This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
I am a little concerned about the statement "The seat itself is wrongly regarded as a 'safe' Conservative seat because it returned a Conservative at most previous elections. However, it was marginal in most of those occasions except the remarkable circumstances of 1931 and Labour's electoral destruction." There is no source for this and so it is unclear if it is the view of one or more academics or commentators that the seat was not safe, or the opinion of the editor. If the former, then it seems possible to me that there are point of view and original research issues with the statement. In terms of the sentiment being expressed, while I have some sympathy for the point, it is not beyond dispute. Looking at the election results for past elections in 1923, which the Conservatives failed to gain an overall majority, they still held the seat by over 2,000 votes and in 1929, when they were not the largest party, still enjoyed a majority of 1,705 votes. Also in 1929 Labour had taken the other Fulham seat on a much bigger swing. [1] It could be argued that it was a seat Labour needed to win if it was ever going to form a majority government, but whether or not it would be seen a safe seat by the standards of 1933 is not clear cut. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be noted that results after this election did not suggest it was a safe seat, but there was no way of knowing that at the time. In expanding the article I have added material form a contemporary source noting that the result was seen as a shock, but someone may still want to edit the statement earlier in the article I mention here. Dunarc (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^The Times House of Commons 1929. London: The Times Office. 1929. p. 20.
.svg){kind=small}
