• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

PM's Election Maps And Stuff Thread

From what I've read, at that point there was a decent constituency of people who, even if they spoke Belarusian day-to-day, were afraid that state promotion of Belarusian culture would end up being petty and illiberal, a view the Belarusian media (still mostly state-owned by that point) were happy to encourage, and Pazniak didn't always do himself any favours either.

Another view the Belarusian media promoted quite heavily was that nationalism was driving the Baltic states to economic ruin - looks like the Not Lukashenko vote was strongest along the Baltic border, and I suppose people there would have had a few reasons to be more sceptical of that.
That would explain a lot. The anti-Belarusian nationalist part is kinda understandable considering the country had only existed independently for a very short time at this point, and as you say Pazniak and the BPF being the poster boy for the nationalists played into their negative image.

Something else worth considering is the extent to which Lukashenko was all things to all people- at this point he had a reputation as a populist anti-corruption candidate who wasn't pro-privatisation or anti-Russian. I'm not actually sure whether this was why he got such an enormous victory in the second round, or if his power grab had already begun by then and that's why his margin was so massive.
 
Something else worth considering is the extent to which Lukashenko was all things to all people- at this point he had a reputation as a populist anti-corruption candidate who wasn't pro-privatisation or anti-Russian. I'm not actually sure whether this was why he got such an enormous victory in the second round, or if his power grab had already begun by then and that's why his margin was so massive.
Oh no, it was definitely the first thing. He even had a wing of his campaign dedicated to convincing young professionals that he'd open opportunities for them and was a closet neoliberal, or at least open to it.
 
Greater London proposed boundaries 1960
I had a little idea for something else London-related to map in between LCC elections. So, the 33 boroughs of Greater London came into existence to replace the 28 boroughs of the County of London and expand the capital region, but these boundaries were a second attempt. Initially the Royal Commision on Local Government in Greater London, known for short as the Herbert Commission after its chair Sir Edwin Herbert, proposed a very different set of boroughs covering an even larger area.
1701388302833.png
These boundaries would have created 52 Greater London boroughs out of the existing 28 boroughs, plus all the local authorities of Middlesex except Potters Bar, 17 from Surrey, 14 from Essex, 8 from Kent, and Barnet and Cheshunt from Hertfordshire. It's unclear what they would've been named as the committee never reached that stage, so I've instead elected to show the types of local authorities they were at the time as well as their boundaries.

The then-Local Government Secretary Keith Joseph turned these boundaries down both because they were considered to be undersized and because local pressure was mounting from several pro-Tory districts to prevent their inclusion. Ten districts would opt out of becoming part of Greater London- Chigwell in Essex, Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, Staines and Sunbury in Middlesex (which became part of Surrey), and Walton and Weybridge, Esher, Epsom and Ewell, Banstead, and Caterham and Warlingham in Surrey. From what I gather, Epsom and Ewell opted out right at the last minute, and for a while after the other districts had opted out was meant to be part of Kingston-upon-Thames.

Another part of why the commission had to go back to the drawing board was that several of these boundaries didn't solve the problems this reorganisation was meant to fix. For instance, North Woolwich would've stayed in Woolwich despite geographically being part of East Ham and so having a ridiculous amount of conflicting local government agencies controlling it, and the proposed borough combining Holborn, Finsbury and Shoreditch had a combined population of under 95,000.

On the flipside, you can tell there's a lot of parts of this that were in line with what the boroughs actually wanted- West Ham and East Ham staying separate, Hornsey and Wood Green merging with Southgate instead of Tottenham, Hayes and Harlington sharing a borough with Southall instead of Uxbridge, and Wembley and Wllesden remaining separate. It's also a bit funny to me how Wandsworth getting sliced apart and absorbing Battersea was something proposed this early considering it was the only existing borough to be split instead of merged.
 
Wandsworth was, in retrospect, just a really awkward shape to work around considering it's population.

