Should Tony Benn Have Been The Winner Of The 1981 Labour Deputy Leadership Election?

We are now entering a political summer of leadership elections - at least among parties whose leaders haven't resigned, or have been de-resigned in circumstances which would be rejected as a plot for an Ealing comedy on the grounds that it was too far fetched.

Ted Miliband's resignation as leader of the Labour party means that there will be an election to replace him. I have no intention of considering standing to succeed him [in November 1991 there was an election to see who would succeed him as our JCR President. I considered standing, but after having a chat with him about what it entails, decided not to].

The current Leader of the Opposition Harriet Harman, has confirmed that she will not seek re-election as Labour's deputy leader.

And this brings me to one of the most interesting deputy leadership elections - that of September 1981, when the serving Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Denis Healey, saw off a challenge from Tony Benn.

In the Republic of Ireland all legislative elections are by the Single Transferable Vote, where a candidate needs to reach a set number of votes, known as the quota, to be elected. But sometimes, the last candidate to be elected in a contest has failed to reach the quota. The reason for this is that the quota is calculated based on the number of valid votes in the first round of counting. As candidates are removed by being elected (for reaching the quota) or eliminated (by coming last), then there will be an increasing number of non-transferable votes, which do not have a preference for any candidates left in the election. But the quota is not recalculated.

That means you can get to the stage where there are two candidates left, neither of which has reached the quota - and the reason for this diversion will become clear in a bit.

In those days Labour used an electoral college with the following weightings:

• 40% for the trade unions and affiliated socialist societies (collectively called "affiliates")
• 30% for the constituency Labour parties (known as "CLPs")
• 30% for Labour MPs

Each elector was able to list their candidates in order of preference, like the Alternative Vote.

There is one candidate I have missed out - and the third man was John Silkin, at the time the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons. And it is his elimination for coming last that creates an interesting situation.

I remember reading that if non-transferable votes had been dealt with differently then Benn would have won. So I decided to examine this.

First consider the first round:

Candidate	MPs	CLPs	Affiliates	Electoral college vote
Healey	125	112	3,968	45.37%
Benn	55	490	1,030	36.63%
Silkin	65	24	1,429	18.00%
Total	245	626	6,427	100.00%

Then Silkin is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to second preferences:

Candidate	MPs	CLPs	Affiliates	Electoral college vote
Healey	137	118	3,969	50.43%
Benn	71	506	2,383	49.57%
Total	208	624	6,352	100.00%

So, there we have it. Healey wins.

But look at the totals down in the bottom row. It is clear that not all of Silkin's votes actually had second preferences. When the weightings were calculated for the final round of voting then these non-transferable votes were ignored - so Healey's 137 out of 208 votes from MPs became 65.87% of the votes in the MPs' section and became 65.87% x 0.3 = 19.76% of the overall electoral college vote.

But should it have been? Isn't this like recalculating the quota in an STV election at each round of voting? Shouldn't it have been Healey's 137 out of 245 votes from MPs (including the non-transferable ones from Silkin's first preferences), becoming 55.92% of the votes in the MPs' section and hence 55.92% x 0.3 = 16.78% of the overall electoral college vote?

Couldn't the exact same result been expressed as..?

Candidate	MPs	CLPs	Affiliates	Electoral college vote
Benn	71	506	2,383	47.77%
Healey	137	118	3,969	47.13%
Non-transferable	37	2	75	5.09%
Total	245	626	6,427	100.00%

A Christian Votes Conservative

This is an edited version of what I wrote on my Facebook page - I have removed some details which are personal and are the sort of I would only share with close friends:

Firstly, I have to say I am glad the election is over.

The way the Daily Mail has acted towards Ted Miliband, day-in day-out, has been terrible. Judging his dad on an adolescent diary entry is bad. Matriculation photo of Ted in sub-fusc spun in a way that shows ignorance of Oxford traditions. And the reliance on articles written by Martin Winter without mentioning that Winter was chucked out of the Labour party and had an axe to grind.

And is there anyone alive who can, hand on heart, say they have never had a bacon sarnie malfunction?

I know that among my Christian friends there will be differing views of the outcome. I have not agreed with everything the Government has done. I am proud that we have reached the UN target on international aid, helping the poorest and most vulnerable in the world. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides the tools to tackle the scourge of people trafficking. Recongising marriage in the tax system - although the financial amount is small - demonstrates that we believe marriage is the bedrock of society.

Although it was an idea we pinched from the Liberal Democrats, raising the Personal Allowance has enabled people on low incomes to keep more of what they earn, and reduced their reliance on the welfare state, which I believe is better than robbing Peter via his taxes to pay Paul via benefits and robbing Paul via his taxes to pay Peter via benefits. Creating conditions which allow business to flourish led to over 2 million jobs being created.

The effects of the "living wage" could be replicated by raising the Personal Allowance and the National Insurance threshhold to the level where someone on the National Minimum Wage takes home 100% of what they earn, and thus placing no extra burden on small businesses.

I tend to take a high view of politicians - whatever their party - and assume that their motivation for going into politics is to secure the best for this country and their constituents.

What has been painful is the level of hate on both Facebook and Twitter regarding those of us who are Christians who believe that the Conservatives are the best choice for the country. No, I do not hate the poor; I do not hate the disabled; I am surprised to learn that I have turned my back on the sick, considering how often I have ended up in A&E and rely on tablets and inhalers.

The Government has increased spending on the NHS, and IMHO, an article in the Telegraph by someone who is not speaking for the Conservative party, suggesting that the funding model should be along the lines of the German system does not mean the Government is going to abolish it.

