Because of the uneven nature of local political intervention, and other technical problems, the simple aggregation of municipal results – the method of analysis adopted in many local studies – is generally unhelpful. In examining municipal results, the pattern of change has to be carefully assessed from a series of contests (or non-contests) with differing candidature patterns and different contexts. The results are illustrations of points made in the text, rather than the full (and necessarily lengthy) compilation of returns which would constitute a complete picture of each unit's electoral history (for examples of this, see Tanner, (thesis), Chapters 3–4). For a discussion of the problems and techniques of analysing municipal results, see D. M. Tanner, ‘Elections, statistics, and the rise of the Labour party, 1906–1931’, Historical Journal (forthcoming 1991)'.

In the following tables, party polls in double member wards are an average of both ‘scores’ where there were two candidates. ‘Socialist’ votes are included with ‘Labour’ polls where appropriate. Footnotes are provided which note the rare occasions when these practices may not be justified. Figures for cross-voting between parties in double member wards suggest that Labour was likely to benefit from Liberal support where it fielded only one candidate. In some instances its vote may therefore overstate the true level of its support.