j i the voting The Economist of April 9th carried some very useful data on at the @eral Election, Probably the most significant thing to come out was the relative shift in voting in the last three electionss Year Conservatives Labour Liberals Others % swing to Labour % of poll % of poll % of poll % of poll compared with previous
aay election 1959 494 43.8 509 0.9 -1.11 1964 4304 44.1 11.2 1.3 +3.14 1966 4199 47.9 8.5 1.7 +2.66
Votes votes votes votes 1959 13,763,128 12,216,166 1,642,527 240,917 1964 12,002,406 12,205,606 3,099,091 348,905 19 11,418,453 13,065,981 2,327,533 452,689
Seats Seats seats seats
1966 253 363 12 2 It should be noted that the figures for "others" are distorted for the 1966 election because the speaker is included in this category. What these figures reveal is that the cummulative effect of two elections was to reverse the electoral position of the Tories and Labour - Labour having approximately the same number of seats in 1966 as did the Tories in 1959. But when it comes to voting it is a different picture: the Tories having lost 1,350,000 odd votes, but Labour having increased its vote by only 800,000 odd. The voting for the Liberals is much more complicated to assess because of the big difference in the seats they contested, But in general we can say that two biggest factors bringing about this change have been: (1) the loss by the Tories of about 10% of its voting strength; and (2) the vagaries of the British electoral system which cause a large number of seats to change hands with the small percentage of votes. On the latter point, one can note that in the 1964 election Labour's vote was actually down but they obtained 59 more seats, The overallfigures for changes in voting between the 1964 election and the 1966 were: Labour up by 860,000, Liberals down by 770,000 (to a large extent explained by the smaller number of candidates) and Tories down by 585,000, The difference between the losses of the Tories and Liberals and gains of Labour is accounted for by the fact that 400,000 fewer people voted at all, The drop in turn-out - from 77.Q@%to 75.8% » took place despite the fact that the 1966 election was fought on a brand new register and the 1964 one on old one, Anyone experienced in electioneering will know that the actual drop in turn-out must have been much higher; perhaps twice as high as the figures indicate, The abstentions occurred almost entirely in safe seats, and the tendency was much more marked in safe Labour than safe Tory seats. - The swing to Labour amounted to 2.66, as compared with predictions of the polls of 33 (Daily Mail NOP); 43 (Daily Telegraph Gallup) and 73 (Daily
Express )-- Another feature of the election was the evennes wing Unlike the 1964 election the Tories failed to gain a aitgls eet tn ; Labour and in half the constituencies the swing to Labour was between 2 and 4 per cent. In only 22 of the 630 constituencies was there a net swing to the Tories, and in only a dozen was the swing to Labour more than 7% There were three small variations in this general picture: first, there was a bigger swing to Labour in the big cities (4%) than in the rural areas (2.3%); Second, there was a clear tendency for the areas which had swung most to Labour in 1964 to slow down their extra swing this time, and for those that had swung least in 1964 to catch up. Thirdly, although the swing to Labour was exactly the same in seats where Liberals withdrew as in those where they fought again, there was by contrast a distinctly higher swing to Labour (4%) where new Liberal candidates appeared,
In searching for an explanation to some of these features we can note: (1) everything indicates that a sizeable chunk of traditiof Tory support has become extremely disillusioned with the Tory Party; (2) the working class and sections of the middle class remain loyal to Labour seeing it as the only practical political instrument for them; (3) that the influence of the mass media is still tending to "even out" political variations in the country; (4) that is some areas the electorate seemed to take a conscious decision as to how best to defeat the Tories, witness, the Liberal retention of Orpington and their gain of Colne Valley as against the dropping of Liberal votes in practically every constituency where they came third in 1964; and (5) that where in 1964 the Tories had managed to reverse the general swing by utilisation of the immigration issue (Smthwick, some Birmingham seats) this factor no longer applied.
It is early yet to say how the relationship between left and right in the Parliamentary Labour Party has been affected by the intake of new MPs, One thing is certain, however, there has been nothing like the increase in the number of left-wingers which took place in 1964. We can be very pleased to welcome Joan Lestor and one o: ¥8 others to Parliament but everything indicates that there is a much Oportion of "right of centre", non-traditional working class, university lecturer types in Parliament now. This is disturbing not only because of the diluting of the left | but also because this newer type of MP will be less sensitive to trade union pressure, In summing up we can say? (1) although Harold Wilson's victory was impressive (the only time a Labour Government has improved its electoral position after having been in power) it rests on a flimsy basis, The political complexion of the Syree is detemined by less than 3% of the electorate: if the 800,000-o0 people who voted Labour this time ..'switched back again the Tories would be in a good position, When one considers the influence of the mass media, the way comparatively small events can influence the polls and the fact that Labour is going to be compelled to take "unpopular" measures (that is, in the absence of a bold socialist programme) the loss of 800,000eodd votes is small fry. (2) that, on the other hand, the working class still looks to the Labour Party as the only way it can influence British politics - a factor which all left wingers mst face, no matter how distateful (I have deliberately not gone into the fate of non-Labour Party radical candidates - as is wellknown they did universally badly); and (3) the Tories have suffered a very bad set=back becaweof their failure to overcome an outdated reputation and to solve internal differences.