3.9 -3.4 Yorkshire, West Riding 61.5 23.3 17.5 41.9 28.6 8.6 Barkston Ash 75.8 -7.7 48.0 32.4 19.6 -1.4 -1.7 41.0 42.9 6.6 24.9 31.7 4.0 Barnsley 68.4 -6.2 18.0 65.3 16.7 * -1.9 48.3 31.3 8.6 29.1 47.0 3.7 Batley &: Morley 69.6 -8.8 30.1 49.2 20.7 -3.1 -2.2 60.7 23.3 7.5 31.0 47.5 4.3 Bradford, North 70.4 -8.4 30.6 49.1 20.3 -5.1 -2.8 59.6 29.2 8.7 32.5 42.8 4.6 South 71.6 -8.0 32.3 48.1 19.6 -2.8 -1.3 55.5 24.2 9.0 29.1 45.1 7.0 West 69.5 -7.6 37.2 48.5 13.5 0.8 -1.5 -3.4 62.1 20.3 11.9 33.6 53.8 5.5 Brighouse &: Spenborough 78.6 -6.7 39.6 43.9 16.5 -4.0 -0.7 64.0 17.6 12.9 33.6 54.2 5.6 Colne Valley 81.7 -4.7 14.8 40.9 44.3 +4.0 34.4 46.6 ~4 23.1 32.6 3.3 Deame Valley 71.1 -9.4 13.5 74.1 12.4 -3.2 49.5 34.3 10.9 31.7 43.5 4.6 Dewsbury 72.9 -8.8 30.1 45.4 24.5 -1.4 -2.3 44.7 38.1 9.2 34.1 34.8 5.2 Doncaster 72.8 -8.9 34.1 51.3 14.6 -0.9 -2.9 38.8 31.8 7.6 26.3 26.9 4.2 Don Valley 73.4 -5.7 21.1 63.3 15.6 * -1.0 38.6 41.0 L9 25.6 32.7 4.1 Goole 69.3 -7.8 2M 59.8 11.8 * -2.4 57.1 28.5 8.9 29.1 54.1 5.0 Halifax 14.6 -6.7 35.5 44.3 18.3 1.9 -5.7 -1.5 63.3 12.3 17.0 48.6 16.9 8.7 Harrogate 70.5 -9.5 53.9 17.6 24.7 2.2 1.6 -5.9 27.3 43.2 5.7 20.3 21.2 3.0 Hemsworth 70.2 -6.9 12.0 76.5 11.5 * +0.6 47.0 37.4 L9 29.9 48.6 4.4 Huddersfield, East 72.4 -8.1 28.7 50.4 18.9 2.0 -1.1 -2.3 66.2 15.3 13.4 37.0 50.9 6.0 West 76.3 -6.6 38.0 41.4 18.4 1.9 0.3 -3.9 -1.0 67.0 19.3 10.1 28.9 53.1 4.3 Keighley 83.0 -3.8 38.4 45.6 13.6 2.0 0.4 -4.0 -2.6 31.9 62.5 7.6 32.7 38.8 3.4 Leeds, East 65.7 -9.5 28.0 55.6 15.7 0.7 -4.0 -3.4 59.0 1~6 17.3 46.1 32.2 9,9 North-East 65.5 -8.9 48.6 34.0 17.4 -2.9 -1.1 48.9 32.0 16.2 48.0 29.1 13.9 North-West 66.3 -9.9 44.6 35.3 20.1 -4.0 -2.1 32.0 45.4 4.6 23.5 46.9 2.8 South 63.8 -10.1 19.0 64.4 16.6 -8.0 27.0 37.5 4.6 21.7 41.2 9.2 South-East 56.4 -11.5 21.9 61.2 15.8 1.1 c -5.0 1-5.6 42.1 40.2 6.2 28.3 45.8 2.6 West 69.0 -8.0 19.0 49.6 31.4 -2.1 50.2 33.9 8.4 30.6 30.9 3.5 Normanton 70.4 -4.9 23.5 58.7 17.8 0.4 45.5 38.3 9.9 32.9 45.6 5.2 Penistone 74.7 -9.4 24.0 54.2 21.8 -1.7* 1--2.9 37.6 4~5 7.7 25.9 31.3 3.7 Pontefract &: Castleford 71.2 -5.9 16.2 70.4 12.3 1.1 * -1.2 (.)0 --...) (,)0 ~ , 00 'OJ< ..u 1'-0 ]-; "~ ~ a. .f! 'Wl .... ';l ,,'OJ< ~ C == o'i ,_ a. "" ,S ::! .. s01 ~ 2r;! u :l 01 ~ ~ "" c ,- ::s"" .... c t:-; 2rl;; ~ 0 "~ "Co ::s bO -S~ 0 .... 01 .... ~ ~ ~~ ~ .. 2r1 o 8 o J:~~~ c ,-~ ":- ;>"" ~ "" J! :; . u" - 'C= u Oofj 0 ,g 01 '~ofj ~ 25.~E-< ~ol$ ~::s~ ::s ~~ Constituency ~O u ~ oJ Z"" o;j ~"" 0 rIl"" 66.1 23.7 14.8 43.3 42.1 7.3 Pudsey 78.2 -6.7 39.5 29.9 30.6 -- -2.2 59.1 20.0 19.7 44.4 22.0 9.6 Ripon 78.9 -6.4 52.1 13.5 34.4 - - -5.0 36.2 49.0 8.1 29.2 50.5 4.6 Rotherham 65.5 -8.8 22.1 64.6 13.3 -- -3.8 -2. 37.9 40.9 9.1 29.8 38.8 4.6 Rother Valley 72.2 -6.3 17.9 67.3 14.8 - - * -1. 3 38.8 34.4 6.2 29.4 49.6 3.1 Sheffield, Attercliffe 67.2 -7.7 18.7 69.0 12.3 - - * -2. 8 22.8 67.6 4.1 25.5 53.5 2.7 Brightside 67.4 -7.0 13.4 49.7 9.0 - 27.9 -4.4 60.4 13.0 22.0 55.5 31.5 19.2 Hallam 68.8 -8.4 49.0 29.0 22.0 -- -1.8 -0. 9 48.2 35.6 11.3 39.3 40.1 5.9 Heeley 73.5 -8.5 32.0 51.6 14.9 1.5 - -2.1 6 38.4 31.3 7.0 29.1 49.1 4.2 Hillsborough 66.6 -10.2 25.1 60.7 14.2 - - -3.1 -3. 18.1 61.5 3.8 20.2 49.5 2.8 Park 62.4 -9.4 13.1 71.4 14.5 - 1.0c -3.4 -3. 63.7 27.3 15.1 41.4 42.9 8.5 Shipley 81.0 -6.4 44.0 36.8 19.2 - - -3.3 o 61.2 16.9 13.3 31.3 36.2 5.4 Skipton 82.1 -3.4 41.3 18.8 39.9 -- +1.4 -1. 58.5 21.6 9.1 25.3 55.5 4.2 Sowerby 79.2 -3.8 37.1 38.8 23.7 - 0.4 -4.4 41.2 45.6 10.4 34.8 29.1 5.7 Wakefield 70.3 -9.6 27.4 54.8 17.8 - - -1.2 9 52.4 29.8 8.7 35.4 29.9 6.7 York 75.3 -7.4 40.1 46.4 12.7 - 0.5 -7.5 -2.-0. 5 0.3 -2. Wales ....I ... u .... ]01 "'"en oS .~ o ·c :s ~ r.l ..s ... == :.: ~ .6 u .. ~ ~~ - :s ....'" ]~ ~ ~ t!:0'01 ~ ~ 0 'a, oS '" .~~ ~ ~ ,~ o ~ .~'U J~ 'tl e t ~ I. o B ~~ ~a ~ .d ~ .(; e .~ ~= .§ >tl 0 oS -e ~C:!~~ ~a:d ~~ ~3Constituency ~o ~~ U ~ ~ 1e6 0 O~ (Il~ 48.1 28.4 14.9 34.2 20.0 10.3 Anglesey 76.1 -4.1 23.8 41.6 15.5 19.1 - +4.4 -0.7 51.9 26.7 11.4 30.5 20.2 5.8 Brecon So:Radnor 81.4 -1.9 35.3 42.1 17.4- 5.2 - -2.1 -0.9 55.6 22.4- 13.5 33.2 17.7 8.7 Caernarvonshire, Caemarvon 80.9 -1.5 12.6 34.1 10.7 42.6 - +3.5 - 53.4 25.3 15.5 38.7 17.8 12.9 Conway 76.3 -5.0 39.6 32.5 16.1 11.8 - -4.4 -1.9 58.1 17.3 17.3 36.1 5.8 15.9 Cardiganshire 80.6 -3.1 9.5 35.2 42.1 13.2 - +2.0 - 59.3 21.3 11.9 28.2 12.9 6.9 Cannarthenshire, Cannarthent 85.6 +2.2 5.7 38.1 10.4- 45.1 0.7 -8.9 - 56.4 31.7 7.4 25.9 41.1 5.7 Llanelli 76.9 -1.3 12.4 59.4- 14.5 13.7 - +0.2 - 57.8 19.1 16.1 38.7 15.5 8.0 Denbighshire, Denbigh 76.4- -4.1 38.6 20.2 29.3 11.9 - -0.8 - 38.7 48.0 8.3 29.4- 35.5 5.8 Wrexham 74.3 -3.3 21.7 51.1 22.1 5.1 - -2.2 - 57.1 29.2 10.2 31.8 46.8 5.8 Flintshire, East Flint 79.7 -5.2 31.6 48.9 16.3 3.2 - -2.0 -1.1 63.5 19.2 14.1 36.0 25.6 7.5 West Flint 75.4 -6.1 41.4 31.4 22.4 4.8 - -2.2 -1.9 48.5 41.5 8.7 29.0 43.9 6.5 Glamorgan, Aberavon 73.1 -2.5 16.8 62.8 11.0 8.5 0.9 * -1.7 60.5 23.1 6.5 24.3 37.3 4.8 Aberdare 79.1 -4.2 7.2 63.3 5.5 21.3 2.7c * - 59.2 22.2 16.3 45.8 23.9 9.9 Barry 77.7 -4.6 43.0 37.6 16.1 3.3 - -1.5 -2.2 51.8 29.5 8.2 28.2 32.8 5.6 Caerphilly 75.6 -1.9 11.5 56.6 7.4 24.5 - * - 60.0 9.0 16.4 50.2 21.0 15.1 Cardiff, North 73.3 -5.2 41.9 35.7 17.8 4.6 - -3.1 -2.5 65.6 25.1 16.9 57.6 21.0 10.7 North-West 79.0 -3.1 45.3 32.7 18.3 3.7 - -1.7 -2.2 44.0 32.2 7.0 32.8 33.3 6.8 South·East 70.8 -3.4 25.5 52.0 19.9 2.4- 0.2 +12.8 -4.7 40.1 38.7 9.1 37.3 24.9 6.9 West 69.7 -3.8 31.6 50.0 12.9 5.5 - -2.4 -4.8 65.8 22.5 9.9 32.9 38.2 8.3 Gower 77.0 -2.9 20.3 57.3 12.4- 10.0 - -6.9 -1.8 53.1 32.2 6.6 25.0 43.0 4.6 Merthyr Tydfil 75.8 -5.2 8.6 70.6 4.3 14.8 1. 7c +1.2 - 57.4 29.3 8.0 27.7 46.8 4.9 Neath 78.0 -0.5 11.4 61.5 9.2 17.9 - * - (,)Q 58.6 27.1 9.7 31.8 27.2 6.3 Ogmore 75.4- -4.4 16.1 59.5 16.0 8.4 - -4.1 - I-' \.0 (JO ~ o .!. ' I ...... l:! "'"CII l~ ~ 'Ill ... of: ~ ..J .:. C bII~ ...... "g~ e .< ..."'" .S u - ~ 1\:"; tfl. ~ .... !! -5 .. 'S CII tfl. 0 'a, S ~bII 0'" rs tfl. tfl. ~ t bill 08 u ~~~ ~~ .~] i::l t~.S ,d ....= ·c = >t;l 0 ~ :9 Z -5 ~ ... tfl.~tfl.olj tfl.8 tfl.:e tfl. :I tfl...J Constituency tfl.O °itfl.~ u ..J ..J ell 0 o~ (/.l~ 16.1 64.7 5.8 29.9 30.7 14.7 Aberdeen, North 69.7 -5.8 11.3 50.9 8.1 29.7 - -4.2 - 43.7 33.9 14.9 46.5 23.1 22.4 South 76.3 -5.8 35.5 34.8 9.6 20.1 - -3.8 -2.9 36.7 39.0 12.9 29.6 28.8 9.3 Aberdeenshire, East 70.5 -6.1 35.5 9.4 6.6 48.5 - -0.9 - 41.8 31.7 15.0 36.8 20.6 13.9 West 76.5 -4.5 35.7 12.2 29.9 22.2 - -5.4 - Angus Be Kincardine, 36.2 33.5 13.8 33.8 18.5 11.7 Angus North BeMearns 72.3 -6.4 43.6 12.3 9.9 34.2 - -5.1 - 33.3 43.9 13.5 35.1 30.1 12.4 Angus Southt 74.5 -5.3 39.2 10.5 6.5 43.8 - * - 36.5 35.4 15.4 35.1 9.8 13.4 Argyll 72.0 -5.3 36.7 13.6 - 49.7 - - - 41.7 49.2 14.5 42.3 24.8 13.3 Ayrshire Be Bute, Ayr 79.4 -3.7 42.4 34.6 6.3 16.7 - * -2.1 25.3 66.7 11.4 35.0 47.2 11.1 Ayrshire Central 79.3 -2.8 24.8 45.1 5.6 24.5 - * -3.7 19.1 69.3 10.3 26.8 22.2 7.8 Ayrshire South 77.4 -2.0 18.6 56.2 5.4 19.8 - * - 39.0 45.7 13.9 35.6 31.1 14.9 Bute Be North Ayrshire 71.3 -5.8 38.9 28.8 6.4 25.9 - -3.9 -4.0 23.8 68.1 9.6 32.1 47.7 9.4 Kilmarnock 80.4 -2.8 18.9 45.7 5.2 30.2 - -4.6 - 41.9 37.0 14.0 31.5 22.9 9.4 Banff 72.5 -3.2 37.9 7.3 8.9 45.9 - -4.2 - 25.6 52.0 12.8 32.8 16.5 10.8 Berwick BeEast Lothiant 83.1 -2.7 37.6 43.3 5.9 13.2 - * -3.4 33.5 41.6 14.0 33.4 10.2 12.1 Caithness Be Sutherland 78.1 -4.9 18.8 35.3 22.0 23.9 - -4.3 - 33.3 44.5 12.2 34.3 26.4 9.0 Dumfries 76.7 -3.7 38.8 26.5 8.3 26.4 - c -3.1 -3.0 23.1 68.2 9.1 38.0 44.8 13.3 Dunbartonshire, Central 79.8 -3.3 17.2 40.2 4.8 29.1 8.7 -1.5 - 39.5 56.5 19.1 54.4 29.9 20.8 Eastt 80.7 -4.3 31.1 30.4 7.3 31.2 - -4.1 - 29.4 54.0 11.6 36.0 36.1 12.6 West 78.3 -1.3 23.2 38.1 5.0 33.7 - * - 22.6 56.6 8.8 33.7 42.5 14.9 Dundee, East 73.4 -7.7 16.8 32.7 2.8 47.7 - * - 18.0 62.4 8.1 32.8 44.4 15.1 West 74.3 -6.9 18.5 41.0 4.6 35.1 0.8c * - tJO 46.8 11.4 7.8 39.8 21.0 15.5 Edinburgh Central 67.5 -6.1 26.0 40.3 8.9 24.8 - -5.0 -5.6 I'.:) ...... (JO I\:) I\:) .:. .. ~ u u ~-; c: '"a> o "C ~ ";; :;::: ::s .:.. ";; t\, tIO~ ..: e c: t\,~ u .. ..~ ~ .< "S - c:'" ~ ~ ~ 1::-; "~a> c:a> 0 ::s c: ~ '5~ 01_ ~ t\,~ r§- 01 01 o ::s ~ ~ ~ .. ~I o e "~ .. ou p.,::21 Z c: c: ~ .. ~~ ,c. d ,c u ..cl ..cl "~-e "§ U-e 0 Z ~o ~~~olj ~~ ;; ~~ Constituency ~8 ~~ U j ;:J rn 0 ~~I:I)~ 34.4 56.2 10.2 41.4 22.0 12.6 East 76.2 -4.9 23.1 44.9 5.9 25.6 0.5c -2.8 - 44.8 25.0 8.6 39.5 29.5 12.1 Leith 74.9 -4.5 28.0 39.7 6.2 26.1 - * -4.7 57.8 9.8 16.2 53.8 20.4 21.8 North 69.2 -7.2 39.3 25.9 11.3 23.5 - -4.1 -3.1 39.2 46.0 14.1 50.1 20.7 19.6 Pentlands 75.5 -5.4 33.9 30.9 10.6 24.6 - -5.0 -3.7 49.0 35.8 17.2 53.9 16.1 25.9 South 74.2 -6.7 35.9 28.2 14.2 21.7 - -3.7 -3.2 53.1 37.3 20.5 57.3 22.4 22.1 West 76.6 -5.6 38.2 25.2 16.4 20.2 - -5.1 -3.5 25.4 60.0 9.2 35.7 26.1 12.4 Fife, Dunfermline 75.9 -5.2 23.0 40.1 8.3 28.6 - -4.4 - 10.4 81.5 7.3 28.5 35.0 10.0 Central Fife 73.9 -5.3 12.3 51.9 - 33.4 2.4c - - 38.6 39.7 14.2 38.3 23.3 18.6 East Fife 73.7 -5.1 38.8 16.9 12.6 31.7 - -5.0 - 21.3 64.6 8.8 32.1 34.6 12.2 Kirkcaldy 75.0 -4.4 16.5 45.4 6.1 32.0 - * - 38.6 35.7 16.3 34.2 15.0 9.6 Gallowayt 77.1 -0.7 40.2 9.0 10.5 40.3 - -4.8 - 36.4 48.4 11.0 46.5 30.6 14.8 Glasgow, Cathcart 76.7 -4.0 42.7 38.1 2.8 16.4 - * -0.3 14.9 44.2 3.0 20.8 42.3 7.7 Central 56.9 -6.2 13.0 63.6 4.2 19.2 - -2.0 - 16.0 75.6 9.4 41.7 40.7 12.1 Craigton 75.8 -4.3 20.1 50.5 5.1 24.3 - * - 5.7 90.6 4.6 33.8 39.7 10.5 Garscadden 70.9 -3.3 12.9 50.9 5.0 31.2 - * - 26.2 33.0 4.5 26.7 43.1 6.9 Govan 71.7 -3.2 7.1 49.5 1.9 41.0 0.4f -1.3 - 0.1 46.9 22.7 18.9 58.7 27.2 26.0 Hillhead 72.4 -6.4 37.1 28.2 11.9 22.8 - -8.4 -5.3 32.0 8.9 10.4 42.0 25.2 20.6 Kelvingrove 63.4 -6.0 27.6 42.8 6.4 23.2 - * -3.6 9.7 77.0 4.0 24.9 34.4 6.9 Maryhill 65.9 -4.0 9.3 57.7 3.1 29.9 - * - 30.6 52.5 11.7 44.1 30.9 14.1 Pollok 72.4 -5.1 27.0 43.4 5.3 24.3 - * -4.5 0.7 96.9 2.9 26.2 40.6 8.1 Provan 64.0 -5.0 9.8 58.6 - 30.2 1.4c - - 27.5 38.7 5.9 34.4 31.4 10.9 Queen's Park 67.0 -6.3 17.0 56.1 3.7 21.8 l.4c * - 21.1 47.9 4.1 25.1 44.3 7.8 Shettleston 64.4 -5.1 14.4 54.3 2.8 28.5 - * - 21.0 56.5 4.6 28.5 34.4 8.0 Springburn 66.5 -4.0 13.3 54.6 2.7 28.3 1.1c * 37.3 41.9 12.4 37.1 14.1 12.1 Inverness 70.5 -6.2 22.0 15.6 32.4 29.6 0.4 -6.3 24.5 69.3 7.5 33.5 48.7 10.8 Lanarkshire, Bothwell 76.5 -4.7 17.9 48.7 8.9 24.5 -2.3 11.1 85.0 7.4 31.3 46.1 8.6 Coatbridge & Airdrie 74.5 -3.3 17.2 51.6 3.3 27.9 * 14.0 83.0 12.3 44.1 43.6 13.6 East Kilbride 79.1 -2.9 16.3 41.9 5.1 36.7 * 26.0 68.1 10.2 34.3 44.1 10.9 Hamilton 77.2 -2.5 9.5 47.5 4.0 39.0 * 25.6 62.8 10.8 32.4 29.2 9.7 Lanark 82.2 -1.9 23.2 37.6 3.4 35.8 * 34.1 58.1 11.5 38.4 33.6 13.1 Lanarkshire, North 79.5 -3.3 22.5 46.2 4.4 26.9 * 12.7 83.2 8.3 37.2 49.6 9.7 Motherwell & Wishaw 75.4 -1.7 18.2 44.6 2.9 31.8 2.5c * 35.6 55.3 11.5 42.1 3.9.6 13.6 Rutherglen 78.8 -3.8 24.0 44.4 6.3 25.3 * 21.5 65.7 11.1 39.0 25.9 11.9 Midlothian 77.4 -4.1 16.0 41.5 6.9 35.6 * 35.2 34.5 11.1 28.9 13.4 10.2 Moray & Nairn 74.7 -5.1 40.0 9.7 9.1 41.2 * 51.6 22.3 13.4 29.9 12.1 8.2 Orkney & Zetland 66.8 -4.2 14.2 12.4 56.2 17.2 -5.8 41.1 26.2 19.3 39.8 11.4 15.6 Perthshire, Kinross & West 75.1 -2.5 41.7 7.6 9.2 41.5 -4.9 33.4 41.9 13.0 41.4 18.0 13.8 Perth & Eastt 73.8 -4.5 38.9 13.6 6.7 40.8 -3.7 Renfrewshire 15.7 69.9 6.2 28.2 51.3 8.5 Greenock & Port Glasgow 71.1 +1.8 11.3 48.2 19.4 21.1 -1.2 20.6 65.7 8.2 32.7 44.3 11.2 Paisley 72.2 -3.0 15.6 44.8 6.5 33.1 * 67.0 27.5 26.3 59.3 32.2 22.3 Renfrewshire East 77.7 -5.3 41.4 20.8 14.6 23.2 -4.3 28.9 59.4 13.0 41.4 45.1 14.6 Renfrewshire West 80.1 -2.8 26.8 38.5 6.1 28.6 -3.0 43.8 32.5 14.5 33.7 10.5 13.6 Ross & Cromarty 69.5 -5.7 38.9 16.8 8.6 35.7 -12.6 33.8 42.7 12.9 33.3 35.8 9.8 Roxburgh, Selkirk & Peebles 79.3 -7.0 27.4 8.9 43.7 20.0 -8.4 Stirlingshire, 21.4 71.3 8.9 32.3 41.9 13.4 Clackmannan & East 81.8 -0.8 10.5 36.3 2.5 50.7 * 23.6 67.6 10.4 36.4 36.5 14.7 Stirling, Falkirk & 79.4 -1.8 14.1 43.2 2.9 39.8 * Grangemouth 20.6 70.0 11.3 35.2 30.0 15.2 Stirlingshire West 80.7 -2.0 18.4 39.0 4.4 38.2 * 15.4 76.8 8.2 30.1 41.0 10.3 West Lothian 78.8 -1.8 10.0 45.3 3.4 40.9 0.4c * 71.3 19.8 9.4 21.5 24.9 9.3 Western Isles 63.4 -4.0 8.3 24.7 5.5 61.5 * (.>0 I'-:) (.>0 ~ r-:l t+>- Northern Ireland % Change % Voting since Feb. UUUC UPNI Other (Prot.) NILP Alliance SDLP Other (Rep.) Other Constituency Oct. 1974 1974 % % % % % % % % Antrim, North 57.3 -5.8 72.6 -- - 14.6 12.8 - - South 58.0 -3.2 71.5 - - - 15.3 13.2 - - Armagh 68.6 +0.1 60.0 - - - - 31.8 8.2 - Belfast, East 67.1 -5.9 59.1 27.0 - 13.9 - - - - North 65.9 -3.4 62.6 - - 5.2 8.1 24.1 - - South 67.7 -1.9 59.2 - 9.8 3.3 23.0 4.7 - - West 67.2 -5.4 36.5 - 6.0 - - 49.0 8.0 0.5 Down, North 60.9 -6.5 71.9 10.6 - - 17.5 -- - South 72.4 +6.6 50.8 - - -- 45.5 3.5 0.2 Fermanagh & S. Tyronet 88.7 +1.3 47.9 - - -- - 51.8 0.3 Londonderry 69.4 +1.3 54.4 -- - - 40.4 3.9 1.3 Mid·Ulster 79.0 -3.4 47.4 -- - - 40.1 12.5 - APPENDIX 1 325 Nearest Misses, Liberal Highest 'Other' Votes (G.B.) % Lib. % Maj. % 36.6 Blyth Ind Lab. 1.4 Skipton (e) 39.9 34.6 Lincoln Soc. Dem. 1.5 Bodmin (C) 44.0 27.9 Sheffield Brightside Ind. Lab. 1.7 Leominster (C) 43.9 9.4 Hackney S. Be Nat. Front 1.9 Newbury (e) 40.6 Shoreditch 2.5 Hereford (C) 36.4 8.7 Dunbarton C. Comm. 3.6 Chippenham (C) 39.1 8.3 Tottenham Nat. Front 4.3 Bath (C) 33.4 8.0 Wood Green Nat. Front 5.1 Hazel Grove (C) 39.8 7.8 NewhamS. Nat. Front 5.6 Louth (C) 32.9 7.6 Bethnal Green Be Nat. Front 5.8 Aberdeen West (C) 29.9 Bow 7.0 Newham, N.E. Nat. Front Nearest Nationalist Misses (all SNP) Biggest Nationalist Increases (all SNP) % Nat. % Nat. Maj. % Incr. % 0.2 Kinross Be W.P. (C) 41.5 18.4 Kinross Be 41.5 0.9 Stidingshire W. (Lab) 38.2 W. Perthshire 1.8 Lanark (Lab) 35.8 14.9 Kilmarnock 30.2 2.8 Inverness (Lib) 29.6 14.6 Dunbarton C. 29.1 3.2 Ross Be Cromarty (C) 35.7 14.0 Lanark 35.8 3.5 Stiding, Falkirk etc. 39.8 13.5 Perth Be E. Perthshire 40.8 (Lab) 13.4 Renfrewshire W. 28.6 4.4 W. Lothian (Lab) 40.9 12.8 Renfrewshire E. 23.2 4.5 Dunbartonshire W. 33.7 12.7 Ross Be Cromarty 35.7 (Lab) 12.3 Fife E. 31.7 5.2 E. Kilbride (Lab) 36.7 12.1 Edinburgh. Pentlands 24.6 5.9 Dundee W. (Lab) 35.1 Highest Turnout Lowest Turnout Lowest Turnout Decrease % % 88.7 F ermanagh Be 50.0 Chelsea % S.Tyrone 51.5 Stepney Be +6.6 DownS. 85.6 Carmarthen Poplar +2.2 Carmarthen 84.1 Kingswood 51.6 NewhamN.E. +1.8 Greenock Be P.G. 84.0 Merionethshire 52.6 Lambeth C. +1.3 F ermanagh Be 83.1 Berwick Be E.L 52.8 Lambeth S.Tyrone 83.0 Keighley Vauxhall +1.3 Londonderry 82.4 Hazel Grove 52.8 Hackney N. Be +0.7 Bury Be Radcliffe 82.3 Bodmin Stoke New. +0.2 Armagh 82.2 Lanark 52.8 Hackney C. -0.3 Whitehaven 82.1 Skipton 53.1 Bethnal Green Be -0.5 Neath Bow -0.6 Workington 53.2 City of London Be W'minster S. 53.4 Manchester C. 326 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECfION OF OCTOBER 1974 Greatest Turnout Highest Swing to Lab. All Swings to Con. Decrease 6.0 Liverpool 1.8 Falmouth & % Kirkdale Camborne 11.5 Leeds S.E. 5.6 Leeds S.E. 1.1 Gloucester W. 11.0 Holborn & St. 5.6 Edinburgh C. 0.6 Rugby Pancras S. 5.3 Glasgow 0.6 Hemsworth 10.8 Scarborough Hillhead 0.5 Norfolk N.W. 10.4 Deptford 5.3 Hackney S. & 0.3 Essex S.E. 10.4 Peckham Shoreditch 0.2 Southend E. 10.2 Sheffidd, 5.2 Sunderland N. 0.2 Brent N. Hillsborough 5.2 Peckham 0.2 Gosport 10.1 Leeds, S. 5.0 Sunderland S. 0.1 Daventry 10.1 Brent S. 4.9 Vauxhall 10.0 Islington S. & F. 4.8 CardiffW. 