London results by parliamentary constituency
Over on http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/ commenter Andy Stidwell has gone to the bother of posting the results from May 1st calculated on the new constituency boundaries under each constituency profile.
I thought it would be useful to pull these together into one list.
The numbers I've listed below are for the List vote as these are the most reliable indicator of party support (the Mayoral vote was clearly influenced by the personal votes of the two main candidates and the GLA constituency vote may have been influenced by some tactical voting).
Postal votes are not included as these are not disaggregated by ward by London Elects so you can't accurately allocate them to constituencies (but where the Postal Vote in a borough would clearly have overturned the non-postal vote I have indicated it).
Barking – Lab hold
Lab - 7,763 (33.23%), BNP - 6,129 (26.23%), C - 4,357 (18.65%), LD - 1,082 (4.63%)
Battersea – Con gain from Lab
C - 11,700 (42.98%), Lab - 7,029 (25.82%), Green - 2,983 (10.96%), LD - 2,424 (8.91%)
Beckenham – Con hold
C - 16,867 (55.63%), Lab - 3,767 (12.42%), LD - 3,003 (9.90%), Green - 1,845 (6.09%)
Bermondsey & Old Southwark – Lab gain from LD
Lab - 7,647 (28.25%), LD - 6,727 (24.85%), C - 5,104 (18.86%), Green - 2,692 (9.94%)
Bethnal Green & Bow – Lab gain from Respect
Lab - 10,800 (35.33%), Respect GG - 5,064 (16.57%), C - 4,277 (13.99%), Green - 3,395 (11.11%), LD - 2,912 (9.53%), BNP - 1,368 (4.57%)
Bexleyheath & Crayford – Con hold
C - 11,529 (46.39%), Lab - 4,283 (17.23%), BNP - 3,433 (13.81%), LD - 1,669 (6.71%), Green - 915 (3.68%)
Brent C – Lab hold
Lab - 11,364 (40.28%), C - 5,550 (19.67%), LD - 4,243 (15.04%), Green - 2,182 (7.73%)
Brent N – Lab hold
Lab - 12,062 (38,56%), C - 10,106 (32.31%), LD - 2,873 (9.18%)
Brentford & Isleworth – Con gain from Lab
C - 9,999 (35.30%), Lab - 7,863 (27.76%), LD - 3,274 (11.56%), Green - 2,759 (9.74%)
Bromley & Chislehurst – Con hold
C - 13,345 (50.87%), Lab - 3,577 (13.64%), LD - 2,756 (10.51%), BNP - 1,829 (6.97%)
Camberwell & Peckham – Lab hold
Lab - 12,991 (46.58%), C - 3,898 (13.98%), Green - 3,484 (12.49%), LD - 3,214 (11.52%)
Carshalton & Wallington – Con gain from LD
C - 9,050 (37.48%), LD - 5,793 (23.99%), Lab - 3,046 (12.61%), BNP - 1,955 (8.10%)
Chelsea & Fulham – Con hold
C - 16,427 (59.50%), Lab - 4,045 (14.65%), Green - 1,989 (7.20%), LD - 1,975 (7.15%)
Chingford & Woodford Green – Con hold
C - 13,246 (49.16%), Lab - 4,475 (16.61%), LD - 2,564 (9.52%), BNP - 2,086 (7.74%), Green - 1,546 (5.74%)
Chipping Barnet – Con hold