Also considering the enclave tidying up that went on over the years it's mental that North Woolwich survived until 1965
 
Some of those are very awkward, particularly in the northeast. On some level I think the current boroughs probably are too big, and that in turn might have made the GLC too easy to get rid of. But I can also kind of see why this plan was rejected.
 
Some of those are very awkward, particularly in the northeast. On some level I think the current boroughs probably are too big, and that in turn might have made the GLC too easy to get rid of. But I can also kind of see why this plan was rejected.

I think Barking is the awkward one to work round there.
 
I think Barking is the awkward one to work round there.
Yeah - which is obviously an issue that goes back much further.

I'm not sure how to feel about the Leyton-Woodford-Chigwell one either, though I suppose it makes more sense than it would appear since it's all along the Central line.
 
UK 1981 (Waiting at the Church)
I haven’t really posted much TL stuff here, but since I’m working on an idea for one at the moment, I figured I’d post a little something from it. It’s called ‘Waiting at the Church’, and it’s my first UK ATL for quite a while.

The PoD is Jim Callaghan calling an election in winter 1978 rather than holding off until spring 1979. While Labour appear to have the advantage early on, the Tories run a strong campaign and in the end Thatcher wins power, but with a majority of just 10. She aggressively whips the party to enact public spending cuts and pushes for privatization, but soon starts alienating the ‘wets’ to an even greater extent than in OTL.

The cuts are met with substantive strike action from trade unions, paralyzing many industries and sectors in a manner akin to (if not more extensive than) the Winter of Discontent, and the spending cuts cause unemployment to surge. By the end of 1979, Thatcher has become even more unpopular than in OTL, but still commands the steadfast support of the Tory right.

On the left, Labour has badly fractured with a similarly divisive leadership contest to OTL leading to the same result, i.e. Foot succeeding Callaghan and the right of the party breaking off. In TTL, however, the Gang of Four had been in discussions with prominent ‘wets’ and the Liberals to form a third front against the two main parties. This culminates in January 1980 with the formation of the Moderate Party, which soon sees a massive surge in support and manages to secure the defection of a large contingent of members of both Labour and the Tories.

At the Southend East by-election in March, the Moderates stand Shirley Williams, who captures the rock-solid Tory seat by a sizeable margin. In her first speech in Parliament since leaving it a year and a half prior, she announces the Moderates’ plan to introduce a motion of no confidence in the Thatcher government, which passes in early April.

Thatcher, condemning the ‘treachery’ of the Commons, seeks a dissolution of Parliament, but it goes poorly for both the Tories and Labour as the Moderates and Liberals form an electoral pact and win more than enough seats combined to hold the balance of power. Since the Moderates won more seats than the Liberals, Williams becomes their prospective Prime Minister, aided by her approval ratings outstripping not only those of Thatcher and Foot, but almost all the other potential Tory and Labour PMs.

Thatcher and Foot resign after Williams is voted into office by the Commons, being succeeded by Michael Heseltine and (in a similarly narrow vote to the 1979 leadership election, but in the other direction) Denis Healey. The Labour left is rattled by its defeat here, and crucially they vote in favour of the Moderate-Liberal Alliance motion to introduce PR, as do the minor parties and a significant minority of Tories seeing an opportunity to split Labour further apart.

The PR system is tabled and then implemented in a sort of compromise fashion, with the majority of constituencies drawn up as two- to four-member districts electing local representatives (aside from the island constituencies, which are too small for multiple members so continue to use FPTP). To proponents, and in the view of most of the public, this allows for a good mix of the fairer representation PR is supposed to provide and the personal accountability of the old single-member FPTP constituency system.

Almost immediately after PR is passed into law, the party system splits again. The Labour left break off to form the Socialist Party, and a smaller faction of the Tory right forms the hard right National Party; it soon becomes clear that without a coalition between the parties, the government has very little capacity to function.

Despite this, since Williams passed the popular PR law, reduced spending cuts and managed to form a settlement with the trade unions (at least temporarily), she felt her position was strong enough to seek a new dissolution of Parliament at the end of 1980, with the date of the next election set for the 5th February 1981.

