Hello. This would probably be better placed in "Customs, traditions…", but I keep writing here for the moment.

I don't understand the numbers below.

Churchill has just lost the first post-war general election (5 july 1945). These are the results:


Labour won 393 seats, the Conservatives 213, the Liberals 12 (not including Sinclair, who lost Caithness), with other parties winning the remaining twenty-two. Labour had never had an overall majority before, let alone one of 146 seats

The total number of seats was then 640 (adding the figures).
I understand that the overall majority would be 321 (= 640/2 + 1). That doesn't mean a majority of 146 seats, just one of 72 (393-321).

So there's a mystery here I can't resolve. I am sure there's a reason why and that you'll explain it to me.

With heartfelt thanks.

CM

No, an overall majority means the number of seats Labour won compared to every other party and independent MP combined, ie 393-(213+12+22)=146. In practical terms that meant that Labour could pass legislation secure in the knowledge that even if all the other parties and independents voted against them, they should still have a comfortable majority of 146 (provided no Labour MPs abstained/voted against/were absent). Overall majority is the term most often used although perhaps 'Effective Government Majority', which is also sometimes used, might be clearer.

I see. I think you are absolutley right when evoking the expression "Effective Government Majority".

This explains it all.

Thanks a lot Meles meles.

Have a great day.

That said, the actual 'effective Labour majority' immediately after the General Election is slightly complicated. The General Election was held on 5 July 1945, but the polls in some constituencies were delayed until 12 July with one constituency delayed until 19 July. Moreover because of the war it took time to get the huge number of overseas votes from British forces personel stationed around the globe, counted and then all these results communicated back to Britain. Accordingly the final result wasn't declared until 26 July.

But in the meantime two Conservative MPs, duly elected by their constituencies, had died: Sir Edward Campbell died on 17 July and Leslie Pym died on 18 July, both before the final result was announced. By-elections for their replacements were not held until August. Similarly the sitting MP for Hull Central, Walter Windsor (a Labour MP), died during the election campaign on 29 June, and as a mark of respect his seat was not contested during the General Election; the by-election for it was again held in August when it returned another Labour MP, Mark Hewitson.

Nevertheless, however you tally it up, the final result was an unexpected landslide victory for Clement Attlee's Labour Party over Winston Churchill's Conservatives.

I was involved, peripherally, in the 2005 delayed General Election in South Staffordshire. The Lib Dem candidate died before polling day. Now, this may have been a change from the situation MM outlined above, but, up until the point of a result being declared, the election is deferred, and nominations were reopened (I think that has since changed) so that a large number of fringe candidates turned up, making it more like a byelection (but not with the larger spending allowance of one).