C - 13,639 (46.57%), Lab - 6,394 (21.83%), LD - 2,846 (9.72%), Green - 2,360 (8.06%)
Cities of London & Westminster – Con hold
C - 13,946 (52.43%), Lab - 4,593 (17.27%), Green - 2,477 (9.31%), LD - 2,435 (9.15%)
Croydon C – Con gain from Lab
C - 11,689 (42.37%), Lab - 6,561 (23.78%), LD - 2,296 (8.32%), BNP - 2,144 (7.77%)
Croydon N – Lab hold
Lab - 11,616 (40.72%), C - 7,130 (24.99%), LD - 2,286 (8.01%), Green - 2,119 (7.43%)
Croydon S – Con hold
C - 17,932 (54.28%), Lab - 4,862 (14.72%), LD - 3,283 (9.94%)
Dagenham & Rainham – Con gain from Lab
C - 7,065 (28.84%), BNP - 6,112 (24.95%), Lab - 5,620 (22.94%), LD - 1,227 (5.01%), Green 794 (3.24%)
Dulwich & W Norwood – Lab hold
Lab - 10,010 (35.42%), C - 6,612 (23.40%), Green - 4,633 (16.39%), LD - 3,771 (13.34%)
Ealing C & Acton – Con hold
C - 11,420 (37.15%), Lab - 7,813 (25.42%), LD - 3,989 (12.98%), Green - 3,444 (11.20%)
Ealing N – Con gain from Lab
C - 9,977 (33.91%), Lab - 9,384 (31.89%), LD - 2,477 (8.42%)
Ealing Southall – Lab hold
Lab - 10,672 (45.86%), C - 5,482 (23.56%), LD - 1,982 (8.52%), Green - 1,755 (7.54%)
East Ham – Lab hold
Lab - 13,372 (46.08%), Respect GG - 4,549 (15.68%), C - 4,125 (14.22%), LD - 1,328 (4.58%), BNP - 1,323 (4.56%), Green - 1,114 (3.84%)
Edmonton – Lab hold
Lab - 9,041 (39.21%), C - 6,779 (29.40%), LD - 1,386 (6.01%), BNP - 1,296 (5.62%), Green - 1,018 (4.42%)
Eltham – Con gain from Lab
C - 8,748 (34.77%), Lab - 6,487 (25.79%), LD - 2,255 (8.96%), BNP - 2,982 (11.85%), Green - 1,562 (6.21%)
Enfield N – Con hold
C - 11,178 (43.99%), Lab - 6,348 (24.98%), LD - 1,744 (6.86%), BNP - 1,908 (7.51%)
Enfield Southgate – Con hold
C - 12,243 (45.73%), Lab - 6,696 (25.01%), LD - 2,216 (8.28%), Green - 2,214 (8.27%)
Erith & Thamesmead – Lab hold (Might have gone Con once Postal Votes are factored in)
Lab - 7,081 (31.08%), C - 6,768 (29.71%), BNP - 3,015 (13.23%), LD - 1,508 (6.62%), Green - 959 (4.21%)
Feltham & Heston – Con gain from Lab
C - 6,624 (31.68%), Lab - 6,520 (31.18%), LD - 2,093 (10.01%), BNP - 1,682 (8.04%)
Finchley & Golders Green – Con gain from Lab
C - 13,035 (45.09%), Lab - 7,250 (25.08%), LD - 3,070 (10.62%), Green - 2,737 (9.47%)
Greenwich & Woolwich – Lab hold
Lab - 4,643 (35.53%), C - 3,768 (28.83%), LD - 1,263 (9.66%), Green - 878 (6.72%), BNP - 810 (6.20%)
Hackney N & Stoke Newington – Lab hold (Tories would almost certainly move into 2nd place once postal votes factored in)
Lab - 8,791 (38.81%), Green - 5,065 (22.36%), C - 3,371 (14.88%), LD - 2,221 (9.81%)
Hackney S & Shoreditch – Lab hold
Lab - 8,568 (41.26%), Green - 3,432 (16.53%), C - 3,056 (14.72%), LD - 2,180 (10.50%)
Hammersmith – Con gain from Lab