10.0 Chelsea 100 Most Agricultural Seats % of employed engaged in agriculture 30.8 Montgomery 18.2 Isle of Ely 12.3 Worcestershire S. 29.4 Orkney & 18.2 Tiverton 12.0 Caernarvon Zetland 18.2 Ross & 12.0 Cambridgeshire 29.2 Cardigan Cromarty 11.9 Rutland & 28.2 Carmarthen 17.5 Berwick-upon- Stamford 25.9 Aberdeenshire E. Tweed 11.8 NorfolkN. 25.5 Holland with 17.2 Pembroke 11.8 Bridlington Boston 17.1 Richmond, 11.7 Anglesey 25.0 Galloway Yorks. 11.6 Western Isles 24.8 Devon W. 17.1 Thirsk & Malton 11.5 Totnes 24.2 Banff 17.0 Norfolk N.W. 11.4 Derbyshire W. 24.1 Leominster 17.0 Merioneth 11.3 Hexham 23.5 Penrith & the 16.9 Oswestry 11.3 Chichester Border 16.7 Argyll 11.1 Dorset N. 21.5 Howden 16.5 Caithness & 10.9 Saffron Walden 21.3 Aberdeenshire Sutherland 10.9 Hereford W. 16.3 Denbigh 10.9 Moray & Nairn 20.8 AngusN. & 15.6 DorsetW. 10.6 Roxburgh, Mearns 15.2 Bodmin Selkirk & 20.6 Norfolk S.W. 15.2 Westmorland Peebles 20.2 Ludlow 15.2 St. Ives 10.6 Ayrshire, S. 19.9 Horncastle 15.0 Gainsborough 10.5 Truro 19.6 CornwailN. 14.9 Norfolk S. 10.3 Cirencester & 19.5 Brecon& 14.5 DevonN. Tewkesbury Radnor 13.6 Dumfries 10.1 Nantwich 19.5 Kinross & W. 13.2 Angus S. 10.0 Lanark Perthshire 12.8 Honiton 10.0 Louth 19.2 Eye 12.5 Skipton 10.0 Perth & E. 18.3 Berwick & E. 12.5 Wells Perth shire Lothian 12.4 Rye 9.8 Fife, E. APPENDIX 1 327 9.5 Bury St. Edmunds 8.4 Gloucestershire W. 7.8 Devizes 9.2 Grantham 8.3 Ashford 7.7 Faversham 9.1 Mid-Beds. 8.3 Monmouth 7.7 Chippenham 9.0 Yeovil 8.2 Knutsford 7.4 Scarborough 9.0 Sudbury & 8.1 Petersfield 7.4 Winchester Woodbridge 8.1 Shrewsbury 7.3 Cleveland & 8.9 Inverness 8.0 Bridgwater Whitby 8.6 Ripon 8.0 Arundel 7.2 Lowestoft 8.6 Stratford-an-Avon 8.0 Taunton 7.1 Falmouth & 8.5 Huntingdon 8.0 Fylde N. Camborne 50 Most Mining Seats % of employed engaged in mining 32.9 Bolsover 15.9 Rother Valley 8.7 Bosworth 32.4 Hemsworth 14.8 Caerphilly 8.6 Penistone 28.4 Houghton-Ie-Spring 14.3 Blyth 8.1 Consett 23.8 Dearne Valley 14.3 Cannock 8.0 Chesterfield 23.8 Morpeth 14.0 Normanton 7.5 Dover & Deal 23.4 Easington 13.1 Ogmore 7.5 Gower 22.4 Mansfield 12.3 Bassetlaw 7.4 Dunfermline 21.2 Ashfield 12.0 Derbyshire N.E. 7.3 DurhamN.W. 20.5 Don Valley 10.3 EbbwVale 7.0 Pontypridd 20.2 Pontefract & 10.1 Goole 6.9 Belper Castleford 10.0 Durham 6.8 Carlton 19.4 Abertillery 9.9 Rhondda 6.7 Kirkcaldy 17.2 Barnsley 9.7 Midlothian 6.7 Whitehaven 17.0 Ayrshire s. 9.0 Merthyr Tydfil 6.5 Uanelli 16.3 Aberdare 8.8 Fife, C. 6.4 Loughborough 16.1 Newark 8.8 Wakefield 6.2 Ilkeston 16.1 Bedwellty 8.7 Chester-Ie-Street 6.1 S. Shields 25 Seats with Most Students % engaged in full-time study 8.7 Bristol W. 6.1 Camden, 5.5 Haringey, 7.6 Cambridge Hampstead Homsey 7.3 Oxford 5.9 Sheffield, 5.5 Kensington 6.9 Edinburgh S. Hallam 5.0 Leeds, N.E. 6.9 Chelsea 5.9 Edinburgh, N. 4.9 Brighton, 6.7 Manchester, 5.8 Glasgow, Pavilion Withington Kelvingrove 4.9 Leeds, S.E. 6.4 AberdeenS. 5.8 Cardigan 4.8 Manchester, 6.4 Leeds N.W. 5.8 Glasgow, Moss Side 6.4 HendonS. Hillhead 4.8 Westminster, 6.4 Newcastle N. 5.7 Edinburgh C. Paddington 6.2 CardiffN. 328 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 50 seats with most of New Commonwealth Roo ts % born in the New Commonwealth or with at least one parent born in the New Commonwealth 29.6 Birmingham, 15.3 Newham, N.W. 11.3 Wands worth, Ladywood 14.9 Haringey, Wood Battersea N. 27.1 Birmingham, Green 11.2 Nottingham, E. Handsworth 14.S Leicester S. 11.2 Warley, E. 25.4 Ealing, Southall 14.6 Wandsworth, 10.9 Walsall, S. 25.3 Haringey, Tooting 10.S Lambeth, Tottenham 13.9 Hammersmith, Streatham 24.6 Brent S. N. 10.7 Croydon N. W. 19.4 Lambeth C. 13.9 Lewisham, 10.7 Coventry S.E. 19.3 Brent E. Deptford 10.4 Tower Hamiets, 19.2 Bradford W. 13.S Wolverhampton Bethnal Green & 19.0 Hackney N. & S.W. Bow Stoke 13.5 Manchester Moss 10.0 Waltham Forest, Newington Side Walthamstow IS.9 Birmingham 13.0 Wolverhampton 10.0 Brent N. Sparkbrook S.E. 10.0 Hackney & lS.7 Islington N. 12.S NewhamN.E. Shoreditch lS.0 Haringey, 12.4 Waltham Forest, 9.9 Coventry N.E. Homsey Ley ton 9.7 Birmingham, 17.6 Hackney C. 12.3 Westminster, Edgbaston 17.2 Birmingham, Paddington 9.7 Leicester E. Small Heath 12.2 Lambeth 9.4 Camden, St. 16.4 Wands worth, Vauxhall Pancras N. Ba ttersea S. 12.1 Southwark, 9.4 Derby S. 15.7 Lambeth, Dulwich 9.3 Manchester, Norwood 11.4 Eton & Slough Ardwick 15.4 Islington, C. 11.3 Leeds, N.E. 25 Seats with most Irish born % born anywhere in Ireland 12.0 Brent, E. 6.5 Coventry S.E. 5.1 Luton, E. 9.2 Hammersmith, N. 6.5 Eaiing, Acton 5.1 Camden, 8.6 Islington, N. 6.1 Camden, Holbom & St. S.3 Birmingham, Hampstead Pancras S. Sparkbrook 5.9 Birmingham, 5.1 Birmingham, 7.7 Brent, S. Small Heath Erdington 7.5 Manchester, 5.5 Kensington 5.0 Birmingham, Ardwick 5.5 Islington, C. Ladywood 7.2 Westminster, 5.5 Glasgow, 4.S Haringey, Paddington Queen's Park Homsey 6.9 Manchester, 5.3 Birmingham, 4.S Coventry, N.W. Moss Side Handsworth 4.S Harrow, C. 6.S Camden, St. 5.2 Hammersmith, Pancras N. Fulham APPENDIX 1 329 By-elections 1974 The only by-election of the 1974 Parliament was in Newham, South on May 23 following the peerage given to Ld Elwyn Jones. Lab. 62.6% (66.1% in Feb.), Lib. 12.6% (14.8%), Nat. F. 11.5% (6.9%), Con. 11.1% (12.2%), Ind. Lab. 2.2%. Turnout 25.9% (63.2%). Two seats were vacant at the dissolution: Newcastle-upon-Tyne East and Swansea East. Appendix 2: The Results Analysed by Michael Steed Introduction Two general elections fought in a single year present unique opportunities for the study of electoral behaviour. With voting on the same register, and no opportunity therefore for local housing developments or differential rates of social change to have their effect on constituency voting, we have the best opportunity for a generation to measure the national trends, see exactly how their impact varied according to the character or situation in each constituency and assess any residual, purely local factors. Findings can be less tentative than if the two elections had been separated by four years. The overall votes cast in October 1974 in Great Britain1 showed only a small shift in support compared with February: Labour's share increased by 2.2% and SNP's by 0.9%, while the Conservatives' declined by 2.1% and the Liberals' by 1.0%. But we must distinguish carefully four different situations, defined by the presence of SNP and Liberal candidates. The Nationalist upsurge in Scotland made such an impact that it can be highly misleading to draw any conclusions from statistics applying to the whole of Great Britain. Therefore, England and Wales and then Scotland are treated quite separately in this appendix.2 Both north and south of the Scottish border there were a substantial number of Liberal interventions (i.e. seats where a Liberal stood in October but not in February). Table 1 demonstrates how the national totals, broken down into four sets of totals according to the presence of Liberal and SNP candidates, show a very different pattern from the overall figures. The votes won by the 102 extra Liberal candidates offset nearly half of the loss of 1 ~ million votes suffered by the Liberals in the seats they fought in February. Conversely, we can see that had the Liberal party fought on the same widespread basis in February, the actual Labour vote in October would have increased instead of droppin§ 200,000 and the Conservative percentage decline would have been small. 1 All fIgures in this appendix unless otherwise stated refer to Great Britain only. For Northern Ireland see p. 352. 2 There is no need to apply the same method to Wales; the impact of Plaid Cymru is confined to a handful of Welsh-speaking seats in rural West Wales. 'Throughout this appendix these situations are distinguished: seats are termed three-cornereds (or in Scotland four-cornereds) and Liberal interventions on the basis used in Table 1. The thirteen special cases are excluded from all analyses involving these definitions, though only the three with split Labour votes are excluded when swing is referred to. 330 Table 1. Voting by Type of Contest in the 1974 General Elections Liberal intervention Liberal intervention Type Three-cornered (England & Wales) Four-cornered (Scotland) AlIGB Votes Votes Votes Votes Votes (OOOs) % (OOOs) % (OOOs) % (OOOs) % (OOOs) % February: Conservative 9,657 39.9 1,103 35.6 474 36.1 445 30.9 11,873 38.8 Labour 8,492 35.1 1,909 61.7 374 28.5 629 43.7 11,646 38.0 Liberal 5,799 24.0 218 16.6 6,066 19.8 SNP 240 18.3 359 25.0 633 2.1 Other 237 1.0 84 2.7 7 0.5 6 0.4 412 1.3 Total 24,185 3,096 1,313 1,439 30,624 October: Conservative 8,863 39.6 782 26.6 372 29.8 288 20.8 10,467 36.8 Labour 8,610 38.5 1,666 56.8 365 29.3 586 42.3 11,457 40.2 Liberal 4,628 20.7 430 14.7 153 12.3 66 4.7 5,347 18.8 SNP 353 28.3 444 32.0 840 2.9 Other 268 1.2 56 1.9 4 0.3 2 0.2 379 1.3 Total 22,369 2,934 1,247 1,386 28,490 Three-cornered: the 479 English and Welsh constituencies with Conservative, Labour and Liberal candidates at both elections. Liberal intervention (E & W): the 64 English and Welsh constituencies with Liberal intervention in October. Four-cornered: the 33 Scottish constituencies with Conservative, Labour, Liberal and SNP candidates at both elections. Liberal intervention (Scot.): the 34 Scottish constituencies with Liberal intervention in October. Thirteen seats are excluded from these categories but included in the final column: they are 9 seats in England and Wales, 3 with a split Labour vote, and 2 with a split Liberal vote at either election as well as 4 with an unofficial Liberal standing in February; and 4 seats in Scotland, 3 with no Liberal in October and one with no Nationalist in February. t.lO (jO ..... 332 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECfION OF OCfOBER 1974 Table 2. Measures of Change between February and October 1974 Mean of change No. of seats in each seat Base Drop in turnout 623 -6.1 % of electorate {623 -2.2 Drop in Con. vote 512 -0.8 +2.3 Rise in Lab. vote {623 } ••~.n_OI 512 +3.4 total votes cast Drop in Lib. vote 512 -3.4 Swing by averaging 620 -2.2 Two·party swing 620 -3.3 % of two-party vote Table 2 shows some measures of change in Britain as a whole. Clearly the real measures of change in party support are those derived from the 512 seats which are either three-cornered or four-cornered. Normally in this appendix, these figures measuring change in the party support are used rather than swing. But on certain occasions swing is more useful (e.g. as a summary when it seems clear that a movement between Conservative and Labour is the main element, or in analysis of the electoral system). Because the base is a third as large again, the traditional method of calculating swing by averaging the Conservative percentage loss and the Labour percenta,fe gain, now produces a much lower figure than the two-party swing. The method of averaging has the advantage in that it uses the figures that we are otherwise using as measures of party change. Thus in the 512 seats the mean swing (mean of 0.8% and 3.4%) is 2.2%, significantly identical with the swing in all 620 seats.s However, the two-party swing remains a finer instrument for measuring changes.6 In this 4See The British General Electon of 1964, pp. 337-8, for a discussion of methods of calculating swing. 'Thus the intervening Liberal candidates apparently took votes from the two main parties so evenly as to show no effect on this definition of swing. The two-party swing shows a higher swing to Labour in Liberal interventions because, being mostly Labour-held seats, a higher proportion of the Conservative vote went to Liberal. But in the seven English and Welsh Liberal interventions which were marginal the swing was 3.0% compared with 2.9% in the three-cornereds. 6This can be seen from the ten seats listed on p. 326 as being the only seats showing, on the traditional method of calculation, swings to Conservative. Four of these showed swings to Labour on a two-party basis. Hemsworth is the extreme case of a very safe seat in which the Liberal vote was taken more in numbers from the dominant party and more in proportion from the minority party and different measures of swing simply reflect this. In the other three (Brent North, Daventry and Essex South-East) the Conservative vote fell more (by 847, 1,472 and 1,296 respectively) than Labour's (by 218, 785 and 741). The two-party ratio measured these changes as 0.5%, 0.3% and 0.2% swings to Labour whilst the traditional method recorded 0.2%, 0.1% and 0.3% swings to Conservative. However, the convention of excluding seats where the two main parties do not top the poll excludes the two most striking swings from Labour to Conservative, in Cheltenham and Ross & Cromarty. APPENDIX 2 333 appendix, swing is employed in a manner entirely consistent with previous appendices: two-party swing is used for all analytical purposes, while Table 16 on p. 355 uses the averaging method that is also employed in the full listings on p. 299ff. Swing was established for an essentially two·party system. The two 1974 elections both saw a dramatic fragmentation of that system, but it is too early to say whether this reflected a temporary aberration, a new and enduring pattern of party support, or a point on the road to a still more multi·party system. F or the moment, adherence to past usage seems preferable to a premature attempt to establish which measures of change are most appropriate to the party system of 1974. England and Wales Turnout The increase in abstention was the only respect in which the change in behaviour between February and October differed as between England and Wales. The drop in the proportion of the registered electorate who turned out was 6.5% in England (and in the only two regions where it was less than 5% - Devon and Cornwall and the non-conurbation North west - the weather played a part). In Wales the drop was only 3.2%; in only five constituencies, four along the anglicised eastern fringe of the country, did the drop exceed 5% and in none did it reach the average English figure. Part of this reduction simply reflects a more out-of-date electoral register so there is an even greater contrast between England, more apathetic about the second 1974 general election, and Wales, finding the contests equally interesting. Between February 28 and October 10, about 1% of those on the electoral register had died, and in most constituencies between 5% and 10% had moved from the address at which they were registered. Such movement is greater in the inner city areas and less in stable industrial communities and rural areas, a contrast clearly reflected in Table 3. No one knows just how many who moved failed to get a postal vote and did not therefore vote, but the postal votes increased only from 2.1% in February to 3.0% in October. Generally, a figure for a fall in turnout of under 2% reflects a real increase in actual voting on the part of those who could, while a fall