That’s the election shown here, and as you can tell, the Moderates do pretty well out of it, becoming the largest party by a narrow margin. Having said that, despite both having their membership ripped asunder Labour and the Tories holds up relatively well, and the personal votes of many Socialist candidates (as well as Labour voters in areas like Liverpool and the South Wales valleys sympathising with the party’s more left-wing stance) helps them outperform expectations. Ironically, the Liberals don’t make especially large gains from the new system, as the new Moderate-Liberal pact sees them stand down in the Moderates’ favour in much of the country in exchange for Moderate campaign support in areas friendly to them.

Between them, the Moderates and Liberals have 238 seats, far ahead of the traditional major parties, and Williams enters negotiations with both Labour and the Tories hoping to form a coalition with a comfortable majority in the Commons. Despite the ideological closeness of the rump parties to each other, this is not to be- the Tories refuse to go into coalition after doing so the first time led them to their worst result in almost 150 years, and Labour are wary of allying with the Liberals after the Lib-Lab pact.

What Williams is able to secure is a new confidence and supply arrangement, and one where the government is much more stable since the Moderates now have a substantial grouping in the Commons and a mandate of sorts.
1701885841840.png
So yeah, I'm open to feedback on this idea, and particularly stuff like how realistic the voting patterns on the map seem and the alternate Labour split, since I'm still undecided on stuff like who in the Gang of Four would make sense as a prospective PM (I considered Roy Jenkins but then changed my mind and went with Williams instead).
 
Last edited:
Rutland's not getting an opt out- they'd been combined with Stamford since 1918 since the population was too small to justify it's own seat. Especially since it had been administratively merged with Leicestershire since 1974.

I'm also a bit puzzled by how this is PR? 2-4 member seats seems small for STV? But any sort of ranked choice system doesn't require the Liberals or Moderates to stand down -just run on a campaign of ranking the other candidate second. This would undoubtedly hinder them in places where both candidates get eliminated early where one might have made it, but it seems more likely than an electoral pact where people aren't running nationwide in a PR-based system.
 
Rutland's not getting an opt out- they'd been combined with Stamford since 1918 since the population was too small to justify it's own seat. Especially since it had been administratively merged with Leicestershire since 1974.

I'm also a bit puzzled by how this is PR? 2-4 member seats seems small for STV? But any sort of ranked choice system doesn't require the Liberals or Moderates to stand down -just run on a campaign of ranking the other candidate second. This would undoubtedly hinder them in places where both candidates get eliminated early where one might have made it, but it seems more likely than an electoral pact where people aren't running nationwide in a PR-based system.
I kinda assumed they'd be lobbying for the opt-out because of local anger at getting merged with Leicestershire, but I guess they wouldn't have the leverage for it, so yeah, I'll remove it.

I probably didn't explain the system very well, but it's not STV or any kind of ranked-choice system, it's closed-list D'Hondt PR where each constituency has a list of candidates from the parties that run there (a little like the Spanish system but with smaller constituencies). That's why I say it's meant as an in-between of FPTP and PR, the constituencies each only elect a small number of members but they're still electing local representatives.
 
I think that scenario's interesting just because it doesn't portray a 1978 election as an inevitable Labour victory, which seems to almost be the norm (perhaps out of wishful thinking) when it's brought up. An anaemic Tory majority like that seems more likely to me.

Would they be able to use the post-1974 county boundaries to draw new PR constituency boundaries for an election as early as 1981, especially for a new voting system? I'd have thought they might smash constituencies together instead like they did for the European Parliament.
 
2-4 seats feels very, very small for that kind of system. The risk of a miscarriage of democracy is very high at that point, and it doesn’t confer that much of a benefit over just using the ceremonial counties (splitting the bigger ones, obviously).
 
I think that scenario's interesting just because it doesn't portray a 1978 election as an inevitable Labour victory, which seems to almost be the norm (perhaps out of wishful thinking) when it's brought up. An anaemic Tory majority like that seems more likely to me.