C - 10,177 (33.25%), Lab - 9,159 (29.92%), LD - 3,216 (10.51%), Green - 3,660 (11.96%)
Hampstead & Kilburn – Con gain from Lab
C - 9,310 (28.94%), Lab - 9,084 (28.24%), LD - 5,431 (16.88%), Green - 4,373 (13.59%)
Harrow E – Con gain from Lab
C - 11,391 (41.63%), Lab - 8,839 (32.30%), LD - 2,000 (7.31%)
Harrow W – Lab hold
Lab - 8,155 (35.68%), C - 7,405 (32.40%), LD - 2,184 (9.56%), Green - 1,430 (6.26%)
Hayes & Harlington – Lab hold (Might have gone Con once Postal Votes are factored in)
Lab - 7,230 (34.29%), C - 6,910 (32.77%), BNP - 2,081 (9.87%), LD - 1,166 (5.53%)
Hendon – Con gain from Lab
C - 11,270 (44.73%), Lab - 7,009 (27.82%), LD - 2,071 (8.22%), Green - 1,252 (4.97%), BNP - 966 (3.83%)
Holborn & St Pancras – Lab hold
Lab - 12,029 (33.74%), C - 7,279 (20.42%), Green - 6,211 (17.42%), LD - 4,627 (12.98%)
Hornchurch & Upminster – Con hold
C - 14,019 (44.00%), BNP - 5,386 (16.90%), Lab - 4,642 (14.57%), UKIP - 1,897 (5.95%), LD - 1,766 (5.54%), Green - 1,408 (4.42%)
Hornsey & Wood Green – Lab gain from LD
Lab - 10,521 (30.35%), LD - 8,552 (24.67%), C - 6,416 (18.51%), Green - 5,576 (16.09%)
Ilford N – Con hold
C - 11,577 (42.58%), Lab - 6,719 (24.71%), BNP - 2,226 (8.19%), LD - 1,869 (6.87%), Green - 1,247 (4.59%)
Ilford S – Lab hold
Lab - 11,034 (41.19%), C - 7,035 (26.26%), LD - 1,957 (7.30%), Respect GG - 1,634 (6.10%), BNP - 1,285 (4.80%), Green - 1,130 (4.22%)
Islington N – Lab hold
Lab - 9,328 (36.99%), Green - 4,980 (19.75%), C - 4,011 (15.91%), LD - 3,330 (13.21%)
Islington S & Finsbury – Lab hold
Lab - 7,838 (32.10%), C - 5,453 (22.33%), LD - 3,846 (15.75%), Green - 3,399 (13.92%)
Kensington – Con hold
C - 12,592 (49.20%), Lab - 4,407 (17.22%), Green - 2,435 (9.51%), LD - 2,320 (9.06%)
Kingston & Surbiton – Con gain from LD
C - 11,857 (38.04%), LD - 7,685 (24.65%), Lab - 4,563 (14.64%), Green - 2,073 (6.65%)
Lewisham Deptford – Lab hold
Lab - 9,482 (39.02%), Green - 4,977 (20.48%), C - 3,437 (14.14%), LD - 2,441 (10.04%)
Lewisham E – Lab hold
Lab - 7,699 (32.31%), C - 6,112 (25.65%), LD - 3,326 (13.96%), Green - 2,317 (9.72%)
Lewisham W & Penge – Lab hold
Lab - 8,224 (30.57%), C - 7,085 (26.34%), LD - 3,727 (13.86%), Green - 3,312 (12.31%)
Leyton & Wanstead –Lab hold
Lab - 8,512 (35.55%), C - 5,246 (21.91%), LD - 3,149 (13.15%), Green - 2,505 (10.46%), BNP - 890 (3.72%)
Mitcham & Morden – Lab hold
Lab - 10,825 (39.97%), C - 6,964 (25.71%), BNP - 1,976 (7.30%), LD - 1,933 (7.14%), Green - 1,691 (6.24%)
Northwood & Pinner – Con hold
C - 17,546 (57.22%), Lab - 4,526 (14.76%), LD - 2,531 (8.25%), BNP - 1,677 (5.47%), Green - 1,604 (5.23%)
Old Bexley & Sidcup – Con hold