Nor is it a case that those of us who voted Conservative were just looking after Number One. Being a middle-aged, childless person there is not much I will get from a Conservative government. Too old to benefit from the new discount, starter homes (have to be under 40), too well off (although it doesn't feel like it) to benefit from the new Right to Buy (not eligible for a Housing Association home), too young to benefit from anything aimed at pensioners.

The Apostle Paul emphasised being all things to all people. I know Conservatives who are non-Christians. Whenever a clergyperson tweets Vote Labour, or has Vote Labour on their FB profile, it makes reaching Conservative non-Christians just that little bit harder, as it helps reinforce the perception that the Church of England is just another soft left pressure group. Not that I want to see clergypersons tweeting Vote Conservative either, as it would make outreach harder to a different group of people.

While I agree that the Church should speak out, it should always be careful that it is not coming across as supporting a particular party, regardless of what that party is.

The Republic Child Poverty Campaign

Those people who were not living under a rock will know that yesterday the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a daughter, and this has given Republic its chance to leap in with its Born Equal campaign.

This urges people to respond by donating to the Child Poverty Action Group.

As Republic states:

Every child should be born with the same political rights, the same opportunity to become head of state and to represent their country

and

3.5m children live in poverty in the UK. That means lower prospects in terms of health, education and long-term employment than those enjoyed by other children. Like the rest of us, those 2,200 children born each day will need to work hard, compete with their peers and earn their success. All those children deserve to grow up in a Britain where there are no limits on their ambition, where their political rights are equal to everyone else's and where all of us are born equal.

I am old enough to remember when compulsory ID cards were The Solution to The Problem of welfare fraud. Then they were The Solution to The Problem of terrorism. I am cautious of something being a multi-purpose The Solution to whatever is The Problem du jour.

And now it seems that a republic has become similar. It is now The Solution to child poverty, by deliberately confusing political inequality (defined narrowly as being unable to become Head of State) with genuine poverty.

Within the Organization for Economic Development member states, the highest child poverty is found in the USA, Mexico and Italy - all republics. While the lowest is, unsurprisingly, in Sweden, which is a monarchy. Clearly it is not a case that republics have less poverty than monarchies.

As Holly Johnson sang in Americanos:

There´s a place where a kid without a cent; He can grow up to be president

Well, on paper anyway. Does anyone think that an African-American from the Bronx has the same chance as a Harvard-educated son of a lawyer?

Ireland and Germany are held up as examples of nations with an elected Head of State. However, its Presidents are normally political creatures. In Ireland the nomination process is controlled by politicians (with the hoi polloi only being able to vote for candidates chosen by politicians), in Germany the election is conducted by politicians. You have to have the right connections, know the right people.

If a girl born yesterday reaches adulthood and is addressed as Ms Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Your Highness, will that have lifted one child out of poverty?

Sadly, one technique used by campaigning groups or celebrities is to cynically link themselves with bona fide charities. Last year saw the whole "UKIP calypso" debacle, the Red Cross had to refuse donations from the song. Note that the UK Independence Party had not asked the Red Cross whether they could use their name. And cue the predictable UKIP spin against the Red Cross, portraying it as playing politics with people's lives.

As the Institute of Fundraising has in its Code of Practice, charity trustees are within their rights to refuse a donation.

Frances Barnwell gives some scenarios where this can be done, including:

• They may decide that it would be unethical for the charity to accept funding from certain sources. Medical charities, for example, may be unwilling to accept research funding from the tobacco industry.
• There may be a conflict of interest between the work of the institution and the activities of the proposed donor.
• The donor’s reputation or associations may be such that accepting funds would undermine confidence in the charity's independence and adherence to its core values.
• The donation may for some other reason pose a risk to the reputation of the charity.

Charities don't just accept donations with no questions asked. There is the risk of reputational damage, which can include the perception that they are being used - and sadly, it seems Republic are using the Child Poverty Action Group by linking the issue a charity campaigns on (child poverty) with its own obsession. The Republic image which I showed above does, at first glance, suggest that CPAG is supporting its political campaign.

Give because you care about child poverty, not because you're angry over the media reporting the birth of a girl.

Labour's Greatest Victory - What Went Wrong?

With the general election only a few days away now, although it is unclear who will win (and indeed, what "win" means in this context), one thing is certain - Labour will not get the landslides it did in May 1997 and June 2001.

What would be Labour's greatest victory? Surely it must be October 1951 - with little over 6 years in power, this election gave Labour 48.78% of the vote, ahead of the Conservatives & allies, and the highest share of the vote Labour ever achieved.

And as a result of this stratospheric level of Labour support, the sitting Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, had to move out of 10 Downing Street and return to being Leader of the Opposition.

The February 1950 general election gave the following result:

• Labour - 315
• Conservative - 298* (includes 26 Scottish Unionist, 17 National Liberal** and 10 Ulster Unionist)
• Liberal - 9
• Irish Nationalist - 2
• The Speaker*** - 1

[* Includes Florence Horsbrugh, who had failed to capture Midlothian & Peebles from Labour, was elected in a postponed poll in Manchester Moss Side a fortnight after the general election]

[** In the days before the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, it was not always clear whether a candidate was from a party or not. I have included John MacLeod of Ross & Cromarty as a National Liberal]

[*** Douglas Clifton-Brown in Hexham, who is the only Speaker of the House of Commons to have met my dad]

Prior to dissolution, Clifton-Brown had 2 Labour Deputy Speakers - James Milner (Leeds South East) and Frank Bowles (Nuneaton). After the election, Bowles - despite being re-elected - stood down as a Deputy Speaker and was replaced by Charles MacAndrew, the Scottish Unionist MP for Ayrshire North & Bute. This gave Labour 314 of the 622 voting MPs - a majority of 6.