Would they be able to use the post-1974 county boundaries to draw new PR constituency boundaries for an election as early as 1981, especially for a new voting system? I'd have thought they might smash constituencies together instead like they did for the European Parliament.
That's what I was thinking with how the scenario goes, yeah (although admittedly this could get a little bit Alliance-wanky, I'm trying to be careful about that). And most of the constituency boundaries are council areas smashed together rather than the old constituencies smashed together, which is how they were able to do it so quickly.
2-4 seats feels very, very small for that kind of system. The risk of a miscarriage of democracy is very high at that point, and it doesn’t confer that much of a benefit over just using the ceremonial counties (splitting the bigger ones, obviously).
I don't see exactly why it would be so detrimental? Not arguing it wouldn't, but I don't see what's worse about it than bloc vote or STV systems that work similarly. I feel like I'm missing something obvious here, so apologies for that.
 
I don't see exactly why it would be so detrimental? Not arguing it wouldn't, but I don't see what's worse about it than bloc vote or STV systems that work similarly. I feel like I'm missing something obvious here, so apologies for that.

I mean, at least from my vision as a Spaniard, is that by introducing a closed list system, you are closing off any personal accountability of an MP to their electors (whether that is a thing or not) and D'Hont and such small magnitude districts can be brutal. You are right, that STV and bloc vote work similarly, but then why not introduce it?

In a 2 seat district, you will get the two most voted parties elected, or, if it's a 60-20-20 situation, maybe the winning party will get both seats. In 4-seat ones, 2-1-1 results can also happen. I suppose you can say this ensures minority representation better than FPTP but it's not PR.
 
I mean, at least from my vision as a Spaniard, is that by introducing a closed list system, you are closing off any personal accountability of an MP to their electors (whether that is a thing or not) and D'Hont and such small magnitude districts can be brutal. You are right, that STV and bloc vote work similarly, but then why not introduce it?

In a 2 seat district, you will get the two most voted parties elected, or, if it's a 60-20-20 situation, maybe the winning party will get both seats. In 4-seat ones, 2-1-1 results can also happen. I suppose you can say this ensures minority representation better than FPTP but it's not PR.
Ah, I see. I kind of misunderstood the implications of making it closed list in that respect. The problem is making it open list means giving up a lot of power over the nomination the parties would be determined to keep, especially now they're fragmenting, and STV and bloc vote take that away from them too in a lot of ways.

I'm not quite sure how to find the in-between here of the major parties wanting to keep control of their nominations and the Alliance wanting a proportional system.
 
2-4 seats feels very, very small for that kind of system. The risk of a miscarriage of democracy is very high at that point, and it doesn’t confer that much of a benefit over just using the ceremonial counties (splitting the bigger ones, obviously).
I agree, but I'm also currently amused to remember.ber how when the Senedd announced moves to a similar system a lot of the reaction was "six seats per constituency? That's way too many!"
 
Ah, I see. I kind of misunderstood the implications of making it closed list in that respect. The problem is making it open list means giving up a lot of power over the nomination the parties would be determined to keep, especially now they're fragmenting, and STV and bloc vote take that away from them too in a lot of ways.

I'm not quite sure how to find the in-between here of the major parties wanting to keep control of their nominations and the Alliance wanting a proportional system.

Closed list with 6-10 members per district has been a pretty common approach in the past for this kind of conservative implementation of PR. Or semi-closed lists (where you can bump up people within a list, or just vote for it as is, but not modify it willy-nilly as you can with panachage or pure open-list).
 
I will note that Sweden initially went for 3-5 seats per constituency when we implemented PR, but then changed it to representation by county (which, at the time, meant roughly 5-8 seats per constituency) when the franchise was extended to women a decade later. I suspect the former was a ratfuck by the Conservatives, who implemented that electoral law in an attempt to keep universal suffrage from wiping them out completely.
 
Back
Top