C - 14,513 (51.10%), Lab - 3,666 (12.91%), BNP - 3,020 (10.63%), LD - 2,058 (7.25%), Green - 1,124 (3.96%)
Orpington – Con hold
C - 17,060 (55.19%), LD - 3,666 (11.86%), Lab - 2,885 (9.33%), BNP - 2,356 (7.62%)
Poplar & Limehouse – Lab hold
Lab - 8,927 (34.48%), C - 5,904 (22.80%), Respect GG - 3,707 (14.32%), LD - 1,927 (7.44%)
Putney – Con hold
C - 10,410 (44.81%), Lab - 5,225 (22.49%), LD - 2,638 (11.36%), Green - 2,373 (10.22%)
Richmond Park – Con gain from LD
C - 14,840 (44.04%), LD - 7,458 (22.14%), Lab - 4,569 (13.56), Green - 3,269 (9.70%)
Romford – Con hold
C - 12,929 (48.25%), BNP - 4,100 (15.30%), Lab - 3,681 (13.74%), LD - 1,373 (5.12%), UKIP - 1,203 (4.49%), Green - 1,115 (4.16%)
Streatham – Lab hold
Lab - 9,066 (34.33%), C - 5,617 (21.27%), LD - 4,922 (18.64%), Green - 3,575 (13.54%)
Sutton & Cheam – Con gain from LD
C - 10,483 (41.22%), LD - 6,066 (23.85%), Lab - 2,819 (11.09%), BNP - 1,852 (7.28%)
Tooting – Con gain from Lab
C - 10,233 (35.23%), Lab - 9,061 (31.19%), Green - 3,472 (11.95%), LD - 2,999 (10.32%)
Tottenham – Lab hold
Lab - 11,205 (45.35%), C - 3,729 (15.09%), Green - 2,761 (11.17%), LD - 2,438 (9.87%)
Twickenham – Con gain from LD
C - 12,231 (36.75%), LD - 9,565 (28.74%), Lab - 4,378 (13.16%), Green - 3,249 (9.76%)
Uxbridge & S Ruislip – Con hold
C - 11,514 (44.73%), Lab - 4,434 (17.23%), BNP - 2,738 (10.64%), LD - 2,578 (10.64%)
Vauxhall – Lab hold
Lab - 9,249 (36.88%), C - 5,133 (20.47%), LD - 4,132 (16.47%), Green - 3,301 (13.16%)
Walthamstow – Lab hold
Lab - 9,683 (39.62%), C - 4,236 (17.33%), LD - 2,942 (12.04%), Green - 2,824 (11.56%), BNP - 1,006 (4.12%)
West Ham – Lab hold
Lab - 11,019 (41.41%), C - 3,883 (14.59%), Respect GG - 3,198 (12.02%), BNP - 1,673 (6.29%), Green - 1,592 (5.98%), LD - 1,456 (5.47%)
Westminster N – Con gain from Lab
C - 9,806 (38.45%), Lab - 7,121 (27.92%), Green - 2,402 (9.42%), LD - 2,278 (8.93%)
Wimbledon – Con hold
C - 12,857 (42.82%), Lab - 6,658 (22.17%), LD - 3,676 (12.24%), Green - 3,011 (10.03%), BNP - 913 (3.04%)
Some reactions:
- Boris' votes weren't really in places that are that useful to the Tories in the next General Election - mainly he just stacked up huge votes in safe Tory seats in the outer suburbs. Away from these seats the result was remarkably "normal".
- There certainly isn't any evidence of "meltdown".
- The most worrying results for Labour are the 2 Barking & Dagenham seats, Erith & Thamesmead and Eltham (which share some of their characteristics in terms of economic and ethnic mix) and Tooting (where the long term demographics are against Labour). We also underperformed in both Hounslow seats - maybe a Heathrow factor?