With what was - for the era - a small majority (in those days it was normal for one party to win over half the seats and have what was called a "majority", which meant it could - and I appreciate this sounds very odd to modern ears - form a Government on its own, without any coalition partners), it was clear that Attlee would want another election (which in those days a Prime Minister could do) with the aim of increasing its majority.

In 1951, 29 seats changed hands:

Seat	1950	1951
Anglesey	Liberal	Labour
Barry	Labour	Conservative
Battersea South	Labour	Conservative
Bedfordshire South	Labour	National Liberal
Belfast West	Ulster Unionist	Irish Labour
Berwick & East Lothian	Labour	Scottish Unionist
Bolton East	Labour	Conservative
Bolton West	Labour	Liberal
Buckingham	Labour	Conservative
Conway	Labour	Conservative
Darlington	Labour	Conservative
Doncaster	Labour	Conservative
Dulwich	Labour	Conservative
Eye	Liberal	Conservative
Hexham	The Speaker	Conservative
King's Lynn	Labour	Conservative
Manchester Blackley	Labour	Conservative
Merioneth	Liberal	Labour
Middlesbrough West	Labour	Conservative
Newcastle-upon-Tyne North	Conservative	National Liberal
Norfolk South West	Labour	Conservative
Oldham East	Labour	Conservative
Plymouth Sutton	Labour	Conservative
Reading North	Labour	Conservative
Rochdale	Labour	Conservative
Roxburgh & Selkirk	Liberal	Scottish Unionist
Rutherglen	Labour	Scottish Unionist
Wycombe	Labour	Conservative
Yarmouth	Labour	Conservative

Overall, the Conservatives gained 18 seats from Labour, 1 from the Liberals and 1 from the Speaker, while losing 1 seat to the National Liberals* - a net gain of 19 seats.

The Scottish Unionists gained 2 seats from Labour and 1 from the Liberals - a net gain of 3 seats.

The National Liberals gained 1 seat from Labour and 1 from the Conservatives - a net gain of 2 seats..

Irish Labour gained 1 seat from the Ulster Unionists.

The Ulster Unionists lost 1 seat to Irish Labour.

The Liberals gained 1 seat from Labour while losing 1 seat to the Conservatives, 1 to the Scottish Unionists and 2 to Labour - a net loss of 3 seats.

Labour gained 2 seats from the Liberals while losing 1 seat to the Liberals, 1 to the National Liberals, 2 to the Scottish Unionists and 18 to the Conservatives - a net loss of 20 seats.

[*Newcastle-upon-Tyne North is a technical gain - Cuthbert Headlam, the sitting Conservative MP, retired, and the Conservatives and National Liberals chose the National Liberal Gwilym Lloyd-George as their combined candidate]

This gives us:

• Conservative - 321 (includes 29 Scottish Unionist, 19 National Liberal and 9 Ulster Unionist)
• Labour - 295
• Liberal - 6
• Irish Nationalist - 2
• Irish Labour - 1

After the election, William Morrison, the Conservative MP for Cirencester & Tewkesbury was elected Speaker, with MacAndrew reappointed as one deputy, and Rhys Hopkin-Morris, Liberal MP for Carmarthen, as the other. Hence, out of 622 voting MPs, 319 of them were from the Conservative benches, meaning that Winston Churchill returned as Prime Minister with a majority of 16.

Not only was this Labour's highest ever share of the vote, but they were also ahead of the Conservative grouping, which was on 47.97% (of which 3.88% belonged to the Scottish Unionists, 3.70% to the National Liberals and 0.96% to the Ulster Unionists).

This was the last general election with uncontested seats - in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionists won 4 seats (Antrim North, Antrim South, Armagh and Londonderry). But, even if these had been contested (in May 1955, Sinn Féin contested all of Northern Ireland's seats, with their highest share of the Province's vote until May 2005), this would not be enough to pull the Conservative grouping ahead of Labour in votes.

Could the explanation be the one we were given in A-level History - that Labour's record in Government saw its vote increase in its heartlands while losing marginals to the Conservatives?

The problem with this is that out of the 293 seats that Labour won in both 1950 and 1951, its majority decreased in 225 of them.

We need to look for another reason, and for this we will pay a visit to the Lancashire town of Bolton.

1951 was a bad election for the Liberals - the landslide election of January/February 1906 was 45 years in the past, with only older voters being able to remember it. During the inter-war period, the Liberals were able to maintain a place as a reasonable-sized third party. But even that was gone.

We can look at the 9 seats the Liberals had won in 1950:

Seat	MP	1951 outcome	Conservative challenger
			1950	1951
Anglesey	Megan Lloyd-George	Lost to Labour	Yes	Yes
Cardigan	Roderic Bowen	Liberal hold	Yes	No
Carmarthen	Rhys Hopkin-Morris	Liberal hold	No	No
Eye	Edgar Granville	Lost to Conservatives	Yes	Yes
Huddersfield West	Donald Wade	Liberal hold	No	No
Merioneth	Emrys Roberts	Lost to Labour	Yes*	Yes
Montgomeryshire	Clement Davies**	Liberal hold	Yes	No
Orkney & Zetland	Joseph Grimond	Liberal hold	Yes***	Yes***
Roxburgh & Selkirk	Archie Macdonald	Lost to Scottish Unionist	Yes***	Yes***

[*In 1950 Roberts also faced a Plaid Cymru challenge, which was not there in 1951 - his vote fell by just 0.21%, but 1951 saw an increase in both the Labour and Conservative share of the vote]

[**Davies was the Liberal leader, and turned down Churchill's offer to be Minister for Education, which went instead to Horsbrugh]

[***Scottish Unionist]

There is a pattern noticeable - out of the 5 seats which the Liberals held, in 4 of them there was no Conservative challenger. And with this, we are starting to see why the 1951 election produced such a peculiar result.

