Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:32:29.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First-Time Winners in the British House of Commons Since 1918

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Philip W. Buck
Philip W. Buck
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last few years the standard guides to elections, and the Nuffield studies of elections, have given attention to candidates' experience in elections. Nevertheless, the number of unsuccessful contests before a seat was finally won has been reported only since 1951.

During 1963 I talked with a number of M.P.s, and also with national, regional, and constituency agents of both major parties, and encountered a frequently expressed presumption that most careers in the House of Commons began with one or two unsuccessful contests. Chairmen of constituency committees stated this view in a way which implied that most M.P.s earned their way into the House, so to speak, by gaining experience in the course of losing an election or two. If they lost gallantly in an adverse constituency, they might then seek adoption in a more favorable community, having established their right to be considered for candidacy where the chances of winning would be better.

Type
Research Notes
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 1964 , pp. 662 - 667
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 One of the best guides to general elections, The Times House of Commons (London), covers the general elections of 1918, 1929, 1931, 1935, 1945, 1950, 1951, 1955, and 1959Google Scholar. In 1950 the candidate's first election to a seat was given; and since 1951 his earlier contests have been given.

The Nuffield election studies, which carefully analyse elections since 1945, have classified candidates according to the year of their first candidature since 1951. Butler, D. E., The British General Election of 1951 (London, 1951), gives such a tabulation, p. 36Google Scholar; and this is continued in his The British General Election of 1955 (London and New York, 1955), p. 39Google Scholar, and in Butler, D. E. and Rose, Richard, The British General Election of 1959 (London and New York, 1960), p. 125Google Scholar. These tabulations show years of experience, but not the number of unsuccessful contests which preceded the final winning of a seat.

The figures on contests before election, given in this article, are the result of researches carried on since 1956; see my Amateurs and Professionals in British Politics, 1918–59 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1963)Google Scholar, to which this note is a supplement. I wish to acknowledge the aid of the Ford Foundation.

2 This impression conies from interviews carried on while I was investigating the process of adoption for candidacy in 1962–63; and also in 1955–56 while I studied the general pattern of political careers.

3 See Buck, op. cit., pp. 14–15, for a chart which shows percentage of success in elections achieved by contestants with various types of previous experience 1922 through 1959.

4 Her Majesty's Ministers and Heads of Public Departments, London, H.M.S.O., no. 82, April 1963Google Scholar.

5 It is discussed in D. B. Butler and Richard Rose, op. cit., pp. 122–24; Richards, Peter G., Honourable Members, A Study of the British Backbencher (London, 1959), pp. 14–20Google Scholar; Bulmer-Thomas, Ivor, The Party System in Great Britain (London, 1953), pp. 204–10Google Scholar; Nicolson, Nigel, People and Parliament (London, 1958)Google Scholar; and Harrison, Martin, Trade Unions and the Labour Party since 1945 (London, 1960), pp. 262–306Google Scholar. These are general discussions of the subject; but I know of no study which concentrates on the process of selection and adoption of candidates.

The Conservative and Unionist Central Office in London published, not long ago, Notes on Procedure for the Adoption of Conservative Candidates in England and Wales (no date given). This is clearly designed to set standards for constituency organizations. Affiliated organizations within the federal structure of the Labour Party use various methods for the nomination of candidates, which are discussed by Martin Harrison, op. cit.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.