in turnout of over 5% certainly means more deliberate abstention; in most constituencies these figures would be about 3%and 4% respectively. However, certain exceptional cases reflect special characteris- tics of the relationship between the register and the actual population. Thus turnout dropped 9.2% in Cambridge and 7.7% in the fourteen constitu- encies with more than 5% student population - more students being in residence in February and final-year students having moved away by October. Three main factors determined the variation in drop in turnout: degree of urbanisation (see p. 350), the intervention of a Liberal, and marginality. Table 3 shows this in terms of the mean fall in various categories. The marginal category in Table 3 is confined to three-cornereds which were marginal as between Conservative and Labour parties (a gap in February of less than 12% of the two-party vote), since this is the only group large enough to allow subdivision between the urbanisation categories. The seven Liberal interventions in marginal seats showed a mean drop in turnout of 3.2%, and the most marginal seat among them, Bury & 334 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Table 3. Mean Fall £n Turnout Three-cornereds Liberal All seats interventions Marginal Non-marginal Big city -7.2 -5.5 ~6.0 -8.0 Other urban -6.3 -4.5 -5.7 -7_1 Mixed -6.0 -2.5 -5.5 -6.5 Mainly rural -5_6 -3.4 -5.0 -5.9 Very rural -4.8 * -2.8 -5.1 All seats -6.3 -4.5 -5.6 -6.9 An italicised figure refers to less than ten constituencies and * indicates that there were less than three seats. Radcliffe, was the only English seat where turnout rose. In those 'non-marginals' in Table 3 which were in fact close fights between another pair of parties, turnout also fell less; Carmarthen, where the February result had been decided by only three votes, had the highest rise (2.1%) in turnout in Britain. Therefore, Table 3 understates the real effect of marginality. From this evidence we can conclude that: (a) Normally in England, there was a drop in turnout of 7%, constituting an increase in deliberate abstention of 3-4%. but in Wales there was no increase in deliberate abstention. (b) The drop was about 1% greater in large cities and about 1%% less in the most rural areas; this variation may reflect the differing rates of population mobility. (c) Liberal intervention normally brought out nearly 2% of the electorate who had stayed at home in February, amounting to about one in six of the Liberal vote in those constituencies. This estimate of Liberal supporters who abstain when without a Liberal candidate is similar to estimates in all recent elections. (d) A close fight in February kept the attention of around 1 %% of the electorate who would otherwise have abstained - or induced some of the February abstainers to come out and vote. Where the fight was very close, the proportion was higher, as is shown in Table 6 on p. 338. These conclusions, plus some slight effect of the weather, explain every one of the significant variations in individual constituency changes in turnout. The seven constituencies with falls in turnout of less than 1% were the two with majorities of less than ten votes in February and five with Liberal intervention. One of these five was also in Wales, one also a marginal, while the other three were in Cumbria or North Lancashire. Of the fifty seats with a turnout drop of less than 3.5%, all but one APPENDIX 2 335 (Barrow-in-Furness) were in Wales, or saw a close fight in February or had Liberal intervention in October. The weather in February in the Cumbria area had been particularly unpleasant. At the other extreme, nine of the ten largest falls (those over 10%) were in inner city seats with large majorities; the tenth was Scarborough. Of the fifty seats with a drop in turnout over 9%, only two were marginals - both (Cambridge and Kensington) with exceptional population mobility. None had an intervening Liberal, most were in big cities, and all those that were not urban were in North Yorkshire. The only major weather station in England reporting more than 0.4 mm of rain on polling day in October was in North Yorkshire. Changes in Party Support The changes in party support do not seem to have been affected by the decision of some two million or so February voters to stay at home in October. A small correlation between the swing to Labour and the size of the fall in turnout is probably spurious because both were markedly related to urbanisation. Table 4 shows how this character- istic affected each party's performance. The swing, and the change in the Labour share of the vote, is straightforwardly related to the degree of urbanisation. But when the Conservative performance alone is considered, although the party clearly did worse in the big cities, its performance was remarkably similar in all the other categories, from the most to the least urban. The Liberal performance was the converse; in the most urban two-thirds of the country, the fall in the Liberal vote was much the same in city, suburb and medium-sized town alike, but in the more rural parts it was progressively less the more rural the seat. Two explanations would fit Table 4. Mean Changes in Party Support All seats Three-cornereds Two-party Change in average vote for: swing to Labour Con. Lab. Lib. Big city 3.8 -1.5 +4.9 -3.7 Other urban 2.8 -0.2 +3.8 -3.9 Mixed 2.5 -0.1 +2.9 -2.9 Mainly rural 2.1 -0.3 +2.3 -2.0 Very rurala 2.8 -0.5 +2.0 -2.2 All seats 2.9 -0.4 +3.6 -3.4 aThis group of 29 seats includes the four in Wales fought closely between Labour and Plaid Cymru or Liberal, where the Con- servative vote was heavily squeezed; in the other 25 the swing averaged 2.0% to Labour and the average Conservative vote increased by 0.10/.. 336 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Table 5. Correlatz"ons wz"th LZ"beral Performance Conservative Labour All urban (329) 0.51 0.54 Mixed and rural (150) 0.59 0.77 All seats (479) 0.49 0.65 these patterns: (1) that the movement away from the Liberal party went fairly indiscriminately to each major party and the variation in the swing therefore represents a real variation in the movement from Conservative to Labour; (2) that the Liberal vote held up better in the more rural areas at the expense of Labour and while the movement from Conservative to Labour was about 1% higher in the big cities, it was otherwise unaffected by urbanisation. Examination of the statistical relationships between the variations in the changes in the different parties' support shows that the diversity of the Liberal performance provided the main cause of variation in the performance of the other two parties. The change in the Conservative vote correlates hardly at all (0.02) with the change in the Labour vote; but the correlation between a good Conservative performance and a bad Liberal one is strong (0.49) and between Labour and Liberal performances even stronger (0.65). Table 5 shows these correlations, separately for the urban and the more rural seats. The conclusion to be drawn from Table 5 would appear to be that in more rural seats the variation in the Labour performance was the result of Liberal candidates holding on to more of their February vote - or sometimes even increasing it at Labour's expense. Insofar as this is true, the second explanation offered (that the real movement from Conservative to Labour was fairly uniform outside large cities) must be closer to the mark. However, different tactical situations clearly produced special behaviour, as will be shown on pp. 337-40; while the evenness of swing between three-cornereds and Liberal interventions (see p. 332) means that overall the two major parties must have drawn fairly equally on the voters deserting the Liberal party. Once the effects of urbanisation are taken into account, there are few other geographical or social patterns in the results. 7 If we examine the 7 Apart from the Black Country and Wales, a similar conclusion was reached for the February election; see The British General Election of February 1974, p. 315. But Hugh Berrington and Trevor Bedeman in 'The February Election', Parliamentary Affairs, Autumn 1974, pp. 321 and 332, argue that there was a critical regional swing, independent of urbanisation, in North-west England. APPENDIX 2 337 changes in the three-cornereds in each of the twenty-five regions listed on p. 296, we find that urbanisation explains most of the variations. The two significantly better than average Conservative performances were in East Anglia (+0.9%) and Outer London (+0.4%); apart from the special case of rural Wales, 8 the only drops in the Conservative vote that were much above average occurred in Inner London (-1.5%), in the West Midland conurbation (-1.6%) and in the urbanised region of Yorkshire and Humberside (-1.2%). Labour's performances were much above average in Inner London (+4.9%), in the five provincial conurbations (ranging from +4.1% to +5.2%) and in the industrial areas of the North-east (+5.2%) and South Wales (+4.3%). Labour's only really poor performances were throughout the South-west (+2.3%), in the non-conurbation part of the West Midlands (+2.3%) and in rural Wales (+1.7%). It is clearly no coincidence that these three areas also showed the three smallest drops in the Liberal vote (-2.1%, -1.7% and -1.8% respectively); the Liberal party's worst performances were in Greater London (-4.5%), Merseyside (-4.5%) and East Anglia (-4.3%). Just one of these regional variations stands out as not reflecting urbanism - the Conservative gain in Outer London. This deviation is more exactly described if we take an outer suburban ring of Greater London, defined by home ownership.9 In these forty seats the Labour vote rose normally (+3.5%) but the Conservatives did well (+0.9%) and the Liberals badly (-4.6%). The worst Liberal performances tended to coincide with the better Conservative ones. It does seem, therefore, that a special suburban London switch of about 1% from Liberal to Tory took place. There was no sign of a similar swich in suburban areas of other conurbations. In the non-metropolitan South-east, where home ownership is generally high, there was also no sign of such a switch except in a few built-up constituencies close to Greater London such as South Herts and Spelthorne. This specifically London suburban movement may reflect the impact of Margaret Thatcher's pledge on mortgage rates in the area of highest housing prices, but some other local factor could easily have been involved. 1 0 Tactical Voting The behaviour of third-place Labour voters in February 197411 ensured that during the election campaign much attention would be focused on different tactical situations. In the event there was no massive tactical shift of the sort that had occurred in some seats from Labour to 8 See footnote to Table 4 on p. 335 "There are 41 seats in the GLC area in a continuous ring around central London which had more than 50% owner-occupation at the 1971 census; one (Hayes & Harlington) is excluded as a Liberal intervention. lOA more generalised attempt to link the October election results to constituency census date yielded no clear-cut findings on the effect of house ownership or other characteristics. But for the potential of such an approach see W. Miller, G. Raab and K. Britto, 'Voting Research and the Population Census, 1918-71: Surrogate Data for Constituency Analyses', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, Vol. 137 (1974) pp. 384-411. II See The British General Election of February 1974, pp. 317-22. 338 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECfION OF OCfOBER 1974 Table 6. Co nservative/Labour Marginals Change in % share of the vote Change in No. of % turnout Con. Lab. Lib. seats Super·marginal -3.7 +1.5 +4.1 -5.6 12 Marginal -5.1 +0.7 +3.8 -5.1 32 Semi-marginal -6.1 +0.2 +3.8 -4.2 71 Non-marginal -6.9 -0.7 +3.5 -3.0 364 All seats -6.6 -0.4 +3.6 -3.4 479 Super-marginal: Con. share of two-party vote 49.5-50.5%. Marginal: Con. share of two-party vote 48.0-49.5% and 50.5-52.0% Semi-marginal: Con. share of two-party vote 44.0-48.0% and 52.0-56.0% Non-marginal: Con. share of two-party vote under 44.0% and over 56.0% Liberal or SNP at the previous election. But tactical voting played a part, and seems to have been more calculated since it was confined to seats where it could affect the outcome; accordingly it decided the victor in a number of seats. In February the traditional marginals, those between the Conservative and Labour parties, saw a jump in the Liberal vote regardless of marginality. In October, behaviour in two-party marginals was distinctly different. Table 6 shows how it varied in three-cornereds according to degree of marginality. The seats in the marginal and semi-marginal groups have representative balance between urban and rural areas; but of the super-marginals ten are urban and two are mixed, so if anything this group should show a slightly worse than normal Conservative performance. We can conclude, therefore, that the special behaviour of electors in these seats does reflect their marginality.l:1 In an average super-marginal constituency with an electorate of 63.000, this meant that a little over 2,000 electors voted who would have stayed at home if the seat was not marginal at all, while the Liberal vote fell by nearly 1,200 more than it would have done in a non-marginal. Table 6 shows that both major parties gained from these squeezed voters; about three-quarters of them must have divided equally between Conservative and Labour. But because the remainder of those who would otherwise have voted Liberal or abstained voted Conservative, the marginal seats showed a markedly lower swing to Labour. These small numbers of extra Conservative voters, totalling something like 20,000 to 25,000 altogether, had a totally disproportionate effect on the outcome of the election. There were twelve seats in England and Wales 1 2 The fact that swing was higher in Labour-held marginals than in Conservative-held ones, noted by many commentators as the results were announced, largely reflects the concentration of Labour-held marginals in large cities and the absence of Tory-held ones in cities. APPENDIX 2 339 which should have gone Labour on the average English and Welsh swing of 2.9% but stayed Conservative, compared with only one large city seat, Birmingham Selly Oak,l 3 which Labour gained over this level. Two or three of these might have remained Tory anyway, but then some needing a larger swing might also have fallen. It is impossible to identify with certainty those marginals whose fate was decided by the switch from Liberal or from abstention to Conservative, but the best estimate is that it saved about ten Tory seats, cutting the overall Labour majority by twenty. There are six Conservative MPs who would very probably not have been elected but for the decision of a key handful of those who voted Liberal in February to vote Conservative in October: Adam Butler (Bosworth), Barney Hayhoe (Brentford & Isleworth), John Loveridge (Upminster), John Moore (Croydon Central), Michael Morris (Northampton South) and Sir George Young (Acton), the four in London benefiting from both the marginal squeeze and the suburban switch discussed on pp. 335-7. Table 7. Labour/Liberal and Labour/Plaid Cymru Marginals February October % % Leading Lib.fPC 115,160 39.3 117,255 41.6 Labour 104,738 35.8 108,907 38.7 Conservative 50,033 17.1 36,055 12.8 Other Lib.fPC 21,109 7.2 17,120 6.1 Others 1,885 0.6 2,269 0.8 Leading Lib. fPC: the Liberal or Plaid Cymru candidate in first or second place. Other Lib.fPC: any Liberal or Plaid Cymru candidate in third or fourth place. There were only a few seats where third-place Conservative voters could vote tactically with effect; most Liberal and Plaid second places in Labour-held seats were in very securely Labour· seats. In seven constitu- encies a Conservative had been third in February in a constituency where less than 20% separated Labour from either a Plaid or Liberal candidate; five had already been gained from Labour since 1970. Table 7 shows how the votes were distributed in these seven constituencies. In Carmarthen, the sitting Labour MPs' share of the vote rose by an above-average 3.8%, but the massive squeeze on third- and fourth-place candidates allowed Gwynfor Evans to gain the seat for Plaid by a substantial margin of 7.0%. In both Colne Valley and Cardigan, the Labour MP defeated in February polled a better vote in October; but by squeezing the Conservative candidate, the Liberal vote rose as well. Colne Valley probably and Cardigan possibly were saved by this tactical switch. 