At the July 1945 election there were a few 2-member constituencies around, one of which was Bolton, won by Labour's Jack Jones and John Lewis. For 1950, the seat was divided, with newcomer Alfred Booth winning Bolton East for Labour and Lewis winning Bolton West - both seats which saw the Conservatives second and the Liberals scoring a good third place.

If we move forward to 1951, we can see the total number of votes scored by the parties across the Bolton seats:

• Labour - 50,274
• Conservative - 27,106
• Liberal - 26,271

You might expect that Labour would hold both seats, but they lost both - Bolton East fell to the Conservatives' Philip Bell, while Bolton West was won by the Liberals' Arthur Holt (who had contested the other seat in 1950). In Bolton, the Conservatives and Liberals formed an electoral pact which involved each standing down in one constituency, and which led to the Liberals' sole gain.

We can look at the number of seats not contested by these parties in Great Britain:

Nation	Party		Total constituencies in nation
	Conservative*	Liberal
England	4	415	506
Scotland	1	62	71
Wales	3	27	36
Great Britain	8	504	613

[*including Scottish Unionist and National Liberal]

As we can see, the Liberals had given up any pretence at being a national party, contesting just under 18% of the constituencies in Great Britain - equivalent to a party contesting 112 seats next week.

In 1950 they had contested 475 constituencies.

We can now look at the 8 constituencies without a Conservative candidate:

Constituency	Outcome	Candidate in 1950	Liberal share of vote
			1950	1951
Bolton West	Liberal gain from Labour*	Yes	20.46%	52.76%
Cardigan	Liberal hold	Yes	52.17%	67.30%
Carmarthen	Liberal hold	No	50.19%	50.46%
Colne Valley**	Labour hold	Yes	19.16%	47.84%
Dundee West	Labour hold	Yes	1.86%	45.72%
Fulham West	Labour hold	Yes	4.95%	3.18%***
Huddersfield West	Liberal hold	No	58.23%	58.50%
Montgomeryshire	Liberal hold	Yes	50.03%	68.49%

[*Liberal gain from third place]

[**The Liberal candidate was Violet Bonham-Carter, daughter of former Prime Minister Herbert Asquith]

[***Third place. The runner-up to Labour's Edith Summerskill was William Brown, who had been Labour MP for Wolverhampton West between the May 1929 and October 1931 general elections, before returning as Independent MP for Rugby at a by-election in April 1942, holding his seat at the 1945 election, but losing to Labour at the 1950 election]

So it is clear that in some seats the Conservatives were standing down to give the Liberals a chance - successfully in 5, unsuccessfully in Colne Valley and Dundee West (where the Liberal candidate was the Mail on Sunday's John Junor).

One thing that is now quite common is for a party to win a seat on less than half the vote, thanks to a divided opposition. In 1951, Labour won 13 seats this way (in all but one of them the Labour vote was less than the combined Conservative and Liberal vote):

Constituency	Labour	Conservative	Liberal
Anglesey	40.19%	21.65%	38.16%
Bradford South	47.16%	39.43%*	13.40%
Carlisle	46.79%	39.19%	14.02%
Falmouth & Camborne	46.29%	44.07%	9.64%
Gloucester	48.81%	43.58%	7.62%
Hornchurch	47.37%	45.60%	7.04%
Merioneth	42.94%	18.41%	38.65%
Nottingham East	47.77%	47.17%	5.06%
Pembrokeshire**	48.45%	31.63%	19.92%
Sowerby	46.03%	42.70%	11.27%
Uxbridge	49.14%	45.56%	5.29%
Walthamstow East	47.54%	44.99%	7.03%
Western Isles***	48.77%	40.70%*	5.56%

[*National Liberal]

[**This was the constituency which saw the greatest increase in majority for Labour (from 129 to 9,026). However, the Labour share of the vote went down in 1951. In 1950 Labour's Desmond Donnelly had unseated the National Liberals' Gwilym Lloyd-George]

[***The Scottish National Party came fourth with 4.97% of the vote, and the Labour vote is higher than the combined National Liberal and Liberal one. In 1950 Labour's main challenger was the Liberals, with neither the National Liberals nor the Scottish Unionists fielding a candidate]

Fighting two elections close to each other had clearly hit the Liberals, and they were not able to field as many candidates. Hence the need to select which seats to fight - and when you compare the results, it appears that they concentrated on seats they had done better in at the 1950 election when deciding where to contest in 1951, which is quite logical. This then reduces the number of unwinnable seats where they have a spoiler effect which enables Labour to win on a minority of the vote.

The near-collapse of the Liberals in such a short space of time must have hit Labour this way, with the anti-Labour vote becoming concentrated around one candidate, normally Conservative, making this election the closest we have seen to a straight two-party fight.

Yes, Labour was ahead of the combined Conservative, National Liberal, Scottish Unionist and Ulster Unionist grouping in votes. But when you throw the Liberals into the mix, something different is seen.

Across Great Britain, Labour won 49.36% of the vote. The Conservatives, National Liberals and Scottish Unionists won, between them, 47.78%. Adding in the Liberals to this brings it up to 50.38%. On a proportional system you would expect Labour to have 304 seats (rather than 295), and the Conservative grouping, along with the Liberals, to have 309 (rather than 318). So we are 9 out each way. The real disproportionality crept in with Labour avoiding Northern Ireland, allowing the Conservatives to have 9 allies from the Province.

