Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T05:48:05.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Party Organization, Turnout and Marginality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Ben Pimlott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent Note in this Journal (‘Does Local Party Organization Matter?’, III (1972), 381–3) I reported evidence which suggested that in local elections party organization could have a major impact.1 This conclusion was reached by comparing voting movements in a marginal Newcastle ward, Walkergate, where Labour organization was very weak in 1970 but strong in 1971, with changes in Newcastle as a whole. In this Note a similar comparison is made, with evidence drawn from a Conservative ward, Heaton, in 1972, which shows even more striking evidence of organizational impact. Recent discussion in this and other journals about ward marginality and turnout2 is considered in the light of this evidence.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 252 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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 See also Bochel, J. M. and Denver, D. T., ‘Canvassing, Turnout and Party Support: an Experiment’, British Journal of Political Science, I (1971), 257–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and also ‘The Impact of Campaign on the Results of Local Government Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, II (1972), 239–44Google Scholar, which provide similar evidence.

2 Especially Newton, K., ‘Turnout and Marginality in Local Elections’, British Journal of Political Science, II (1972), 251–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Voting figures were as follows (1971 figures in brackets): Conservative 2,230 (1,918); Labour 1,837 (1,402); majority 393 (516); electorate 9,467 (9,630).

4 P. G. J. Pulzer was looking at general election results when he wrote ‘it is likely… that some at least of the extra turnout… was due to efficient dragooning. The fact that the swing in such constituencies did not differ markedly from the rest of the country is no disproof. If Daz and Omo both step up their advertising equally, their shares of the market will not change much. But Daz dare not let up, lest Omo then gain an advantage’, Political Representation and Elections in Britain (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1967), p. 88.Google Scholar The effects of organization in both local and national elections may often be thus obscured in election after election.

5 A similar point has also been made recently by Stanyer, Jeffrey (‘Why Does Local Turnout Vary’, New Society, 13 05 1971)Google Scholar, who showed that turnout has tended to be lower in marginal wards in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.