1 3 It is notable that the Liberal vote dropped less than average in SeUy Oak, where the sitting Conservative MP held well-known right-wing views. 340 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Thus the combined effect of tactical switching between Conservative, Liberal and Plaid Cymru in order to defeat Labour candidates was to cut the Labour majority in the House of Commons by around 25. Yet this anti-Socialist tactical voting involved only a few people in an election with 39 million votes cast: something like 35,000 voters, including those whose alternative was not voting at all. When we turn to third-place Labour voters, we must distinguish carefully two situations. In 26 constituencies the Liberal candidate had been first or second before the election in February and Labour supporters had cast their votes then in that knowledge. But in 107 Conservative-held constituencies a Liberal candidate had moved into second place in February. In the first situation, the Labour vote recorded in February was already sharply cut by tactical switching; in the second group, many fewer Labour supporters had switched in February. Table 8 shows how voting moved between February and October in these two categories, with the latter broken down according to how close the Liberal candidate had come to victory in February.14 The Liberal performance in the first group was worse than average - much worse when allowance is made for the fact that so many of them were ru~al seats. Similarly Labour did better than normal if that allowance is made. Most Liberal MPs or candidates who had already attracted support because they were locally credible as winners, lost ground to other parties; only in rural Chippenham and Leominster did the Liberal advance at Labour's expense. Where a Liberal candidate built up a challenging position before February, failed to improve significantly then, and had since been replaced (Eastbourne, Hove and Scarborough), the Conservative vote rose slightly by 1.6%, the Labour vote shot up by 10.0% and the Liberal share plummeted by 11.2%. Clearly many Labour supporters there Table 8. Labour Third Places in February Change in % share of the vote Change in No. of Category 14 % turnout Con. Lab. Lib. seats LiberalIst or 2nd pre-Feb -5.9 +0.6 +3.5 -4.2 26 Liberal gained 2nd place Feb; Con. majority: up to 10% -5.2 -0.6 +1.3 -0.7 11 10-15% -5.8 -0.8 +1.8 -1.2 22 over 15% -7.4 -0.5 +2.8 -2.3 74 Labour 1st or 2nd -6.6 -0.5 +4.0 -3.8 345 14These categories omit the Isle of Wight, where the previously third-place Liberal had persuaded Labour voters to behave tactically in February and jumped to first place. APPENDIX 2 341 decided after February that it was pointless to continue voting tactically. But if Labour supporters were generally less prepared to make the tactical switch than in February, there were still some - and these were enough to make an impact in constituencies where the Liberal had gained second place and come within 15% of victory. There was considerable variation between constituencies, most of it more explicable by urbanisa- tion than by the proximity of the Liberal to victory. Thus in Pudsey, Richmond, Southend West and Reading South the Liberal vote fell in accordance with the national change, though the February Conservative margin had been less than 10%. In the sixteen urban and mixed constituencies within the 15% margin, the Liberal vote fell by 2.3%; in the seventeen rural ones, it rose very slightly. We can conclude, therefore, that the rural Labour supporter was more willing to vote tactically at this election than the urban one. Three of the seats where Labour was third in February changed hands, two from Conservative to Liberal and one vice versa. This irregular pattern is entirely explained by the factors of urbanisation, and of whether Labour supporters had already reacted tactically in February. The most marginal Liberal seat, rural Bodmin, was just lost (a Liberal majority of 0.01% changed to a Conservative majority of 1.5%); rural Berwick-on-Tweed was held with a majority down from 1.3% to 0.2% but suburban Hazel Grove's Liberal majority of 3.4% became a Conservative one of 5.1%. Of the Conservative seats where a Liberal was challenging, the most marginal was the mixed constituency of Newbury which was held with a reduced majority; in urban Sutton & Cheam the Tory lead trebled but the third most marginal, the very rural Truro, went Liberal; in Newbury and Truro the Liberal had gained second place in February but in Sutton Labour had been third before February. Thus the role of tactical voting in October was very different from what it had been in February, when Labour supporters switching to Liberal or SNP had helped to produce a Labour lead in the House of Commons for a Conservative popular lead in votes. Comparing the two occasions, and the more limited amount of tactical voting in the 1964, 1966 and 1970 elections, 1 5 the following conclusions seem justified: (a) Tactical voting operates, if at all, primarily against a party in power, especially if the election campaign has polarised the issues between it and the opposing parties; the February confrontation between miners and government probably made Labour supporters more willing to use their votes tactically to unseat a Tory MP whilst Conservative supporters became more concerned to vote for their own candidate, however badly placed. (b) Liberal voters in marginal seats are much more likely to be squeezed if one election follows the other quickly and if the previous election has produced a near or actual parliamentary stalemate - 1966 and October 1974 showed far more squeezing of Liberals than 1964, 15 For these elections see pp. 345-7 (1964), pp. 284-7 (1966) and pp.409-10 (1970) of earlier Nuffield studies. 342 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 1970 or February 1974. Those wavering between abstention and voting seemed to be affected in the same way. (c) Tactical voting by third-place Labour supporters for a Liberal is affected by the national relations between the two parties. In the 1964-66 parliament, Harold Wilson had used the Liberal MPs to bolster his position; in the February 1974 parliament the Liberals were attacked as allies of the Tories and talk of national unity coalitions was exploited by Labour candidates in that light. This appears to have had less effect on rural Labour supporters, perhaps because a local acceptance of the Liberal party as the radical alternative to the Conservatives has survived in such areas. (d) Tactical voting is normally confined to seats where it is likely to be effective. The number of second places held by a minor party is a most misleading indication of its potential through tactical switches, since so many are in seats where one major party is overwhelmingly strong. (e) The actual number of voters affected by tactical considerations is normally very small, but the impact on seats and therefore on the outcome of the election can be very considerable. These tentative conclusions, however, refer only to the five elections in the ten-year period 1964-74; before then such behaviour was rare or absent. Constituency Voting Table 9 shows just how rare it was for voting in the comparable three-cornered fights in England and Wales to vary much from what was happening elsewhere. Previous elections have also shown greater variation in Liberal performance, probably due to three factors: the looser attachment of many Liberal voters to their party; the greater importance of personal voting for Liberal candidates; and the more frequent effect of tactical voting on Liberal fortunes. The most extreme variations in each party's performance are shown opposite in Table 10. Of the 43 constituencies appearing in these lists, tactical voting explains the presence of nearly half; quite clearly the local tactical situation was by far the most powerful factor explaining why some people departed from the national movement. Only in seven cases does the deviant result seem to reflect situations peculiar to a single constituency. The rest are extreme cases of behaviour common to a group of constituencies. Table 9. Uniformity of Voting in Three-Cornered Fights Proportion of changes within over Mean 1% 2% 3% 3% 5% Standard change of the mean of the mean deviation Conservative -0.4 50.3 79.5 91.7 8.3 0.8 1.69 Labour +3.6 48.2 78.3 91.0 9.0 2.3 1.82 Liberal -3.4 37.5 65.6 82.3 17.7 5.6 2.43 APPENDIX 2 343 Table 10. Deviant Results among the 479 Three-cornered Fights Best Ten Worst Ten Change in Conservative % of vote Romforda +4.2 Louth -6.6 Nelson & Colnea +4.1 Carmarthenb -6.3 Cornwall NorthC +3.B Hackney South -6.1 Eastbournec +3.4 Colne Valleyb -6.1 Brent North +3.3 Leeds Westb -5.4 Wallaseya +3.2 Coventry SE -4.9 Kingswooda +3.2 Edge Hillb -4.6 Gloucs. Westa +3.2 Sunderland South -4.5 Cheltenham +3.1 Fareham -4.5 Isle of WightC +3.0 Walsall South -4.4 Change in Labour % of vote Hovec +10.6 Gosport -2.5 Eastbournec +9.9 Trurod -1.7 ScarboroughC +9.6 Caernarvon -1.4 Small Heath +9.2 Leominsterd -1.4 Leeds South +9.2 Rugby -1.3 Toxteth +9.2 Bodmind -1.1 Kirkdale +B.B Merioneth -1.1 Wavertree +B.l Chelmsfordd -1.0 Leeds SE +B.l Ludlowd -0.6 Newcastle North +7.7 Totnesd -0.4 Change in Liberal % of vote Louth +5.2 Eastbournec -13.2 Gosport +4.6 ScarboroughC -11.1 Anglesey +4.4 Wavertree -10.9 Colne Valleyb +4.0 Toxteth -10.4 Trurod +3.9 Nelson & Colnea -10.3 Caernarvon +3.5 Hovec -9.2 Totnesd +2.7 Carmarthenb -B.9 Herefordd +2.7 Wallaseya -B.B Coventry SE +2.7 Kingswooda -B.5 Bath +2.7 Romforda -B.5 Tactical situations: aLiberal vote squeezed to benefit of Conservative, see p. 33B. bConservative or Liberal vote squeezed to benefit of best·placed Liberal or Plaid, see p. 339. cPreviously credible Liberal losing ground, see p. 340. dLabour vote squeezed to benefit of Liberal, see p. 341. 344 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Brent North's presence in the Conservative list reflects the special Outer London switch from the Liberals; seven of the twenty best Conservative results were in this area. In Hackney South and Walsall South a National Front intervention was involved; Sunderland South's big swing to Labour reflects a wider pattern among North-east ports (Sunderland North only just escaped the list with a drop of 4.1%) which is discussed on p. 337. Of the best Labour results, all the non-tactical ones are inner city seats where a large drop in the Liberal vote and a big rise in the Labour vote was usual; this in fact explains fifteen of the twenty biggest increases in voting Labour. The Liberal party did particularly badly where it had acquired power in local government: four of the five biggest drops have this factor in common. Finally, in the three Welsh-speaking constituencies of Gwynedd, there was a local movement away from Labour - apparently mainly benefiting the Liberals in Anglesey and Caernarvon and Plaid Cymru in Merioneth. Of the seven individual cases, Rugby (a local switch from Labour to Liberal) is only a partial reversal of the remarkable personal vote built up by the Labour member since 1966, William Price: 16 it still leaves him in a stronger position than any previous Labour candidate there. Coventry South·East is also a reversal of a previous deviation, due to the fact that the February Liberal candidate was Asian.17 If this is the sole explanation of the abnormal movement of votes between February and October, about 1,000 people in February voted Labour rather than Liberal and between 1,000 and 1,500 voted Conservative rather than Liberal because of the colour of the Liberal candidate's skin; only two-thirds of the Liberal supporters stuck to their party. As a result, Coventry South-East has the unique experience of being one of only four English lost Liberal deposits in February but being easily saved in October when 54 were lost. Two results show personal votes for new candidates. In Bath, Christopher Mayhew (see p. 29) cut the Conservative lead from 11.1% to 4.3%, taking more votes from the Conservative MP than the third-place Labour candidate. The former Labour minister seems to have been worth a personal vote of between 2,000 and 3,000; this stands out if the Bath result is compared with seats such as Beds South or Gillingham, where the February figures had been similar. In Cheltenham Charles Irving achieved the third largest swing reflecting movement from Labour to Conservative (1.5%),1 8 indicating that his local reputation was worth a personal vote of around 1,500.19 I. See The British General Election of Febroary 1974, p. 335. l' In Tottenham the Liberal candidate changed her name from Papatheodotou in February to Alexander in October; she improved her vote slightly (the eighth best Liberal result for a candidate lying third or fourth) with her less alien name. The only coloured candidate standing in October was a West Indian Liberal intervention in Sparkbrook, who polled 9.8% - the eighth lowest Liberal vote in England. 18 Some higher swings reflected tactical voting. Two that did not, though since they were not comparable three-comereds they are excluded from Table 10, were Falmouth & Camborne (1.7%) and the extraordinary swing in Ross & Cromarty (5.2%). In a complex four·sided contest in this seat which Hamish Gray gained from the Liberals in 1970, the Liberal vote collapsed; but the actual fall in the Labour vote and rise in Hamish Gray's vote indicates that some direct movement from Labour to Conservative took place. APPENDIX 2 345 Bath, Cheltenham and Rugby are all constituencies whose boundaries enclose a self-contained town, a factor they have in common with two further constituencies which deviated sharply from the national norm. In Fareham, the Conservative MP's vote dropped under dual attack from a Liberal and an Independent. 