While this was Labour's greatest triumph, they could no longer benefit from a divided opposition, and the anti-Labour vote was expressed as nearly as efficiently as it could be, sending Labour into 13 years of Opposition.

Saturn - The Planet of Lasts

There is one memory of my teenage years that stands out. And I am not sure why. It was a night in May, and I had got up to get a glass of water, and looking out through the kitchen window, there was Saturn low down.

Thanks to the chaos at London Waterloo yesterday evening, I did not get home until 1/2 past 11, when the sky looked like this (all images from Heavens Above):

Although Venus was behind houses, two other planets were visible - Jupiter and, low in the south east, Saturn.

There was, to me, something so right about Saturn being there, back more-or-less where it was when I had started out in astronomy, with its 29 year 5 month orbital period taking me from being a teenager to middle-aged. Mars and Jupiter go round more quickly, while everything Uranus does is once-in-a-lifetime.

Saturn is currently in Scorpius, next to the scorpion's bright head. On 13 December it will be in conjunction with Antares, the scorpion's bright red heart - sadly this event will be too close to the Sun in the sky to be seen. The morning of 9 January brings us something interesting near Antares (this is the sky at 1/2 past 7, as it is getting light):

An impressive collection of 4 planets in the morning sky. 4? Look more closely:

What is that thing to the left of Antares? The blue wording seems unclear. Is it saying Venus? Or Saturn?

Well, it's both - they will appear very close together.

Go forward nearly 3 years, and on 22 October 2018 Saturn begins its northwards journey (this is the sky at 1/2 past 6 in the evening, as it is getting dark):

Entering Capricornus on 22 March 2020, back into Sagittarius on 3 July 2020, then Capricornus again on 15 December 2020 (and quickly catching up with Jupiter), Aquarius on 13 February 2023, Pisces on 19 April 2025, back into Aquarius on 29 September 2025, Pisces again on 15 January 2026, and then crossing the celestial equator on 29 March 2026, before entering Cetus on 9 April 2026, back into Pisces on 3 June 2026, Cetus again on 5 September 2026, Pisces yet again on 23 February 2027, Cetus on 10 May 2028, Aries on 12 May 2028, Cetus on 22 December 2028, Aries again on 4 January 2029, and into Taurus on 22 July 2029.

Although it'll be very low down in the evening twilight, on 21 May 2031 - 16 years in the future, Saturn is in conjunction with Taurus' bright red star, Aldebaran.

By the time Saturn has gone all the way round and reached Antares again, I'll be an old man - if I am still alive. That is what struck me yesterday evening - that these coming months may be the last time I'll ever see Saturn in its rightful place.

When 1,438 Voters Stopped A Conservative Fourth Term

One of the closest general election results was that of October 1964:

• Labour - 317
• Conservative grouping - 303 (includes 24 Scottish Unionist, 12 Ulster Unionist and 6 National Liberal)
• Liberal - 9
• The Speaker - 1

The Speaker was Harry Hylton-Foster, the MP for the Cities of London & Westminster, who in September 1965 would be the last Speaker to die in office. The Labour majority was a solid 5 - these days a party getting an overall majority of 5 would be seen as a landslide.

After three successive elections (October 1951, May 1955 and October 1959) where they had just 6 MPs, the Liberals were back to the level they enjoyed in February 1950, as they began the 45-year climb back to Government.

This is the last election with just 3 parties or groupings - in 1959 the only MP elected outside these groups/parties was David Robertson in Caithness & Sutherland, who had resigned the Conservative whip in January 1959 and been re-elected as an Independent, but in 1964 he was retiring (his seat went Liberal). The March 1966 election would see Gerry Fitt win Belfast West under the banner of the Republican Labour Party.

This was also the Scottish Unionists' last election, and the National Liberals' penultimate election, as both groups were fully absorbed into the Conservative Party in the 1960s - while in the following decade the Ulster Unionists travelled in the opposite direction.

The sitting Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, who was the Scottish Unionist MP for Kinross & West Perthshire, had been in office for just under a year.

But just how close was this election?

The full set of results is available, as well as the Labour marginal seats. Each of these falling would see the number of Labour MPs fall by 1 - but not necessarily the number of Conservative MPs increase by 1, as such a seat could fall to the Liberals.

We could also look at the Liberal marginals, but in the first of these (Caithness & Sutherland), Labour are the runners-up. You might wonder why I have ignored Bristol North East, which is listed as more marginal. The list of Liberal marginals also includes some National Liberal seats, whose MPs would take the Conservative whip.

The closest Liberal/Conservative marginal in 1964 was Inverness, where Russell Johnston was beginning his 32-year stint as an MP (eventually becoming the first deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats) by unseating the sitting Scottish Unionist MP, Neil McLean.

We need to ask how many votes need to shift in a constituency for it to change hands. If the majority is even, divide by 2 and add 1. If the majority is odd, divide by 2 and add 0.5. For example, if A has a majority of 100 over B, then 51 of A's voters switching to B means B wins with a majority of 2.