- There were several seats that were Key Seat marginals in 1997 (i.e. notionally Tory in 1992)that we are still holding now: Croydon N, Edmonton, Ilford S, Mitcham & Morden. Brent N and Harrow W weren't even Key Seats in '97, making holding them now even more impressive. Ealing N and Hammersmith although we narrowly "lost" them on these results looks promising performances if there is a recovery between now and the General Election.
- There seems to have been a good recovery in Camden from the disastrous 2006 council results, putting Hampstead & Kilburn back in play when at one stage it looked like we might come third.
- Tower Hamlets has also bounced back, with Poplar no longer looking like the 3-way Lab/Con/Respect marginal it had been predicted and Bethnal Green a likely re-gain.
- The battleground with the LDs also looks promising with Hornsey & Wood Green and Bermondsey possible gains and Dawn Butler looking solid in Brent C vs. Sarah Teather, as does Emily Thornberry in Islington S&F.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 11:22 am
22 Comments:
You are assuming that the Labour party will have the funds to fight another general election. Conservatives have millions in the the pot already....Labour are now in the red by £25 million.
12:20 pm, June 01, 2008
It depends what you mean by "fight".
If the national party is broke it will mean we can't have newspaper and billboard adverts (would any voters notice?) and fewer places will get full time organisers sent in (rather more important, but could be funded locally by CLPs and MPs coughing up).
However, it won't have any affect at all on our ability to field candidates in each constituency as that only costs the deposit (£500) which each local party always has to find for itself.
In almost every case except a few hyper-maginals local campaigning on the ground is entirely funded by local constituency parties - many of which have very healthy bank balances compared to the national party - and in any case are limited to spending an average of about £10k.
Canvassing - the single most important campaigning factor in winning an election - costs nothing except candidates' and activists' time.
12:31 pm, June 01, 2008
The Tories only have 'millions in the pot' because the donors are idiots out to buy honours. I hope the police are called in to sort this out.
12:57 pm, June 01, 2008
This is encouraging, though I suspect personal votes for the mayoral candidates did translate to the list vote to some extent, and the extra campaigning that went into inner-London areas because of the mayoral elections will have had an effect too. Still, now it has been done once there's no reason why local CLPs in these areas shouldn't replicate the same effort at the GE - difficult but not impossible.
I agree with Luke completely about newspaper and billboard adverts - what a waste of money - and more CLPs seem to be waking up to the idea that it makes sense for them to employ their own organisers (they can then employ them on an ongoing basis rather than just for a few months and there's arguably more accountability to the local party rather than to the centre, too).
Of course, limited national funding means less support for local organisers from the centre, (less training etc) - but this can be overcome through co-operation between CLPs to some extent.
I think the big challenge will be for seats (it would be unfair to mention them by name, but you can probably guess which I'm talking about) won in 1997 and which have relied on general Labour support topped up by personal votes based on casework and community presence to realise that those two things won't be enough next time and to get organised too.
1:02 pm, June 01, 2008
Very interesting breakdown.
With a higher turnout that a general will bring (we ought to benefit us disproportionately, one would imagine) and the Liberals performing equally as poorly (not guaranteed, but likely one would hope) then the London battleground is looking healthier than one might have first thought.
Particularly interesting is the Bermondsey/Old Southwark constituency. Could we finally shift Hughes at the next election?
1:45 pm, June 01, 2008
Well of course Tower Hamlets has swung back. The Ken leaflets claiming Boris would ban the Koran didn't help the latter much.
If you think that's a strategy to a fourth term, good luck to you.
2:25 pm, June 01, 2008
I think Tim F's right. The Hornsey & Wood Green result, for example, shows not so much that the seat is ours (though it does show the seat is winnable) but that Lynne Featherstone has a large personal vote which doesn't turn out for their GLA candidate Monica Whyte (a sort of wannabe Featherstone, a low-cost identikit Lynne), and that lots of people vote for Ken and then just vote down the line, as it were, for Ken's party.