2 0 In Gosport, changes in the two parties' candidates appear to have produced the biggest switch from Labour to Liberal of the election, although there was no tactical situation to explain it? 1 Thus five out of the seven most deviant local results were in one-town constituencies, a characteristic of only about one in ten of all constituencies. Apart from very remote or island constituencies, this type of seat seems to offer optimal conditions for a candidate to communicate a message additional, or even contrary, to the national campaign. The seventh, and most deviant, local result was Louth where, following the abrupt retirement of the sitting Conservative member (see p. 210), the Liberal candidate cut his successor's plurality from 17.4% to 5.6%. Since Labour also gained ground, the reasons given for Jeffrey Archer's withdrawal (or some other local factor) must have lost the Conservatives more than half the 5,000 drop in their vote. However, apart from Cheltenham, Louth, and Kinross & West Perthshire (see p.348), the few cases of sitting MPs retiring show no evidence of personal voting (see p. 220). Thirty-nine comparable cases where one of the parties put up a woman in February and a man in October or vice versa show no sign that the sex of a candidate had any effect on voting, except perhaps marginally among Liberals; this finding is consistent with the negative outcome of previous tests - and in this election the uniformity of most movement, and the fact of no change in the register, would make it easier to discern any tendency of voters to be influenced by sex if it existed 22 Scotland For the first time in electoral history, Scotland as a nation went a completely different path from the rest of Britain. The jump in the Scottish National Party vote from 11.5% in 1970 to 21.9% in February 19 Charles Irving has been a member of the borough council since he joined at the age of 21 in 1948; mayor three times; and has been much involved in both voluntary and statutory social services in Cheltenham and the surrounding area. 2°The Liberal candidate established early in 1974 a local monthly advertising newspaper and achieved the twelfth largest rise in the Liberal vote in October; the Independent stood in both February and October, promising to support Conservative policies if elected but attacking the constituency service of the sitting Conservative MP, and polled 4% both times - much the best vote for any Independent not a formerMP. 21 The February Labour candidate was mayor-elect of the borough, and had been Labour group leader for six years; the October Labour Candidate was an outsider whose private life received unfavourable publicity in the national press. The October Liberal candidate was a local television journalist. 22 Liberal women did slightly (0.9%) worse substituting for men than vice versa; some unwillingness of Liberal supporters to vote for a woman candidate was also evident in the 1964, 1966 and 1970 elections. 346 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 and 30.4% in October 2 3 dominated the results. Whereas the first stage of the rise reflected many causes in common with the jump in the Liberal vote south of the Tweed, the second stage coincided with a falling Liberal vote and stable Plaid Cymru support, and thus clearly reflected specifically Scottish factors. Whereas huge movements to a party at one election are not so rare in British history (e.g. to Conservative in 1931, Labour in 1945, and Liberal in February 1974), they have invariably been followed by a retreat; it is the cumulative rise in Nationalist support that is most impressive. The Nationalist surge between the two 1974 elections owes almost nothing to the mobilisation of former non-voters or a squeeze on the Liberal vote. Turnout dropped in Scotland by 4.2%, somewhat less than in England. It was very even across Scotland; except in Greenock,24 the individual turnouts dropped in the range of 0.7% to 7.7%. Liberal interventions produced a 1.0% lower turnout drop than four-cornereds, suggesting that nearly one in three of the small Liberal vote in those seats came from February abstainers. The SNP performed no better where turnout held up best or worse where it dropped more. In the comparable four-cornereds, the Liberal vote fell by 4.5%. Except for Ross & Cromarty, where the Liberal vote plummeted by 12.6%, the drop varied only between 0.9% and 8.4% and three-fifths were within 1% of the mean. It was thus a more even loss of support than in England & Wales. Only one of the 34 intervening Liberals managed to poll over 7%, and he, in Moray & Nairn, was the only one who seems to have spoiled the SNP vote at all. From Table 1 on p. 331 we can see that the rise in the SNP vote was 3.0% less in the Liberal interventions than in the four-cornereds. But if the SNP gained from defecting Liberals and lost to intervening candidates in the same proportion as their three-tenths share of the Scottish vote, this is what we should expect. So the falling Liberal vote in Scotland in October 1974 followed the national British movement, and contributed little to the Nationalist surge.2 5 We must look, therefore, to the two main parties for the source of increased Nationalist support. Superficially the answer is obvious: while the Labour vote held steady, the Tory vote slumped by 8.2% as the SNP vote rose by 8.5%. But since some Scottish voters were following the National movement from Conservative to Labour, we have to disentangle how far the Scottish swing reflects this as well. The mean two-party swing to Labour in Scotland was 6.6%, a high figure caused partly by the low share of all Scottish votes cast for the two parties (61%). The variation in this swing follows the pattern south of the Border - higher in urban seats 2 3 The much publicised SNP claim to have doubled its vote in each of the three elections previous to October 1974 is extremely misleading because in 1966 and 1970 it reflected additional candidates. Only 0.3% of the 18.9% increase from 1970 to October 1974 is attributable to the extra four seats fought at the latter election. 24 Because of a local snowstorm, Greenock & Port Glasgow had a unique drop in turnout in February of 7.5%; in October, turnout there rose by 1.80/0- 2 SBut in February there had been evident tactical movement between Liberal and Nationalist, and, except for Inverness, all the remaining areas of any Liberal strength in Scotland had low Nationalist votes. APPENDIX 2 347 (8.1%) and lower in rural constituencies (3.1%). This variation argues strongly that much of the Scottish swing was part of the same movement. In the nine seats where the Nationalist vote changed by less than 5%, the swing to Labour averaged 4.7%. This suggests that whilst the SNP rise pushed up the swing, it may anyway have been larger than in England and Wales. Between 1970 and February 1974, Scotland swung to the Conservatives - deviating by about 2Y2% from the English swing. So swings measured from a February 1974 base start from a more pro-Conservative position in Scotland and the 1970 to October 1974 swing may be a better basis of comparison. The behaviour of a number of coastal seats in North-east England is a singular parallel to this pattern. Much of Tyneside and Teeside had, like Scotland, low swings to Conservative in 1970, and then deviated against Labour in February but towards Labour in October 1974. The six constituencies in Hartlepool, Hull and Sunderland have behaved most strikingly. Swinging much below average to the Conser- vatives in 1970, they all swung to Conservative in February 1974 while in October 1974 their swing to Labour averaged 5.7%. These seats have two factors in common with industrial Scotland. Firstly, they are areas of heavy industry with persistent unemployment problems. Secondly, like Scotland, they are close to the North Sea boom. An element of coincidence may well be involved, but they do support a theory that the turnround in Scottish prosperity by 1973, largely following the North Sea oil discoveries, helped to improve the Conserva- tive government's standing, and in February it therefore polled better in Scotland (and on parts of the North-east coast) than in the rest of Britain. By October this factor was no longer able to help the Conservative opposition and so an above-average swing brought these areas back into line compared with 1970. Another approach to the question is explored in Table 11, which shows Table 11. Effect of SNP Performance Change in % share of the vote Type of SNP No. of contest rise Con. Lab. Lib. seats Four-cornered High -7.1 -0.6 -5.8 10 Normal -6.0 +0.7 -4.1 15 Low -3.3 +3.1 -3.1 7 Liberal intervention High -12.4 -2.8 11 Normal -9.9 -0.8 17 Low -5.8 -0.3 5 High: SNP vote rose more than 2% above mean for type of contest. Normal: Rise in SNP vote within 2% of mean for type of contest. Low: SNP vote fell or rose by less than 2% below mean for type of contest. Dunbartonshire Central and Western Isles (where other votes altered significantly) are excluded from this breakdown. 348 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 how variations in the SNP performance relate to those of the other three parties. In the four-cornereds there is no indication that any of the other three parties benefited or suffered particularly from an abnormal SNP performance. But in the Liberal interventions, the Conservative perfor- mance was more closely linked to that of the SNP. Most of the Liberal interventions occurred in industrial Strathclyde and in seats such as East Kilbride, Motherwell and Paisley it certainly looks as if a big SNP jump was more at the Conservatives' expense. The SNP cut heavily into both parties' support and, in most places, took its \totes fairly equally from both; but where it hit one party, it was more often the Conservatives who suffered. The higher swing in Scotland reflects a larger real movement to Labour, compensating for the movement to Conservative in February, but was partly the by-product of the SNP taking more Conservative votes. During the campaign in Scotland, there was considerable discussion of the likelihood of tactical voting by Conservatives for the SNP in Labour-held seats, just as the SNP's four gains from the Conservatives in February had owed much to Labour voters' tactical switches. In the event, it was much more remarkable that the SNP gained so little this way. Where they had done so in February, Labour supporters again used SNP candidates to ensure the defeat of Conservatives. An extra few in Angus South helped to clinch the Conservative loss there, but a slight switch back to Labour in Moray & Nairn nearly won back the seat for the Conservatives. Liberal voters could not have been less concerned with the tactical situation: in the twelve seats where a Liberal candidate was ahead of a third- or fourth-place Nationalist in February, the Liberal vote fell by 5.1% and the SNP vote rose 10.5%; while in the twenty-three seats where the Liberal candidate had polled worse than the Nationalist seven months earlier, the Liberal vote fell by 3.2% and the SNP vote rose by 8.5%. Conservative voters were more prone to go Nationalist in Labour-held seats but it does not seem to have been a tactically motivated switch. If we take the Labour-held seats with Liberal interventions, the SNP lay second in six, a second-place Conservative was within 10% of victory in six, and a Conservative was second but less well placed in fifteen. With striking indifference to such considerations, the Conservative vote fell by 9.4%, 10.4% and 11.4% respectively in these three groups. The only two results where a tactical interpretation makes any sense were Berwick & East Lothian and Glasgow Cathcart, two Tory marginals in which the SNP vote either fell or rose only slightly. But this could just as easily be interpreted as showing the personal hold of Teddy Taylor in Cathcart and the duel between two strong personalities, Michael Ancram and John Macintosh, in East Lothian. The largest SNP rise, in Kimoss & West Perthshire, probably reflected the personal popularity of Sir Alec Douglas-Home (who did not stand again in October), and the third largest rise in Dunbartonshire Central the failing popularity of Jimmy Reid; the SNP would like to think that the second largest rise, in Kilmarnock, was a personal rebuke for the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, William Ross. But apart from these cases there is little sign that the personality of the candidates affected the scale of the SNP rise. A APPENDIX 2 349 study of the 21 cases where the SNP candidate was changed shows little difference between these results and those where the same candidate stood again, nor any consistent relationship between the variation in the 21 seats and the characteristics of the candidates. Yet there was considerable variation in the change in the SNP share of the vote; the standard deviations of 4.31 in four-cornereds and 4.51 in Liberal interventions were far higher than those in England (see Table 9). Some of the variations can be explained by a plateau around 40-45% above which the Nationalist vote rarely rose. In the seven seats where the SNP vote had already topped 40% in February, it fell on average by 1.1% and only in Stirlingshire East managed a significant rise (from 43.5% to 50.7%). Below 40% the rise was a little less where it had been close to that point: in the four where it was between 33% and 40% (all Liberal inter- ventions) the rise averaged 6.7% compared with 8.5% in the Liberal inter- ventions where it had been between 20% and 33%. This 'plateau effect' works in an opposite manner to tactical voting; it was presumably responsible for hiding any tactical switches that did occur. If a party has a particular level of latent support, whether fairly uniform between constituencies or varying according to some social factor, and its previous vote is a varying distance from that level, then its increase of support can be expected to be in inverse ratio to its previous support. The rise in SNP voting does not entirely fit such a model, particularly in some seats where it polled worst in February 1974, but it is close enough to be highly suggestive, particularly in the absence of other plausible explana- tions for the variation in SNP performance. The Scottish National Party regards itself as a national party, and definitely not sectional or geographical in appeal. The massive gain from both main parties, the lack of a tactical element in October 1974, and the signs of a plateau effect, fully fit this self-image. Its geographical support does vary a little. It is weakest in three cities - Edinburgh (22.3% of the votes cast), Aberdeen (24.6%) and Glasgow (25.8%) - and in the nine south-western constituencies of Strathclyde (the former counties of Ayr and Renfrew - 25.1%). Its strength lies in the Central (43.1%) and Tayside (40.1%) regions and in the rural part of the Grampian region (37.2%). In Fife (31.4%), the rest of Strathclyde (32.2%), the Highland and Island seats (32.1%) and the remaining six constituencies of southern Scotland (29.8%) it is average, though with marked local variation. The only consistent element in these figures is weakness in the cities; the exception of Dundee seems attributable to the local boost given to the SNP by the appointment of George Thompson to the EEC Commission and the consequent Dundee East by-election in March 1973. Outside the cities its support in the industrial areas and rural Scotland is similar. The regional variations noted at previous elections (the F orth-Tay area in 1966 and the rural North in 1970) have effectively been evened out by subsequent variations - further evidence for the plateau effect. The Nationalist peak in the 1968 local elections was higher in the cities than in smaller towns; but the present pattern of its strength would seem to reflect its organisational strategy of recent years. 