Labour's most vulnerable seat was Brighton Kemptown, where the Conservatives' David James, who had held the seat since the 1959 election, lost to Dennis Hobden (who would hold the seat in 1966 but lose to the Conservatives' Andrew Bowden at the June 1970 general election). James would become a retread, as MP for Dorset North in 1970, until retiring at the May 1979 general election. Just 4 Labour voters needed to switch for James to have hung on here. Lab 316, C 304, L 9. Lab maj. 3

Next is Ealing North, where the Conservatives' John Barter, who had held the seat since the 1955 election, lost to William Molloy, who would hold the seat until being defeated by the Conservatives' Harry Greenway at the 1979 election. 14 Labour voters would have needed to switch for Barter to remain the MP. Lab 315, C 305, L 9. Lab maj. 1

Next is Wellingborough, where the Conservatives' Michael Hamilton, who had held the seat since the 1959 election, lost to Harry Howarth. Howarth died in August 1969, and the by-election in December 1969 saw the seat return to the Conservatives, with Peter Fry winning. By this time, Hamilton was back in the Commons, having held Salisbury for the Conservatives at the February 1965 by-election - a seat he would represent until retiring at the June 1983 general election. 24 Labour voters would have needed to switch for Hamilton to remain at Wellingborough. Lab 314, C 306, L 9. Lab maj. -1

At this point we are in hung Parliament territory - which has just needed 42 Labour voters to switch to the Conservatives.

Next is Norfolk North, where Bert Hazell began his parliamentary career by holding this seat for Labour. He was defeated by the Conservatives' Ralph Howell at the 1970 election, and died, aged 101, in January 2009. Just 27 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Frank Easton win this seat. Lab 313, C 307, L 9. Lab maj. -3

Next is its parliamentary neighbour, King's Lynn, where the Conservatives' Denys Bullard, who had held the seat since the 1959 election, lost to Labour's Derek Page, who held the seat until being defeated by the Conservative (and later Social Democrat) Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler at the 1970 election. Just 53 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Bullard remaining an MP. Lab 312, C 308, L 9. Lab maj. -5

Next is Birmingham Yardley, where the Conservatives' Leonard Cleaver, who had won the seat from Labour in 1959, lost it back to Labour, with Ioan Evans winning it. Evans then lost the seat to the Conservatives' Derek Coombs at the 1970 election. This was not the end of Evans' career, though, as in February 1974 he became MP for Aberdare (a town that my family nearly moved to in 1984) until his death in February 1984 (by which time it had become Cynon Valley). Just 85 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Cleaver remaining an MP. Lab 311, C 309, L 9. Lab maj. -7

The 1964 election wasn't just about the Conservatives and Labour, as we can see when we come to Colne Valley, where Patrick Duffy - who had held the seat for Labour at a by-election in March 1963 - narrowly saw off a challenge from the Liberals' Richard Wainwright, who had brought the Liberals up to second place (from third in 1959) at the by-election. Wainwright would win this from Duffy at the 1966 election, lose it back to Labour (David Clark, who later served in Tony Blair's first Cabinet) in 1970, recapture it in February 1974 and remain its MP until retiring at the June 1987 general election. Duffy would return to Parliament - as MP for Sheffield Attercliffe - in 1970, and hold that seat until retiring at the April 1992 general election. Just 94 Labour voters switching to the Liberals would have seen Wainwright win this seat a couple of years earlier than he did. Lab 310, C 309, L 10. Lab maj. -9

Next is Glasgow Pollok, a seat which had been held by the Scottish Unionists since its creation for the December 1918 general election. John George, who had held the seat since the 1955 election, was retiring, and it was won by Labour's Alex Garrow. Garrow died in December 1966, and at the by-election of March 1967, the seat was won by the Conservatives' Esmond Wright. Just 149 Labour voters switching to the Scottish Unionists would have seen Bob Kernohan become an MP. C 310, Lab 309, L 10. C maj. -9

Just 450 Labour voters needed to switch (94 of these to the Liberals) for the Conservatives to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.

The next seat is Preston South, which the Conservatives' Alan Green had held since winning it from Labour in 1955. At the time of the 1964 election, Green was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury - with the post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury not having been created, the Financial Secretary was deputy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Green lost the seat to Labour's Peter Mahon, failed to win it back in 1966, and then unseated Mahon in 1970. In February 1974 Green lost to Labour's Stan Thorne. Just 175 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Green remaining an MP. C 311, Lab 308, L 10. C maj. -7

Next we have Meriden, which the Conservatives' Gordon Matthews had won from Labour in 1959. He lost it to Christopher Rowland, who died in November 1967, with the resulting by-election in March 1968 being won by the Conservatives' Keith Speed. Just 182 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Matthews remaining an MP (and, as in Glasgow Pollok, preventing a by-election). C 312, Lab 307, L 10. C maj. -5

Whenever we go back through old election results, it is easy to be surprised at some of the constituency results - such as Meriden going Labour, something which Labour couldn't manage in its 1997 landslide.

In part, this can be due to long-term changes, such as the decline in Conservative vote in urban parts of northern England and in Scotland - in the 1979 election, in Glasgow the Conservatives were reduced to just Glasgow Hillhead, and when its MP, Tom Galbraith, died in January 1982, the Conservatives ceased to have any Glasgow MPs - and they have never had a Glasgow MP since. 1979 was the last election when the Conservatives had any MPs in Liverpool (Liverpool Garston and Liverpool Wavertree). In some areas the Conservative/Labour battle was more orange/green than blue/red.

When I looked at how Southampton's constituencies have changed, I mentioned, in passing, that Eastleigh has changed. The current constituency is to the east of Southampton, with the town of Eastleigh on its northern edge. Go back to the 1960s, and the constituency included land to the north of Southampton, and stretching down along Southampton's western border, covering parts of what are now in New Forest East, Romsey & Southampton North and Winchester.