2:30 pm, June 01, 2008
"The Hornsey & Wood Green result, for example, shows not so much that the seat is ours (though it does show the seat is winnable) but that Lynne Featherstone has a large personal vote which doesn't turn out for their GLA candidate Monica Whyte"
Not exactly. The Hornsey & Wood Green vote shows the Green's polling 5,576 votes (16.09%).
If they'd got general election levels of votes, the Lib Dems might have won.
I'd imagine a majority of those voting Green voted for Featherstone in 2005 to kick out Barbara Roche for supporting the war in Iraq.
It's anybody's guess whether Featherstone will get a personal vote from green-lefties at the next election when the war isn't an issue - it may depend on how good the Labour candidate is - but I'd imagine she'll still pick up votes from natural Tories being the only alternative to Labour.
4:36 pm, June 01, 2008
"We also underperformed in both Hounslow seats - maybe a Heathrow factor?"
Hayes and Harlington too, I think
"Brent N and Harrow W weren't even Key Seats in '97"
The new Harrow W is quite different from the current Harrow W. Looking at the notional majority (+14% compared to the 2005 maj), without boundary changes, I guess Labour would have trailed Con there
4:52 pm, June 01, 2008
Thats a long one Luke. Bet all your chums say that
6:03 pm, June 01, 2008
I thought Greg Hands had been the Tory MP for Hammersmith for a few years now?
8:06 pm, June 01, 2008
No, Hands is the MP for Hammersmith & Fulham which has been abolished in the boundary changes. The better bits for Labour have been merged with the non-Ealing bits of Andy Slaughter's current Ealing Acton & Shepherd's Bush seat to form a new Labour marginal of Hammersmith which Slaughter will defend. The better Tory bit are going into the new Chelsea & Fulham, which Greg Hands is fighting.
8:18 pm, June 01, 2008
Fairly amazing results.
Also shows you that London is a city of villages and towns.
Also shows how Kens Central London Campaign was fatally flawed since there is not the Labour Vote to turn out - even when you work as hard as Luke did.
Ken should also have taken his enemies on in their heartland. It was very sad that Ken only turned up in Croydon (with brilliant policies by the way) once in the campaign and he had not been seen for years.
If Ken had come out to a few festivals - the Croydon Summer Festival has 50,000 attendees over two days for example, or gone to a few schools for Q & A sessions with Sixth formers.
Little things that would have undermined the fairly untrue 'zone 1' campaign against him.
Ken was mobbed in Croydon - but he never managed to convince the large mainly white estates or White Van man territory (or SME businesses in New Labour speak).
Cant blame him in a way because he did not need them in his previous two elections. Its just that they are our bread and butter in outer London...
11:06 pm, June 01, 2008
Very interesting results. It certainly suggests that the London battleground has changed from fending off Lib Dems in Labour held marginals to fending off Tories in different set of seats.
If that follows through to General Election votes, then the deployment of floating activists needs to change.
Am I right in thinking that leaves London with 0 Lib Dem MPs? Ho ho.
12:15 am, June 02, 2008
But the problem is that many of the voters who need convincing will only be convinced by unacceptable policies!
Sometimes I think the problem is wanting these huge majorities. Whereas a majority of 50 at the most should be the aim. Otherwise the party programme is skewed too much towards the voters who might give the extra seats on top of that figure. Labour doesn't need Croydon Central.
Ken's approach did generally keep the liberal middle class voters on board, though, and depressed the LD vote.
11:12 am, June 02, 2008
"Sometimes I think the problem is wanting these huge majorities. Whereas a majority of 50 at the most should be the aim. Otherwise the party programme is skewed too much towards the voters who might give the extra seats on top of that figure. Labour doesn't need Croydon Central."
What a load of absolute rubbish. Ignoring the politics, do you think it makes sense organisationally to say to the Tories “here, we’ll give you 250 seats, now come and get us in the marginals”?