350 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Table 12. Swings since 1970 No. of Mean swing Standard seats to Con. deviation Big city 130 -3.1 3.63 Other urban 303 -1.2 3.87 Mixed 71 +1.2 3.31 Mainly rural 77 +1.9 3.54 Very rural 40 +4.5 4.24 All seats 621 -0.6 4.27 This table covers all British seats (except two with no Conservative candidate in 1970) and where appropriate uses the 1970 results re-calculated to 1974 boundaries. The Urban/Rural Dimension The one feature Scotland shared with the rest of Britain was that once more people in cities, in less metropolitan areas, and in rural areas behaved differently - in willingness to go to the polls, in deserting the Liberal party, in voting for the SNP or in moving from Conservative to Labour. Table 12 shows how the swing since 1970 was strikingly different according to the urban/rural dimension. The definitions used in this table, and throughout this appendix, are based on the proportion of the economically active population employed in agriculture in each constitu- ency. At previous elections other measures have proved better indicators, but in October 1974, for instance, there was no sign of the differentiation between conurbation and non-conurbation urban seats. The table is based on the 1971 Census figures. Constituencies with less than 3% are classed as urban; those with more than 6% as rural (very rural if more than 15% and mainly rural 6-15%); those between 3% and 6% as mixed These figures were chosen because when all constituencies were ranged in rank order of agricultural employment, they were the points at which the change in size of swing was clearest. Because the figures include employment in fishing, Aberdeen South and Grimsby were re-classified as urban. The larger cities have been moving towards Labour at each of the past five elections. Since 1955, while the country has swung a net 1 Y2% to Labour the big cities have moved 7%. Conversely the most rural areas have swung about 7% to Conservative over the same period, though much of this is primarily a Labour loss variously to the Liberals, to the SNP and to Plaid Cymru. It is most significant that this difference between city, town and country was so unmistakable in the movement between February and October 1974. Previously social change (such as the shift of middle-class residence from cities to country commuting and the decline of agricultural labour) had appeared a possible explanation. Since the two 1974 elections were fought on the same register, it is clear that the differences reflected the same people reacting differently to national political stimuli and not popUlation movements. It may well be that other factors, such as degree of APPENDIX 2 351 trade unionisation, which correlate with urbanisation are at the root of the differences; it does not follow that the agricultural vote as such was necessarily involved because agricultural employment proved a good indicator. The result of the long-term change is that Britain now has an administration supported by fewer MPs from agricultural or rural constitu- encies than any previous government. Labour's most agricultural seat, Carmarthen, was its only loss of the election; the only Conservative marginal to swing right was the most farming one - North-west Norfolk - and the one Labour marginal which the Conservatives nearly gained was Labour's most agricultural seat in England - West Gloucestershire. Con- versely, no previous government has ever been so solidly supported by the big cities; Labour's most surprising gain was at Birmingham Selly Oak, and its near-miss in Newcastle North was an even more unexpected result.2 6 Other Parties Plaid Cymru Despite its gain of Carmarthen through a combination of tactical voting and Gwynfor Evans' personal charisma, Plaid Cymru's popular support completely failed to match the Nationalist surge in Scotland. Its share of the votes cast in Wales (10.8%) was the same as in February. Its vote dropped sharply in two situations: the five seats where a Liberal intervened (-4.3%), and the four upper valley seats of Mid- Glamorgan where there was a localised Plaid upsurge in 1970 (-6.1%). Increased votes in all three of the rural West Welsh seats won compensated in the national total, but Plaid Cymru became even more isolated in the rural, Welsh-speaking fringe of the country than before; outside six predominantly Welsh-speaking constituencies, only four deposits were saved. National Front With 90 candidates standing, all but one in England, and a total vote of 113,579 - 0.4% of the UK total or 0.5% of the English - the National Front confirmed its position as England's fourth party. It polled an average of 3.1%, a slight drop compared with February. But its loss of support was confined to seats where no Liberal had stood in February; in these seven its vote fell from 6.1% to 4.3%, whilst it rose by 0.3% in the rest. In the 41 seats where a National Front candidate intervened, all three main parties polled worse than their national average by about the same amount. Thus the National Front drew votes fairly equally from each of the other three parties. The area of strongest National Front support was in the East End of London; in thirteen Labour strongholds there it polled 6.2% of the vote. The Extreme Left The personal vote for Jimmy Reid in Central Dunbartonshire dropped from 14.5% to 8.7%, but it still was better than any other Communist vote since 1959. The other 28 Communist 2 6The map on p. 282 shows just how the long-term gains over the 1950-74 period have altered both the regional and the borough/county balance within each party's parliamentary representation. 352 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 candidates polled an average of 1.4%, compared with 1. 7% in same seats in February. Ten Workers' Revolutionary Party candidates averaged 0.9%, compared with 1.0% for the nine who fought in February. In both cases Liberal intervention accounted for most of the drop; the Communist vote was halved (1.9% to 1.0%) in the six English Liberal interventions and the WRP vote was similarly more than halved in Pontefract and Wallsend. Rebel Members In contrast with February, none of the three former Labour MPs standing against their party's official nominee was successful. But their average vote of 33.0% was still remarkably high compared with the failure of almost every other Independent candidate to get more than a derisory vote and offered hope to any MPs in future conflict with their constituency parties. Both Eddie Milne and Dick Taverne found that whilst they could trounce the party machine first time round, they could not so easily sustain their support. Independents The presence of Liberal candidates everywhere meant that even fewer votes than usual went to the large assortment of Independents who stood. Apart from the Independent Conservative in Fareham (see p. 345), only two Independent Labour candidates just topped 2% and most polled under 1%. Northern Ireland Table 13 presents the distribution of votes in Northern Ireland.2 7 Despite marked changes in some constituencies due to changes in candidatures (which accounts for the UUUC loss of Fermanagh), the overall picture was one of remarkable stability. There was one exception - the pro-Faulkner Table 13. Northern Ireland Voting, October 1974 Protestant Catholic Mixed Total Pro-power UPNI 3.6 (-9.6) SDLP Alliance (-7.5) sharing NILP 1.6 (-0.8) 22.0 (-0.4) 6.4 (+3.4) 33.6 Anti-power UUUC 58.1 (+7.1 ) Rep 3.1 (+0.1) (+7.5) sharing VPP 0.4 (+0.4) Ind 4.7 66.2 Total 63.7 (-3.0) 29.7 (-0.4) 6.4 (+3.4) 99.8 27The votes cast for the Official Unionist in Belfast South, a former Pro-Faulkner Unionist Westminster MP nominated against the United Ulster Unionist Council member, are included with those of the UPNI. The victorious Independent member for Fermanagh & South Tyrone was obviously supported by pro-power sharing Catholic voters, but on the basis of his personal RepUblican views his votes are placed in the anti-power sharing row. Table 13 shows percentages of the total votes cast; comparison with February 1974 voting is shown in brackets. Others polled 0.2%. See p. 388 of The British General Election of February 1974 for a similar table, where comparison with the 1973 Assembly elections is given. APPENDIX 2 353 Unionists, whose support almost disappeared, divided one-third to Alliance and two-thirds to the UUUC. The import of Enoch Powell from Britain to defend the hitherto permanently Unionist seat of South Down almost produced the most uhexpected electoral upset in Northern Ireland for many years. The interest brought about by his presence produced the biggest increase in turnout in the United Kingdom. His vote {50.8%} was much below the normal Unionist vote {an average 62.7% over the previous eight elections}. Paradoxically, Enoch Powell produced the most non-sectarian vote of the election; something like 5,000 or more Protestants must have voted SDLP in protest against his candidature. The Electoral System 11Ie Labour government acquired its slight overall majority in the House of Commons through the gain of seventeen seats from the Conservatives. Eleven seats changed hands involving other parties, producin~ a net gain of one to Labour and a net loss of five for the Conservatives. 8 This was a considerably lower turnover of seats than would have been produced by uniform movements of votes. The main reason for this was the low swing in Conservative-held marginals caused by Liberals and would-be abstainers voting Conservative, discussed on p.338; only one seat, Birmingham Selly Oak, moved to Labour in compensation. Tactical switches also held Liberal representation more steady; on a uniform fall in Liberal support, there would have been only nine or ten Liberal MPs elected. But the SNP would have won thirteen seats if the rise in its vote had been uniform;29 it fell short partly because tactical voting was aiding it less in October and partly through bad luck. Five SNP seats were won by margins under 5% and six by less than 10%; but the SNP missed victory by 5% in eight seats and by 10% in sixteen. Thus in translating the movements of votes between February and October into changes of seats, the electoral system favoured the Conservatives, and to a lesser extent the Liberals,3 0 at the expense of Table 14. Standard Deviations in Shares of the Vote, 1974 February October Change Conservative 10.54 12.05 +1.51 Labour 15.66 15.24 -0.42 Liberal 7.80 8.34 +0.54 SNP 11.44 9.40 -2.04 Plaid Cyrnru 10.45 11.15 +0.70 23 For full details of the twenty-eight seats changing hands see the map on p. 137. 29 Glasgow Govan, Ross & Cromarty and Stirling Burghs would have gone to the SNP whilst Perth would have stayed Conservative. 30 Plaid Cymru also benefited; a uniform movement of votes in Wales would have left it with only one seat. 354 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Labour, and to a lesser extent of the SNP. The reason for this can also be put in terms of the change in the distribution of each party's vote, as Table 14 shows. Parties whose vote became more unevenly distributed in October did better out of the voting system; those whose vote became more even, and hence whose standard distribution declined, did worse. But of far greater political importance are the consequences of the electoral system as compared with a more proportional system; and the significance of the element of plurality voting as opposed to the alternative vote in single-member seats. A different electoral system would change some peoples' voting behaviour; but, for the record, Table 15 shows the most likely outcome under proportional representation and a range of possible outcomes under the alternative vote if, in both cases, the votes cast in October 1974 represented the voter's first choice.31 The extreme disadvantage that the Liberal party suffers from under the present electoral system stands out in Table 15. The Nationalists, because their support is locally concentrated, do rather better out of a single-member seat system and could, if (as is assumed in Table 15) their second-place candidates were used to defeat the incumbent major party, do very well out of the alternative vote. As between two leading parties, the exaggeration of Labour's propor- tional lead of 22 seats to an actual 42 is rather less than the cube law would predict.32 The ratio of Conservative to Labour votes cubed produces a ratio of 338 to 258 among the 596 seats won by them. The change in the distribution of party votes has altered the working of the system that produced in February a slight Labour lead in parliament for a Conservative lead in votes; on the October vote distribution, if the two parties have fairly similar support, the electoral system favours the Conservatives. But on larger swings, as Table 16 shows, Labour would do better; it would take a 16% Tory lead in votes to produce the same lead in seats as Labour would have with a voting lead of 14%. Table 16 is presented in a different form from previous equivalent tables in this series. Not only does the contingent of 39 MPs taking neither Conservative nor Labour whip in the present parliament make it important to distinguish a lead in seats from an overall majority; the minor parties happen to be more involved in the most marginal seats. In only 26 of the 40 seats held by majorities of under 2% is the main competition between Conservative and Labour - and five of the six majorities of less than a 31 The system used for the PR column is the West German; Table lIon p. 329 of The British General Election of February 1974 shows that the single transferable vote would produce only a slightly different result. In October the SNP would have qualified for seats whatever assumptions about the West German system are made. The six sets of assumptions spelled out for the alternative vote on p. 328 were combined into a mean outcome, together with a range of possibilities for each party. It is assumed that under the A V system two Independent Labour members would have been elected. 