There may be constituencies in 1965 and 2015 with the same name, but covering different areas - especially ones named after towns. After all, both Eastleighs contained the town of Eastleigh. It was just which direction they then went in that differed. So we would not be comparing like with like.

That Eastleigh constituency was, surprisingly enough, a Conservative/Labour marginal from its creation in 1955, until it became a safe Conservative seat in 1970.

Meriden is a classic example of extreme redrawing. Here the cause was the Local Government Act 1972, which contained some radical changes - including splitting the county of Warwickshire up, with an urban core round Birmingham and Coventry (including the town of Meriden) ending up in the new metropolitan county of West Midlands, and part of Warwickshire around Tamworth ending up being added to Staffordshire. Hence Meriden was a constituency in 3 counties (Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Midlands), and as the practice is not to have constituencies crossing county boundaries, it was heavily altered at the next set of changes, for the 1983 election.

Don't compare the marginal Meriden with the present day safe Conservative seat - the closest comparison should be with Warwickshire North, which does indeed flip back and forth between Labour and the Conservatives.

It can feel with election results that often a party has one shot, just one chance. You see constituencies which go marginal and then safe again, with the challenge being seen off. For every Chesterfield, which took years of the Liberal Democrats slowly building up their vote until winning it in 2001, there are the Chelmsford Wests, the Erith & Thamesmeads, the Renfrewshire Wests....., the seats which if only the Liberal/Social Democratic Alliance had done a little bit better in 1983, would probably have had a sitting Liberal Democrat MP seeking re-election in 1997. But in these cases, the Alliance had one chance, and from then on its vote slipped away.

The next constituency is Dover, where the Conservatives' John Arbuthnot (whose son, James was the first MP to announce he was retiring at the next election, having been MP for Hampshire North East for the past 18 years) won the seat from Labour at the 1950 election, lost to Labour's David Ennals. Ennals lost the seat to the Conservatives' Peter Rees at the 1970 election, but returned to Parliament as MP for Norwich North at the February 1974 election, serving there until losing it to the Conservatives at the 1983 election. The peak of Ennals' career was in the Cabinet as Health & Social Security Secretary in the Callaghan Government of April 1976 to May 1979. Just 210 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Arbuthnot remain an MP. C 313, Lab 306, L 10. C maj. -3

The next constituency is Birmingham All Saints, where the Conservatives' John Hollingworth, who had won the seat from Labour at the 1959 election, lost to Labour's Brian Walden. Walden represented the seat until the February 1974 election, when it was mostly absorbed into Birmingham Ladywood, which he then continued to represent until he became the Crown Steward & Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds in June 1977. Just 236 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Hollingworth remain an MP. C 314, Lab 305, L 10. C maj. -1

That brings us, finally, to the constituency of Clapham, where the Conservatives' Alan Glyn, who had won the seat from Labour at the 1959 election, lost to Labour's Margaret McKay - who would hold the seat until retiring at the 1970 election. Glyn returned to Parliament at the same 1970 election, as MP for Windsor, remaining its MP until retiring at the 1992 election (that seat had become Windsor & Maidenhead at the February 1974 election). Just 279 Labour voters switching to the Conservatives would have seen Glyn remain an MP. C 315, Lab 304, L 10. C maj. 1

This switch from a Labour majority of 5 to a Conservative majority of 1 has involved just 1,438 voters switching from Labour to the Conservatives.

The Deputy Speakership Entering Uncharted Orange Waters? - Chorley Not

There was an interesting suggestion in Private Eye that Labour's Lindsay Hoyle, seeking re-election in Chorley, might find himself, post-election, no longer a Deputy Speaker, due to "post-election horse-trading".

The argument is that, with the departure of Hoyle's fellow Labour Deputy Speaker, Dawn Primarolo, Labour might want a woman to replace her, with suggestions being the Labour Chief Whip, Rosie Winterton (seeking re-election in Doncaster Central, and hence the parliamentary successor to former Labour Deputy Speaker, Harold Walker) or the Shadow Energy & Climate Change Secretary, Caroline Flint (seeking re-election in another Doncaster seat, Don Valley).

Of course, if Labour wins the general election, then Winterton and Flint would be likely to form part of a triumvirate of Doncaster MPs in the Cabinet - led by Ted Miliband, seeking re-election in Doncaster North. But, if there is a Conservative-led Government, the choice would be between seeking to be a Deputy Speaker or 5 more years of Opposition.

Second part of the argument is that sitting Conservative Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, seeking re-election in Epping Forest, would be re-elected as a Deputy Speaker.

The third part of the argument is where it gets a little bit problematic:

In return for supporting a minority government, some of the smaller parties are thinking of demanding the right to nominate one of their MPs for the prestigious and powerful post of senior deputy and chairman of ways and means. The likeliest candidate is the DUP's Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds.

There is just a teensy-weensy little problem - it doesn't work that way. It's like the perennial Daily Mail idea that Adam Afriye, seeking re-election in Windsor, is going to be a "stalking horse" in a Conservative leadership election.

The 3 Deputy Speakers are chosen according to guidelines set out by the Procedures Committee. In the olden days, yes the front-benches stitched up the selection process carefully chose the most appropriate people to be Deputy Speakers.

If that system still existed, then a deal could be made where Dodds, the Democratic Unionist Party deputy leader, seeking re-election in Belfast North (where he is helped by an electoral pact with the Ulster Unionist Party, which seems to involve giving the DUP the easy-to-win seats and the UUP the hard-to-win ones), becomes a Deputy Speaker.

But those days have gone.