It seems both left and right make the mistake of dividing the country into ‘heartland’ ‘marginal’ and ‘hopeless’. People just can’t be pigeonholed like that. In the US, the democrats turned their fortunes around with the “Fifty State Strategy”. I think after the next general election, we need a similar approach.
11:50 am, June 02, 2008
Maybe Croydon Central needs a Labour MP though Mike?
The problem is you can't calibrate your electoral approach as finely as you suggest. All the seats comprising our majority have majorities of under 4,000 meaning that if you deliberately stop engaging a major group of electors as you advocate, you could lose the whole lot rather than just the places you seem to have such a problem with. With the majority we got last time of 66, as soon as you alienate the 7 seats in Kent and the 3 in Essex, and similar places like Crawley and Enfield North, you start imperilling your majority. We only got 3% more votes than the Tories in 2005 - no margin for error.
The New Labour approach wasn't targetted at the extra seats we won (untargetted) in 1997 - it was zeroed in on swing voters in 70 Key Seats that needed to be added to the 270ish we had in 1992 that would give us a working majority.
Perhaps not surprisingly when you consider the mix of economic efficiency, improved public services, social justice and tough on crime is most folks' idea of common sense, it enthused not just those people but our core vote and people in previously unwinnable seats too.
I don't understand who you think Labour exists to represent if it is not people in areas like Croydon Central - fairly ordinary suburbia + the huge New Addington council estate. Why do you seem to resent us appealing to the ordinary middle of the spectrum voters so much? What is it about the bulk of the population of the country and their views that you can't cope with?
I think Labour should have policies and a positioning that can generate mass popular support and that our job is to be the political voice of the masses in this country. You seem to want us to compete with the Lib Dems to represent people whose views are non-mainstream (but I get the impression the ideology you are pushing is actually radical liberalism, not democratic socialism), but somehow build just enough of a rainbow coalition to sneak narrowly into power.
11:52 am, June 02, 2008
Very interesting, thanks.
Personally, I think that the List tends to give the minor parties a higher share than they could expect at a general election, and I think looking at the constituency results gives a slightly better picture (partly because there is, as you say, tactical voting at constituency level).
At constituency level, the Lib Dems carried Hornsey & Wood Green, and Southwark and Bermondsey, which they are almost certain to do so at the next election. But in all likelihood, I'd expect them also to hold Twickenham and Kingston & Surbiton, and to challenge hard in Hampstead & Kilburn and Islington Sth (there's no way the Conservatives will replicate their Islington vote in a general election).
Other than that, I think the Tories will slaughter Labour in suburbia and wealthier Inner London (eg Acton and Westminster North) but Labour will hold Poplar & Limehouse, and some of the 1992 marginal Conservative seats. Both Brent North and Harrow West should also be held by Labour, but in large measure, due to very favourable boundary changes.
5:05 pm, June 02, 2008
Luke@ I have just attended a meeting where three of us were driving back afterwards. All three voted Labour last time. All three are not going to next time.
And its because of the policies you espuse. We don't like them. And we don't see why we should vote for a party which isn't interested in reconsidering those policies. The 42 day detention being a good example. Its just not acceptable, and never will be, no matter how much Brown tries to explain why he believes in it.
I'm just not interested in voting for a right-wing, populist party, and by the sort of canpaign such as that in Crewe which highlights these issues , you neither win back your precious C2 swing voters ( who are VOTING TORY NEXT TINE, and you really ought to accept it), nor persuade people like me that I should vote Labour.
If your formula was doing so well, then why is Labour in a wore position than ever before in the polls?
I don;t think that ppeple believe that the government is economically efficient any longer. Not altogether fair, but there you go. Try and talk to people working in the public sector and see what they think about micro-management, cuts in jobs for hands-on staff, endless directives from London,
obsession with utterly pointless targets which of course, organisations then ensure they meet by foul means rather than fair. The 10p tax band row did Labour in with regard to social justice, as does the unwillingness to tax those who can afford it more and those who cannot less. AS for tough on crime, thats not working either. More people in prison than ever before and still people not satisfied. You go after the punitive instincts with policies which do not work and then wonder why people are not satisfied?