32 Labour won 57 seats with fewer than 50,000 electors and only 44 with more than 75,000; the Conservatives won 24 and 63 repectively. The over-representation of Scotland and the fact that constituency boundaries are based on the population distribution of October 1964 combine to produce this contrast. APPENDIX 2 355 Table 15. Other Electoral Systems (Great Britain) Alternative vote Actual PR Min. Mean Max. result Labour 254 281 296 312 319 Conservative 232 207 227 247 277 Liberal 118 43 52 70 13 SNP 17 38 42 46 11 Plaid Cyrnru 2 4 4 4 3 hundred votes involve a third party. Consequently any strictly uniform swing between the two leading parties nationally will switch several seats involving other parties, even if, as is assumed in Table 16, voting for minor parties remains constant. If the Liberal vote falls, both major parties stand to gain a few vulnerable Liberal seats; if the SNP loses ground, the Conservative party would gain since all six Nationalist MPs with smallest majorities (of less than 10%) face Conservatives. But if the Liberals gain moderate ground, the Conservative party alone will suffer. A uniform rise in the Liberal vote of 2Y2%, taken equally from the other two parties, would switch six Conservative seats into the Liberal column; one of 5% would create eleven Table 16. Swings (based on total vote) from October 1974 % lead Lead in Overall Swing Seats changing hands in votes seats majority Con. to Lib./Nat. Con. to to Lab. Lab. to Lab. Lib./SNP Lab. Lab. Lab. None 0 0 0 3.9 42 3 1% 13 1 1 5.9 70 30 2% 29 1 5 7.9 106 63 3% 51 1 6 9.9 151 107 4% 66 2 8 11.9 184 139 5% 82 2 8 13.9 216 171 Lab. to Lib./SNP Lab. to to Con. Con. to Con. SNP/Ind. Con. Con. Con. 1% 13 4 2 -1.9 -10 none 2% 21 6 3 0.1 9 none 3% 35 6 4 2.1 38 1 4% 43 7 5 4.1 56 19 5% 57 8 7 6.1 86 49 10% 122 9 11 16.1 222 181 356 THE BRITISH GENERAL ELECTION OF OCTOBER 1974 Table 17. Votes and Seats in Scotland Tactical voting by Actual Uniform Switch Plateau result SNP gain from Lab. effect Lab. Con. SNP 30.4 11 35.4 22 35.4 25 35.2 13 31.6 14 34.7 21 Lab. 36.3 41 34.6 33 31.3 30 34.7 39 35.1 41 36.3 31 Con. 24.7 16 23.0 14 24.7 14 23.1 17 24.7 13 20.4 16 Lib. 8.3 3 6.7 2 8.3 2 6.7 2 8.3 3 8.3 3 Uniform SNP gain: rise of 5% in SNP vote taken equally from other three parties. Switch from Lab.: transfer of 5% of votes from Labour to SNP. Plateau effect: SNP gains (or loses) half the difference between its Oct 1974 vote and 40%; taken (or lost) equally between other three parties. Tactical voting by Labour: in seats fought between Con. and SNP, half the Labour vote transfers to SNP. Tactical voting by Con.: in seats fought between Lab. and SNP, half the Conservative vote transfers to SNP. Liberal gains from Conservative. If the Liberal vote rose by 6.2%, making its share of the votes cast in Britain 25%, it would still - on this assumption - win a total of only 27 seats (4.3%); and none of the 14 gains would have been from Labour. A moderate Scottish Nationalist advance would have highly problem- atical results, depending on how far any plateau effect were to operate. Table 17 shows how, if the SNP won about a third of the Scottish votes, it could produce very different results according to the sort of voting movement involved. The plateau and tactical voting assumptions are, of course, unrealistically inflexible but they do show clearly that the Scottish National Party is at the stage where it can make only limited headway through any further tactical voting and has a great deal to fear from a plateau effect. The SNP's best hope is that its vote comes straight from Labour, but even in this case the even spread of its support is so unfavourable that it would need a 6% lead in votes to draw level with Labour in seats. However, this evenness means that if its national vote were to rise much above the level illustrated in Table 17, it could start sweeping the board. On a uniform rise, the SNP would win an absolute majority of Scottish seats with just over 40% of the vote, and if Nationalist support jumps on that scale, then Labour representation at Westminster would suffer severely. Index Aberdeen, 349 Barnstaple, 89, 105-6, 116, 159, Aberdeen, South, 245n, 350 242 Aberdeenshire, West, 94, 241 Barrow-in-Furness, 335 Abrams, M., 5n Basnett, D., 182 Acton,106,245n,339 Bath,182,220,229,238,343 Addresses, 234-8 Baxter, W., 208 Advertising, 83, 89 Beaumont, Lord, 89-90, 158 Agents, 222-4 Bedeman, T., 336n Agriculture, 145-6, 236, see also Europe Beeston, 245n Aims of Industry, 183 Behrend, Hilde, 12n Akass, J., 178 Beith, A., 161 Aldington, Lord, 125 Belfast, 46, 238 Aldridge-Brownhills, 227n Belfast, South, 352 Alexander, Katharine, 344n Belfast, West, 133 Allaun, F., 59 Benn, A., 201n Alliance party, 238, 353 and industry, 9, 21, 34-5, 57n, 115, America, 51 154 Amery, J., 19, 43, 64n and EEC, 30, 32 Amery, L. S., 4 and Labour party, 85 Amis, K., 185 and media, 143 148-9, 172-3, 180 Analysis, 152 Berrington, H., 336n Ancram, M., 348 Berwick and East Lothian, 237n, 348 Anderson, J. 239 Berwick-on-Tweed, 227n, 341 Angels in Marble, 281n Bevan, A., 287 Anglesey, 343-4 Biffen, J., 63 Anglia, East, 337 Birmingham, 106, 224n Angus, South, 348 Bish, G., 57, 103n, 201n Annan Committee, 163 Blaby, 237 Annual Review of BBC Audience Blake, R., 282, 284n Research Findings, 140n Blyth, 209n, 220, 229, 245n Archer,J., 210,345 Boardman, T., 138 Armstrong, SirW., 154 Bodmin, 136, 217n, 227n, 245n, 341, Associated Television (ATV), 152 343 Athens, 51 Bolton, 106, 113,291 Atkins, H., 65n, 104 Bolton, East, 227n Atkinson, N., 20 Bolton, West, 90, 227n Attlee, C., 13n, 279 Booth,J., 107 Attlee, 2nd Earl, 173 Bosworth, 245n, 339 Avebury, Lord 69,89-90, 105, 143,270 Boundary Commissioners, 222 Ayr, 349 Boyson, R., 62 Braintree, 245n Baker, K., 104, 258 Brandt, W., 50 Balance of payments, 7, 25-6, lOOn, 236 Brayley, Lord, 106, 111-12, 179 Baldwin, S., 279 Brentford and Isleworth, 227, 245n, Banffshire, 239n 339 Barber, A., 40-1, 65n, 125, 209,226 Brent, North, 332, 343-4 Barker, A., 163 Brentwood, 48 357 358 INDEX Brewis, J., 210 Candidates, change of, 208-10 Briggs, J., 158 background, 212-18 Brighouse and Spenborough, 227n selection, 218-20 Brighton, 29, 91 and issues, 234-8 Brightside, 208, 220 impact of, 342-5, 348-9 Briginshaw, R., 110 Canning Town Glass Co., III Brinton, Sir Tatton, 39n Cardiff, 106, 115 Brinton, Tim, 161 Cardigan, 106, 228n, 339 Bristol, 106 Carmarthen, 138,245,334,339,343, Bristol, NW, 227n 351 Bristol, SE, 237 Carr, R., Britain in Danger, 70 and party organisation, 37 Britain Will Win With Labour, 83, 155, and economy, 41, 63, 66, 94,119 235 and manifesto 65n British Broadcasting Corporation (BBe), and media, 107, 143, 156, 182 119, 140-63,252 and polls, 188 British General Election of 1964, The, Carrington, Lord, 29 37, 40, 44, 65n, 332n 107,125-6,136,224 British General Election of 1970, The, Carroll, R., 177, 181 66n, 82n, 198n, 281n Cartwright, J., 20 In British General Election of February Castle, Barbara, 8, 30, 107, 143, 155, 160 1974, The, 19n, 66n, 85n, 146n, Cathcart, 348 154n,211,221n,243,257n, Central Policy Review Staff, (CPRS), 22 336n, 337n, 344n, 352n, 354n Chalfont, Lord, 106, Ill, 173, 178 British Market Research Bureau (BMRB), Chamberlain, N., 89, 134 43, 198n, see also Opinion Polls Channon, P., 64n, 107 British Movement, 231n Chataway, C., 41, 209 British Oxygen, 117 Chelmsford, 343 Brittan, S., 13 Cheltenham, 136,220,332, 343·5 Britto, K., 337n Chile,32 Broadcasting, 104, 140-163 Chippenham, 340 Brooks, Claire, 161 Chorley, 227n Buchan, N., 155 Churchill, Sir W., 13n, 282 Buckton, R., 27 Churchill, W., 182 Budget, 27 Clark, P., 103n, 201n Building Societies, 33 Clark, W., 41 Burnet, A., 252n Clarke, D., 65n Bury, 106, 231n Clay Cross, 33n Bury and Radcliffe, 227n, 333 Coal Board (NCB), 117 Business Decisions Ltd, see Opinion Polls Coalition, see National Government Butler, A., 339 Coalville, 106 Butskellism, 3, 282 Coleman, T., 182 Butt, R., 280 Colne Valley 106,120,339,343 Commission of Industrial Relations, Cabinet, Shadow, 39,44,62 (CIR), 119, 173 Caernarvon, 228n, 343-4 Communist party, 71,176, 178,211, Caithness, 94 243,351-2 Callaghan, L. J., IOn, 23, 29-31, 57 n, Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 58,85,107,143,154,180 34 Cambridge, 245, 333, 335 Conservative party Campaign for a More Prosperous Britain, leadership, 37 211n, 229,244 organisation, 37, 38-40 Campaign Guide, 24, 104n manifesto, 54-7,60-9,95 Campaign Special, 141, 148-9, 253n campaign planning, 86-9 Can Labour Win?, 5n and Scotland, 93, 239-40 INDEX 359 in campaign, 94-5, 102-4, 115, Devaluation, 7 224-7,257-66 Devolution, 5, 16,29,33-4,60,76, and Libs, 117 92-4 97,131-2,145-6,235, advertisements. 128 240-1,286 political broadcasts, 156-8, 160-1 Devon, 116, 333 agents, 222-4 Devon, North, 90 election expenses, 242-4 Devon, West, 244n postal votes, 244-5 Devonport, 227n and result, 247-85, 330ff. Dickson, A., 210n Conservative Party from Peel to Dimbleby, D., 252n Churchill, The, 284n Diplomacy and Persuasion, 8n Consett, 237 Donoughue, B., 22,112 Constituency Electioneering in Britain, Douglas,]., 40, 65n 231n Douglas-Home Sir A., 33n, 40-1, 65n, Contact Brief, 42n 185,209,348 Cornwall, 333 Douro, Marquis, 176 Cornwall North, 343 Dover and Deal, 244 Corry, B., 289 Down, South, 46, 133, 353 Court Line, 29, 35n, 200n Drake, 245n Coventry, SE, 343-4 Drayson, B., 210 Coventry, SW, 227n Dunbarton, Cent., 347-8, 351 Coverage of the 1974 General Election Dundee, 239, 349 Campaign on Television and Dundee, East, 228n, 349 Radio, The, (February), 140n Dunnett,]., 209 Craig, W_, 46, 133 Crewe, 1., 85n, 88n Cripps, Sir S., 115 Eastbourne, 3, 40, 343 Crosland C_ A. R. East Kilbride, 348 Can Labour Win?, 5n Eatanswill, 229 housing, 23, 33, 59,121,155, 160, Econ European Economic Community (EEC) Gallup Poll, see Opinion Polls as issue, 3, 9, 80, 106,121,273-4, Garston, 227n 288,349 General Management Committee, 219 referendum, 5, 9,58-9,71,120-1,133 'Get Britain Out' campaign, 133 188,232ff Gibson-Watt, Sir D., 210 renegotiation with, 28-31, 113 Gill, K., 178 in manifestos, 57n, 58-9,71,76-7, Gillingham, 344 232ff Gilmour, I., 40, 44, 61, 65-6, 104,119 and inflation, 106, 110, 145 Giscard d'Estaing, V., 50 and CAP, 106, 115 Glamorgan, Mid-, 351 and media, 178-80 Glasgow, 106,349 Evans, G., 138, 159,339, 351 Glasgow Herald, 193, 241n Evening Standard, 99, 184, 189-90, Gloucestershire West, 227n, 343, 351 197,264n Godfrey, jane, 160 Ewing, Winnifred, 173, 178 Goldsmith,j., 89,172 Expectations, role of, 12-13 Goodman, G., 172 Gordon, j., 239n Gort, Elizabeth, 160 Gosport, 343, 345 Fabian Society, 9 Govan, 225, 353n Falkender, Lady, 24, 112 Gowrie, Lady, 176 Falmouth and Camborne, 344n Grafton, Duke of, 172 Fareham, 343, 352 Granada TV, 141, 151-2, 162n Faulds, A., 182, 209 Grant, A., 219n Faulkner, B., 51, 238, 352n Grant, j., 103, 160 Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 136,238, Gravesend, 134, 227n 245, 352n Gray, H., 344n Field, A., 24 Greece, 51 Fife, 349 Greenland, A., 104n Finance Bill, 41-2,53 Greenock, 346 Finance, party, 63, 242-4 Griffiths, E., 138, 208, 229 Financial responsibility, 77-8 Grimond,j., 107, 158,182, 238n Financial Times, 18,95, 170-1, 197n, Grimsby, 350 271 Grudging Europeans, The, 194n Financial Times Share Index, 25 Guardian, 60, 69, 95,105,125,130, Finer, S., 4 164ff.,199,271,289 Fitt, G., 133, 136 Guest Keen and Nettlefold, 188n Flicker, A., 118 Guildford, 102, 106, 133, 136, 178,238 Food subsidies, 26,75, 113,236 Gummer,j., 102 Foot, D., 185 Gwynedd, 344 Foot, M., 20-1, 26ff., 98, 103, 107, 118, 143, 154, 160, 180, 185,200 Hackney, 343-4 For a New Britain, 71 Hailsham, Lord, 107, 133, 143, 176, Ford,G., 51,124 185,260,280,282n Ford Motor Co., 102, 106, 118-19, 180 Haines,j., 103n, 112 Foreign affairs, 236-7 Halewood, 118 Forester, T., 192 Hamm, A., 108 Fowler,j., 196, 197n Hampstead, 244n Fox, M., 156, 160 Hardie, K., 156 Fraser, H.,92, 93n Hardy-Spicer, 117 Fraser, Lord, 38-40 55,65-6, 103n, 104 Harker, D., 65n Freud, C., 161, 177, 211n Harland and Wolff, 238n From the Grass Roots, 152 Harris and ORC Election Surveys, 187n Frost, D_, 150 Harris Poll, see Opinion Polls Frost interviews, 162n Harrow, 110 Fylde, South, 244 Harrow (School), 213 INDEX 361 Harrow East, 238 Lab policy, 33, 59-60, 71, 113 Hart, judith, 32, 201n and the polls, 78-80, 273 Hartlepool, 347 and the media, 145-6, 156-7 Hattersley, R., 31 in local campaigns, 232-3, 236-7 Haverfordwest, 35, 158 Housing Finance Act, 33 Hayes and Hartington, 337n Hove, 340, 343 Hayhoe, B., 160,339 Howe, Sir G_, 37-8, 65n, 117, 143, 160 Hayman, Helene, 155,176,211 Howell, D., 149, 160 Hayward, R., 32, 57, 59n, 85, 103, 108, Howells, G., 159 138,163,201n,253 Huddersfield West, 227n Hazel Grove, 136, 227n, 341 Hudson Report, 11n, 241 Healey, D., Hull, 347 and budget, 23, 27 Hurd, D., 43 and Social Contract, 118, 154 Hutchinson, G., 123n, 181 and economy, 57,114,160 Huyton, 106 and campaign, 35n, 58n, 85, 127, 201n, 252 liford, 106 and 8.4%, 106·10,120, 182,288 Ilford North, 227n and media, 107·8, 145 Ilford South, 227n Heath, E., Immigration, 79-80, 236 in.government, 1970-74,8-9, 13-4,27-9 Incomes policy, see Prices and Incomes and polls, 25, 82n, 266, 272-3 Policy and devolution, 33n, 132 Independent Television (lTV), 140-63 and leadership, 37,124-9,136 Independent Television News (ITN), and party organisation, 39-43 117, 14lff., 252n and National Government, 44-5, 49, Industrial relations, 60-1, see also Social 89,122,131,254 Contract, strikes and Industrial Relations Act, 62 Industrial Relations Act, 8, 26, 28, 62-3, and campaign, 65n, 103·4, 115-16, 73,87,113,124,236,280 123,257-66passim Industry, 73-4 and manifesto, 66-7, 95 Industry Act, 35n and media, 87-9, 106-7, 142-3, Industry, White Paper on, 29, 32 151-2,156-7,254 Inflation, 72-3, 116-8, 232ff., 273, 290 Thorpe on, 117 and recent history, 15,24-5,27,32, cartooned, 130 lOOn, 101, 106ff. in Scotland, 132 and Con policy, 63, 68,88-9,94 in addresses, 233ff. and Lab policy, 84,97-8 after election, 138,279-80, 282, and Lib policy, 268 284,291 and media, 144, 158, 181 Heffer, E., 32 see also Prices and Incomes Policy Hemel Hempstead, 106, 227n In Place of Strife, 8 Hemsworth, 332 'Insight', 199 Hereford, 343 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 114 Hertfordshire South, 337 Inverness, 346n Heseltine, M., 63, 107, 188 Ipswich, 106, 227n Hill, A., 244n Ireland, Council of, 51 Hogg, Sarah, 156 Irish Civil Rights Association, 211n, 229 Holland, S., 148 Irish Republican Army (IRA), 51, 133 Holmes,j.,47 Irving, C., 220, 344 Holt, A., 90,105,267 Isle of Wight, 340, 343 Holt,jennifer, 160 Islington North, 176 Hooson, E., 159 Issues, 54-80, 232-4, 246-7 Homsey, 106, 133, 245n Itchen, 244 Housing, 33, 65,75-6,87,261 Con policy, 2, 62-4, 102-3, 106,261, jackson, R., 65n 337 jackson, T., 160 362 INDEX Jay, P., 13n and result, 330ff Jeger, L., 58n Labour Party Conference Report 1974, Jenkins, H., 107 103n,251n,252n Jenkins,P., Un, 125,289 Labour's Programme (1972), lOn, 55n Jenkins, R., Labour's Programme 1973, lOn, 