No minor party need to demand "the right to nominate". The Procedures Committee report states:

47. In keeping with the principles set out above, we believe that the nomination process for the Deputy Speakers should mirror that for the Speaker, with appropriate adaptations to meet the need to elect three Members, rather than one. We therefore recommend that there be a minimum number of sponsors required and that only that number be published, regardless of the level of support beyond that threshold. We consider that an appropriate rule would be that a candidate’s nomination should be supported by a minimum of six and a maximum of ten Members of the House. Members should be able to sign no more than three nomination papers, reflecting the number of posts to be filled, and the names of the sponsors should be published. We have considered carefully whether the rules should stipulate that a candidate should receive cross-party support, defining a minimum level either from the candidate’s own party or from other parties. On balance, we do not believe that there is a need for such a rule since the publication of the sponsors will reveal from where a candidate draws his support and, unlike the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers will each be elected partly because of their party allegiance.

We need to have a quick look at the DUP prospects, with them winning 8 seats in Northern Ireland in May 2010. Their closest calls were in Antrim South (where William McCrea - now in his fourth non-consecutive tenure as an MP - is seeking re-election) and Upper Bann (where David Simpson is seeking re-election).

Antrim South is a DUP/UUP marginal, and Danny Kinahan, UUP Member of the Legislative Assembly for the seat, must be hoping that Traditional Unionist Voice improves on its 2010 showing and draws enough of McCrea's support for the seat to fall to the UUP. Upper Bann is now a 3-way DUP/UUP/Sinn Féin marginal. At a stretch, Sinn Féin's Cat Seeley could squeeze the Social Democratic & Labour Party vote severely, and the Unionist vote could splinter in such a way to see her elected.

The realistic worst-case scenario for the DUP would be the loss of Antrim South to the UUP - but that would still leave Dodds with 6 parliamentary colleagues who could sign his nomination papers.

The DUP's parliamentary strength is sufficient for it to have "the right to nominate" without having to plead with a major party.

We then need to come to the election itself:

54. In keeping with the principle that the electoral system should be swift and efficient, we narrowed this down to two options, both of which involve Members marking their ballot papers only once, allowing the counting system to take care of the result. These were: multi-X voting and STV. Following further discussion with the Electoral Reform Services on how these systems would work in practice, we conclude that both would serve our purposes but that STV has unique advantages in that it would ensure that no votes are wasted; that all successful candidates have a significant level of support; and that it is less likely to result in a lower placed candidates taking a post with far fewer votes than several candidates with a higher shares of the vote. We are also advised that STV would make it far more difficult for the system to be manipulated by majority parties in order to thwart the opposition in its choice of candidates. We recommend that the House adopt STV for the purposes of electing the Deputy Speakers, with constraints that of those elected two candidates must come from the opposite side of the House to that from which the Speaker was drawn and one from the same side, and that at least one man and at least one woman must be elected across the four posts of Speaker and Deputy Speaker combined.

With the Single Transferable Vote, we are looking at a quota of around 150-160ish. To be realistic, it is extremely unlikely that there will be that number of MPs outside the two main parties.

I now need to look at the status of John Bercow, the sitting Speaker, who is seeking re-election in Buckingham. When he was first elected Speaker, he was a Conservative MP, although when he was re-elected Speaker after the 2010 election, Hansard referred to him as an Independent MP.

Two scenarios are now possible:

1. A Conservative-led Government, so 1 Deputy Speaker comes from the Government and 2 from the Opposition
2. A Labour-led Government, so 2 Deputy Speakers come from the Government and 1 from the Opposition

And from the report:

37. We raised in our previous report the need to consider how this would be affected by a hung parliament. It would be possible to devise a system, similar to that used to determine the allocation of committee places, which could calculate the exact proportion of membership in the House and apply a formula to each of the three available Deputy Speakerships. However, the number of posts in question is too small to make these calculations meaningful and we believe that the House needs a system which is simple to understand and robust enough to withstand either a hung parliament or a landslide majority. We therefore consider that the party balance should be defined for the purpose of electing the Deputy Speakers as two Members from the Government side of the House and two from the opposition across the panel of Speaker and Deputies, regardless of the exact party proportions in the House. Opposition should be defined as not belonging to the governing party, thus including independents and all other parties. This would have the additional advantage of giving stability and legitimacy to the Chair in a situation where a handful of seats changing hands could alter the majority/minority balance and otherwise lead to calls for a change in the Deputy Speakerships.

The Procedures Committee would remember the Labour landslides of May 1997 and June 2001.

In the first of these, there would have been 656 MPs eligible to vote for the Deputy Speakers (the 659 MPs excluding the then-Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, and 2 Sinn Féin MPs) - if all had voted, the quota would have been 165 MPs - precisely the number of Conservatives elected. 2001 was not much of an improvement.

The Committee wishes to avoid the situation where a party enjoying such a landslide produces the Speaker and 2 Deputy Speakers.

Opposition should be defined as not belonging to the governing party, thus including independents and all other parties.

This is where it gets interesting. What happens with a confidence-and-supply deal? Or a different type of arrangement that falls short of formal coalition?

Peter Robinson, the DUP leader and MLA for Belfast East, who is Northern Ireland's First Minister, has hedged his bets about which party the DUP would support, but has confirmed "We will not seek, nor would we accept, any role in government".

So, even if the DUP were propping up a minority Government, for the purposes of the Deputy Speakerships it would still count as an Opposition party. And, if there is a Labour-led Government, surely it would be Laing as the sole Opposition Deputy Speaker.

It would be highly unlikely that there could be a DUP Deputy Speaker. It is not there for the Government to offer as a deal-breaker. It is up to a Parliament in which, at best, the DUP would have around 1.5% of the MPs.