The Tories are curreently offering much the same in the way of policies as Labour. But they appear fresh and enthusiastic - just right for the 'time for a change' mentality. meanwhile, those of us who want to vote for a progressive party have only the tired old failures of new Labour and we are not going to dutifully be dragooned into supporting a government which is neither new nor Labour. Unless the hard-right workerism of the trade unions is the epitome of labour - I've never come across someone as invertedly snobbish as you. There are just as many shits in the working class as in any other, and some of their views are pretty appalling.
You have certainly convinced me that if you are the voice of new Labour, then I too will opt for a change. And yes, part of the Labour coalition was always progressive liberalism - the Hobhouse influence, which inspired much of the libertarian impulse behind many of the great reforms.
I too think that the 'localism' agenda is somewhat half baked - but it is interesting that there are even some within new Labour who recognise that the authoritarian position of the Government is turning off as many as it attracts. I just don't think you get it. I think I am only just starting to myself after yet another round of announcements of bossy 'don't go this' policies over the weekend. Its not the sort of government I want to see, and until there are changes, its very unlikely that it would gain my vote at the next election. But I get the imp0ression that you would rather me and the millions like me who vote dutifully at every election - unlike those who you are so keen to suck up to - voted Lib Dem in any case.
5:23 pm, June 02, 2008
Mike, my politics are very different from those Luke espouses.
But the idea that we are more likely to win back lefty-liberal voters than Tory-Labour floating voters seems unrealistic. You say there's no chance of winning back White Van Man (though actually in many marginal seats that's not the best way of characterising the particular section of Tory-Labour switchers we need) - but surely there's less chance of winning back the Indie readers who think we're all baby-killers who want to catalogue your vital statistics than people who believe in self-help, distrust the state but ultimately judge the government on the state of the economy.
Certainly there's less chance of winning lib-labs back on a national level. We might win some of them back on a local level - esp since those types of voters are more likely to respond to the political views of a local candidate than voters in MOSAIC group H, for example.
Your strategy for a Labour victory just doesn't work.
On a personal level, you have to decide - do you want a government that is determined to defeat child poverty, or do you want to increase the voting percentage of a party that values our theoretical liberty but doesn't care about equalising the opportunity to make liberty a reality.
I think you and Luke both patronise Tory-Labour switchers by thinking there is only one way of appealing to them. You think that crime, immigration and attacks on civil liberties are the only way of appealing to them, so we shouldn't bother. Luke thinks we have to triangulate on issues Labour has inherently less credibility on than the Tories. I think many of these Tory-Lab switchers have families and care about work-life balance, about childcare, about play facilities, about schools, about skills & training opportunities for young people, etc. Our challenge is to make those things matter more than the issues we are bound to seem wussier on like crime and immigration.
12:46 am, June 03, 2008
No, Tim, don't agree - there is absolutely no chance that Tory-Labour floaters are coming back to Labour next time. many of them really hate the government and I think that they have simply reached the 'time for a change' stage.
And , frankly, if i believed in self help et al, then I'd vote Tory. Why opt for a pale imitation when the real thing is credible?
This is the key difference - for the first time since about 94 the Tory party is electable again.
Maybe the answer actually is that the government is in terminal decline and the pendulum has swung away. But, no, I actually think that there is precisely no chance of the present government winning next time and I think that if they managed to squeak home, it would not be deserved given their current performance. As for child poverty, its not my first priority, and in any case, the Brownite means-tested strategy for doing so is fatally flawed, and always has been. I wouldn't vote for an economically left-wing and socially authoritarian party, because that doesn't reflect my political priorities.
4:00 am, June 03, 2008
Luke,
The London elections were different to the parliamentary ones in format, constituencies, and tone that it is hard to see how you can base anything on them.
Doesn't their difference with the national polls worry you?
4:09 pm, August 10, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home