55n, and EEC, 9n, 31,58, 106-7, 120,247 58-9,74 at Home Office, 27, 51, 95 Labour Weekly, 103n, 201n and Haverfordwest speech, 35-6, 85 Lancashire, 281, 334 and media, 143, 154-5, 178-9 Land, White Paper on, 29 Jessel, D., 149 Last Debate, The, 152 Jessel, Penny, 161 Law and Order, 236-7,260 Jewish Chronicle, 211n Lawson, N., 43n, 44, 237 Jews, 98,211,231 Layfield Committee, 75 Johnson, R., 218n Leaflets, 231-2 Johnson-Smith, G., 156-7 Leeds South, 343 Johnston, R., 159 Leeds SE, 343 Jones,J., 10, 144,178 Leeds West, 343 Joseph, Sir K., Leith,106 Preston speech, 29,94-5,234 Leominster, 245n, 340, 343 and Shadow Cabinet, 41 Lestor, Joan, 31-2 economics of, 63, 134 Let's Go With Labour, 7n and manifesto 65n Lever, H., 27 and media, 143, 160, 284 Liberal party and National Government, 237, 264 recent history, 16,46-8 Jowell, R., 194n Lib Assembly, 29, 91 and Cons, 42, 260 Kane, V., 152 and coalition, 48-50, 92 Kav~,D.,231n,281n and manifesto, 54, 56, 69-70, 72-8 Keen, T., 211 passim Keighley, 106, 149, 189, 195n, 227n, in campaign, 89-90, 116, 266-72 258n,291 and Scotland, 93-4, 241 Kensington, 335 and media, 105-6, 154, 158-9 161, Keynes, J., 290 170-1,177,268 Kilbrandon, Lord, 148 and organisation, 223, 228-9, 242-4 Kilbrandon Commission, 16, 33 and result, 137,276,284-5, 330ff Kilmarnock 348 Lichfield, 129 King, A., 4n Lincoln, 182,211,220, 228n, 229 Kingswood, 227n, 343 Little, Jenny, 103n Kinnock, N., 156 Liverpool, 106 Kinross and West Perthshire, 245b, 345, Lloyd,Jennifer, 159 348 Lloyd, S., 5, 212 Kirkdale, 343 London, 106,337 Kitzinger, U., 8n London Weekend Television (LWT), Kitson, A., 201n 189-90, 196, 273 Kitson, T., 104, 125 Loughborough,50, 227n, 243 Kroll, Una, 211n Louth, 343, 345 Lovell-Davies, Lord, 83, 103n, 112 'Labour Keeps its Promises', 53 Loveridge, J., 339 Labour party Ludlow, 343 and recent history, 7-9, 16-8,31-6 Luton East, 227n in Scotland, 29, 34, 93, 240 Lyons, D., 82-3, 103n, 112, 253n and manifesto, 54-60 passim, 72ff and campaign, 82-5, 102-3, 223-4, MacDonald, Margo, 143, 176, 225 227-8, 242-4, 251-7 passim MacDonald, R., 19 and media, 107-8, 154-6, 160 MacGregor,J.,43n INDEX 363 Mcintosh, A., I03n Motherwell, 348 McKenzie, R., 150, 281n Mulley, F., 58n, 103 Mackintosh,j., 160, 237n, 348 Murray, 1., 97, 1l0, 144, 154, 289n Macleod, I., 62 Must Labour Lose?, 5n Macmillan, H., 43, 282 Macmillan, M., 19,43-4,50 National Economic Development McNally, T., 23 Council, (NEDC), 6, 74, 124,181 Magee, B., 155 National Enterprise Board, 34, 57n, 74 Maguire, F., 136, 138n National Front, 71, 15In, 154n, 159·60, Mais, Lord, 179 178,211,229,231,243,334, Makarios, Archbishop, 29, 51 351 Manchester, 224n National Government, Manifestos, 30-1, 43n, 54-81, 108 see Cons and, 19,43·50,89, 122ff., 257, see also Con., Lab., Lib., parties 261·5 Marginal seats, 40, 136, 138, 226·9 polls on, 25, 79, 145, 261 Market and Opinion Research Libs and, 44, 48-50, 90-1, 116, 268-9 International (MORI), see Opinion Lab and, 57, 97 Polls 'National unity' theme, 62, 65, 70, Marketing, 187 87,247,250,286·7 Market Research Society, 187 and media, 180-2, 233 Marks, D., 181 in election addresses, 234-8 Marks and Spencer, 123 cartoon, 265 Marlow, A., 211n National Health Service, 80, 202n, 235 Marten, N., 9n National Housing Finance Agency, 76 Mason, R., 143, 232n National Institute of Economic and Maude, A., 62, 185 Social Research (NIESRl, 11,10 In Maudling, R., 37, 182 Nationalisation, 29, 34, 74, 78, 131, Maxton, j., 156 145·6, 183, 188,234·6, 247n Mayhew, c., 29, Ill, 182, 185, 208, National Opinion Polls (NOP), see 220, 229, 238, 344 Opinion Polls Meetings, 225 National Plan, 7 Mellish, R., 98,103,107,120,160 National Union of Bank Employees Members from the Unions, 218n (NUBE),59n Merioneth, 343·4 National Union of Labour Organisers, Middlesbrough, 125 223 Middleton and Prestwich, 227n National Unity see National Government Mikardo, I., 29, 31, 58n, 59, 103, 160 Nationwide, 150 Millan, B., 155 Neal, Sir 1., 119, 123,173 Miller, W., 337n Nelson, A., 212 Milhench,R., 24, 29 Nelson and Colne, 227n, 343 Mills, 1., 59n Newbury, 341 Milne, E., 138, 209n, 229, 245n, 353 Newcastle North, 245n, 343, 351 Miners, 8, 29,66,84, 113, 117, 144 Newcastle·upon·Tyne Central, 244 Monetary policy, 63, 94, 236 New Politics: A Socialist Renaissance, Money Programme, The, 149, 162n The, 9 Moore,j., 156,339 News at Ten, 141 Moray and Nairn, 346,348 Newsday, 148 Morgan, E., 156 News of the World, 184-5, 189, 191 Morgan, G., 32 New Statesman, 13n, 171, 192 Morning Star, 176, 178, 265 Newton, 244 Morris, A., 107 Newton, A., 43n Morris, J., 156 Nixon, R., 29, 51 Morris, M., 339 Nordlinger, R" 281n Morrison, Sara, 88, 104, 125, 258 Norfolk, NW, 227, 245n, 351 Mortgages, see Housing Norfolk South, 244 364 INDEX Northampton North, 211n, 227n Paying for Labour's Programme, 77 Northampton South, 227, 245n, 339 Peart, F., 30, 114, 173 Northern Ireland, 235, 238 Peking, 29 recent history, 29, 51 Pembroke, 161, 245n and manifestos, 60, 76 Pensions, 27, 29, 32, 60, 71, 74, campaign in, 80, 153, 243-4 78-80,97, 113, 236-7, 247n and E. Powell, 133 Perth,353n election results, 138, 285, 324, Peterborough, 227n 352-3 Petersfield, 37 Northern Ireland Act, 29 Pilger, j., 172 Northern Ireland Labour party, 238 Piggo tt, L., 185 North sea oil, see Oil Pitt, T., 23, 57 Norwich, 106 Plaid Cymru, Norwich South, 227n recent history, 33 Nott, j., 160 manifesto, 71, 72n Nottingham Central, 209 and media, 153, 159, 178 candidates, 211, 243 Observer, 4n, 184-5, 189ff. results, 138,330,351, 353n Oil, 11,16,26-7, 42n, 71, 78,92,131, PM Reports, 145n 236,239,241,347 Political Change in Britain, 17 O'Neill, Sir C., 196 Polling day, 106, 245-6 One More Heave, 235 Pompidou, G., 50 'On The Spot', 150 Pontefract, 352 Opinion Polls, 78-80, 145-7, 168-9, Portsmouth, 106 187-207, 266ff. Portsmouth North, 227n on optimism, lIn, 101 Portugal, 50 on politicians, 16n, 82, 233 Postal votes, 2445, 333 on parties, 25,49, 52, 83n, 86, 116, Powell, E., 37, 45-6, 95, 133,143, 178, 134-5, 250-2, 256, 258ff, 185, 238, 284, 353 266-7,271 Power and Party Bureaucracy in Britain, private, 43, 85, 122, 124, 223n 197-207,261 Prentice, R., 23,36, 107 on National Government, 25, 84, 124, Press, 110-11, 164-86 on Nationalism, 132, 239-42 Press Conference, 102, 105-8 and newspapers, 189 Preston, 106, 132, 151 on polls, 230 Preston North, 227n on voting details, 245-6, 250-2, Preston South, 227n 277-8, 287-8 Price sis ters, 51 Orkney and Shetland, 158, 238n Price, W., 344 Orpington, 6, 106, 115, 238 Prices Act, 29 Orr, Captain L., 46 Prices and Incomes Policy, 9, 15,26, Owen, D., 182 60ff, 87, 94, 116-18, 234, 267; Oxford, 106, 133, 227n, 245 see also Inflation Oxley, M., 83, 103n Prior,j., 37, 40, 62, 64, 65n, 107, 118 Problem of Party Government, The, 2n, Paddington, 227n 55n, 56n Paisley, I., 133, 348 Proops, Marjorie, 155, 160 Paisley, 348 Prowse, Lilian, 105 Panorama, 149-50, 162n Public Opinion Digest, 200n, 201 Pardoe, j., 69n, 116, 143, 161, 177,270 Public ownership, 58-9, 76, 113, 115, Pathways to Parliament, 219n 183, 236, see also Nationalisation Pate man, T., 140n Pudsey, 341 Paterson, P., 219n Putting Britain Ahead, 282 Patten, C., 40, 44, 65-6, 103n, 104n Putting Britain First, 68, 128, 156, 199, Pay Board, 26 235. 239 INDEX 365 Putney, 227n Salford, 136 Pym, F., 65n, 107 Scarborough, 6, 335, 340, 343 Scanlon, H., 26, 97 Queen's Speech, 20, 23, 33, 41, 113 Schmidt, H., 50 Quennell,Joan, 37, 210 Scotland, 76, 238-42 Question Time, 150, 152 and self-government, 70 and voting fluidity, 81, 92, 158 Raab, G., 337n and media, 158 Race Relations Act, 231 and election expenditure, 243 Radio, 140-63 passim, 160-1 tactical voting in, 274 Rankin, P., 210 and results, 276, 281, 285-6, 321-3, Ranney, A., 219n 331,345-50,356 Raphael, A., 199 Scotland-Exchange (Liverpool), 210 Read, K., 159 Scotland's Future, 70 Reading North, 245n Scotland Today, 240 Reading South, 341 Scotsman, 184, 193-4, 243n Redgrave, Vanessa, 176, 211n Scottish Council, 93 Rees, M., 23, 51 Scottish Development Corporation, 76 Referendum see EEC Scottish Development Fund, 93 Reid, G., 159 Scottish Nationalist Party, (SNP) Reid,J., 176,348,351 recent history, 16, 33-4, 92-4, 281 Renegotiation see EEC manifesto, 70-1, 72n Rent freeze, 29, 33 campaign, 131-3, 193, 211, 239 Reorganisation of Party Structure, 219, and media, 153, 155-6, 159, 177-8 223n expenditure, 243 Representation of the People Act, 231n results, 138, 285-6, 330, 345-51 Richard, I., 209 and electoral system, 353-6 Richards, A., 47, 69, 89, 105, 116 Selection of Parliamentary Candidates, Richmond, 238, 341 The, 219n Ridley, A., 110 Selec tora te, The, 219n Ridley, N., 63 Selly Oak, 339, 351, 353 Rippon, G., 95 Sewil), B., 65n Road to Downing Street, The, 152 Sharp, Baroness, 148 Robens, Lord, 123, 173 Shawcross, Lord, 123 Roberts, W., 158 Sherbourne, S., 44, 65, 104, Robinson, J., 185 Shore, P., 30-1,103,107,120 Rochester and Chatham, 106, 227 Short, E., 20, 23n, 24, 103, 154 Rome, Treaty of, 30 244 Romford, 343 Sidcup, 106, 136 Rook,Jean, 176, 178 Sieff, Sir M., 123, 185 Rose, R., 2n, 55n, 191n Silkin,J.,24 Ross and Cromarty, 332, 346, 353n Silver, A., 281n Ross, D., 103, 201n Simpson, W., 161 Ross, W., 33, 155,348 Skipton, 210, 245n Rossendale, 227n Slade, A., 90 Rothschild, Lord, 22, 123 Slade, Monaco, Bluff, 90 Rowlands, T., 156 Small Heath, 343 Rowntree Trust, 48 Smillie, R., 156 Rugby, 211, 343-5 Smith, C., 116, 143, 159, 161, 176, Rush, M., 219n 270,272 Ryman,J.,209n Smith, D., 23-4, III Smith, H., 211n St Davids, Lord, 106, 112, 177, 179, 270 Smith, T., 289n Stjohn Stevas, N., 62,119,143,160 Social Contract St Stephen's Club, 104, 205n history, 9-10, 26, 28 366 INDEX in manifesto, 57n, 60, 72 Tactical voting, 235, 276, 337-42, 353, polls on, 78-9 356 in campaign, 83-4, 112-5,118-19, Taverne, D., Ill, 138, 179, 182,211, 154,233,247,250,255 229, 353 Cons and, 86 Tavistock, 176 cartoon, 96 Taylor, E., 158, 239-40 and TUC, 97 Taylor, R., 43, 104, 197-8, 200, 205-6 in media, 144-5, 162, 165, 180-1 Taxation, 78, 234-6 in election addresses, 234-6 Teesside, 347 after election, 289 Television, 107, 140-63 passim Social Democratic Labour Party (SDLP), Thames Television, 151 238,353 Thatcher, Margaret, Social security, 74-5 and housing, 62,106-7,121-3,146, Society of British Aircraft Constructors, 156-7,233,240,254,261,337 144 and media, 106-7, 143, 146, 156-7,185 South Africa, 32 and National Government, 237, 264 Southend West, 341 This Week, 151 Sovereignty, 5 Thomas, D., 158 Sowerby, 227n Thomas, R., 90,158-9, 161 Sparkbrook, 344n Thomas, P., 158 Speaker's Conference, 67, 77 Thompson, G., 349 Speed, K., 38n Thompson, T., 187-8, 196-7 Spelthorne, 337 Thornaby, 227n Spence,J., 184, 188, 194n Thorneycroft, Lord, 220 Spiller, J., 228, 267 Thorpe,J., Steed, M., 194, 275-6 and coalition, 43n, 44, 49-50, 91, Steel, D., 44, 47, 49, 90,107,158,173, 127, 269 177, 182, 228n criticisms of, 47,270 Steering Committee, 39, 44, 55, and manifesto, 69-70 63-6 and Cons, 89, 263 Stirling, D., 52, 95 in campaign, 89-91, 116, 228n, 235, Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, 267-71 195n, 353n and media, 105, 107, 142, 147, 151, Stirlingshire East and Clackmannan, 158ff., 162n, 173, 177, 179 228n,349 on Lab defections, 111-12, 177, 179 Stirlingshire West, 208 cartooned, 130, 249 Stockport North, 227n and polls, 197, 273 Stocks, Mary, 161 and election result, 138, 284 Sttathclyde, 349 Thoughts on the Constitution, 4n Strikes, 25, 79, 117, 273 Three day week, 97, 134, 234-5 Students, 244-5, 333 Times, The, 13n, 31, 52, 61, 69, 123n, Sun, 101, 109, 189, 191-2, 164ff., 164ff., 188-90, 196n, 197n, 275, 249, 287 277n, 287 Sunday Express, 185 Times House of Commons October 1974, Sunday Mirror, 185 The, 72n Sunday People, 185 Todd, A., 40, 103n, 104 Sunday Telegraph, 185, 189-90 Torbay, 238 Sunday Times, 31n, 67,105, 122n, Totnes, 343 129n, 184-6, 189, 191-3, 199, Tottenham, 344n 205, 257, 263n, 273, 288 Toxteth, 343 Sunderland,344,347 Tracey, R., 160 Sunderland South, 343 Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, Sutton and Cheam, 211n, 341 27,29,42,53,73 Swing, 332-3, 350 Trades Union Council (TUG), 28, 57n, System Three, see Opinion Polls 97, 112 INDEX 367 Transport House, 23, 34, 55n, 102, Weekend World, 149-50, 189 108n, 207, 252-3 Weinstock, A., 148, 182 Tribune Group, 31, 36, 216 Weitzman, D., 212 Trudeau, P., 45 Wellesley, Lady jane, 176 Truro, 136, 341, 343 Welwyn and Hatfield, 212 Tucker, G., 43, 65n, 103 We Must Conquer Inflation, 69n Turkey, 29, 51 West, H., 136 Turnout, 275,333-5,346 Western Isles, 347 Turpie, L., 161 Wheeler, E_, 228 Two-party system, 2, 70, 91, 117, 235, Whitelaw, W_ 247,267,270,284; see also becomes Con Chairman, 29 National Government and Con leadership, 37-40, 44, 125-6, Tyndall,j., 159 264 Tyneside, 347 and manifesto, 65n, 66 and campaign organisation, 89, 95, 103-4, 106-7, 257, 264 Ulster, Mid-, 245 and media, 143, 157, 161 Ulster Workers Council, 51 and nationalisation, 157, 260 Underhill, R., 102, 103n, 201n White Papers, 97-8, 100 see also subject Unemployment, 25, 63, 94-5, 97-8, headings lOOn, lOIn, 110, 134, 234-6 Why Britain Needs a Liberal Government; Unionists, 51, 133, 136, 238, 353 69 Unions, see Social Contract Wigley, D., 159 United Democratic Party, 211n Williams, Marcia, 24, 112 United Party of Northern Ireland Williams, Shirley (UPNI),352 S. of S. for Consumer Affairs, 26 United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC), and EEC, 31-2,106-8, 112, 119-21, 352n, 353 164, 178-9, 247, 252, 254 Upminster, 227, 339 and industry, 31-2, 35n and manifesto, 58n Value added tax (VAT), 27, 29 and campaign, 85, 103 Vanguard, 133 and media, 106-8, 143 Van Straubenzee, W., 62 and prices, 119-21, 154-5, 160 Varley, E., 107 Wilson, D., 223n Varley, joan, 226n Wilson, H. Voting determinants, 277-8 in 1963-74, 6-9,14,19-31,51 in campaign, 13,82,84-5,95,97, Wainwright, R., 161 101,106-7,112-14,1-33-4, Walde grave, W., 65n, 66, 103-4, 110,258 253, 255-7 Wales, 71, 76, 158, 243, 319-20 and Europe, 13, 28, 120 Walker, P., 37-8, 40, 44,50,62-4, 65n, and slag heaps, 24, 111 143, 157,226 and manifesto, 57-8 Walker, Sir, W., 51, 95 and election date, 91, 98, 100 Wallasey, 343 cartooned,96,99, 130, 249 Walsall South, 227n, 343, 344 and media, 100, 107-8, 110-12, 119, Wallsend, 352 142-3,155,171,252 Warley East, 209 and Labour defections, 112 Watergate, 51 and coalition, 127-8, 129n, 134,252, Waterhouse, K., 172 254 Watson, A., 158,238 and polls, 135-6, 272-3 Wavertree, 343 and result, 138,279, 286-7,290-1 Weather, 102, 245, 335, 346n 290-1 Webster, M., 160 Winchester, 213 Webster, Sir R., 38-9, 40n, 103n, 104, Windlesham, Lord, 41, 65n, 104n 226n Winstanley, M., 107, 159, 272 368 INDEX Wolfe, W., 143 World in Action, 42,141,151 Wolff, M., 29, 38-40, 65n, 66, 103n, Worsley, Sir M., 210 104,125, 198, 226n Wyatt, W., 185 Women candidates, 211, 345 Wood, D., 181 Wood Green, 145, 234 'Yesterday's Men', 82 Worcester, R., 103, 122, 135, 199-202, Yom Kippur, 98 205·7 York, 227n Workers' Revolutionary Party (WRP), Young, Sir G., 339 176, 211n, 244, 352 Young, H., 67 Working Class Tories, The, 281n Young,J.,152