Tag Archive | "ken livingstone"

LOCAL ELECTIONS 2012 IN RETROSPECT

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LOCAL ELECTIONS 2012 IN RETROSPECT

Posted on 12 June 2012 by admin

Local election results – England and Wales

The 2012 local elections, leaving the London mayoralty aside, were a considerable success for Labour. While in 2011 Labour did very well in the big urban areas and not so well elsewhere, in 2012 Labour advanced pretty much everywhere that the party is a viable proposition, including such places as Weymouth, Tamworth and Great Yarmouth where the Conservative vote held up well in 2011, suggesting that the party is making progress on a much wider front than last year.

In terms of benchmarks and targets for party performance, Labour exceeded all realistic expectations. The party made a net gain of 823 seats across Britain, comfortably over the 700-720 that was the highest legitimate benchmark for a good performance. The party also took nearly all of its target councils, including some which had been regarded as rather ambitious targets: my previous paper describes Dudley, Cardiff and Redditch for instance as tough asks for Labour, but the party won the first two easily and the third narrowly. The only failures were Swindon (where the Conservatives retained a 1-seat majority despite Labour polling more votes) and the always peculiar West Midlands borough of Walsall.

As expected, Labour won the inaugural contests for the new mayors of Liverpool (in a landslide) and Salford (easily).

However, given the low turnout in these elections, it may be more a case of the Conservatives being in much worse shape in 2012 rather than a large positive movement to Labour. Turnout at around 32 per cent in England was poor, particularly in comparison with last year when it does appear that the AV referendum increased turnout (also significant is that the 2011 elections took place in more suburban and rural areas where turnout is higher anyway, while 2012’s elections were mostly urban). However, while it was pretty low, turnout was not as bad as it was during the first term of Blair’s government and not too much worse than years such as 1995 (which saw a big drop in turnout and a Labour landslide). In most areas, for every ten people who voted Conservative in 2011 about six did so this year, while for every ten Labour voters in 2011 there were about eight or nine this year. The net effect was a significant swing to Labour.

Looking at the local elections, another ‘hung parliament’ general election emerges as a strong possibility. A strongly regionalised swing, favouring Labour in the north and the Conservatives in the south, has interesting consequences, particularly when combined with the Liberal Democrats’ resilience in many of their stronger constituencies and the success of the SNP in Scotland. A swing to Labour will take out a few Tory remnants in the north, a swing to Tory will conquer Labour’s remaining outposts there – but these swings may well not be enough to win a Commons majority if there are 30 Lib Dems, 16 Northern Ireland MPs and perhaps 15-20 Nationalists.

The swing was less regionalised than it was in 2011, but it was still clear that Labour were doing less well in the south than in the north in terms of their recovery since 2008. Perhaps the main difference from 2011 was that the Midlands joined the North in swinging hard towards Labour, rather than joining the Tory South as it did last year. The Midlands will be the key battleground in political strategy in the next period – the Black Country marginals west of Birmingham and the smaller towns outside the metro area, and the towns and suburbs around Nottingham and Derby – will be crucial.

In general, it was another appalling year for the Lib Dems, and the hostility to the party in some areas (particularly the big cities) was just as evident as last year. The Lib Dems did worse in Liverpool, and were once again at the wrong end of a wipe-out in Manchester. In the areas where Conservatives compete with Lib Dems, honours were fairly even between the two parties, in contrast to last year when there was a strong trend to the Conservatives. The Conservatives did manage to gain Winchester from no overall control, although the Lib Dems had a swing in their favour in Portsmouth.

Local elections always demonstrate the peculiarities of some political micro-climates. The Conservatives did well to cling on in Swindon (despite Labour winning more votes), and there were a few strong Liberal Democrat showings against the national background of devastation. In Eastleigh and Watford they won landslides, and in Portsmouth they made significant gains from the Conservatives. There were even a few patches where wards that had gone Labour with a vengeance last year returned to the fold, particularly in Hull but also a few scattered outposts from Wigan to Basildon.

For the ‘other’ parties in England the results were mixed. The BNP lost all the seats it was defending and managed to field many fewer candidates than in 2008, and appears to be collapsing as a political force. The Green Party also did quite well, winning 40 seats (a net gain of 11), consolidating its position in areas of strength (Norwich, Solihull) and picking off a number of other wards where it has targeted its campaigning efforts. It may emerge, given the collapse of the Liberal Democrats in the northern metropolitan areas, as the principal opposition force to local Labour control in due course.

It was quite a good election for UKIP, in that the party won 12-13 per cent of the vote where it stood. In wards where both it and the Lib Dems were standing ‘paper candidates’ (i.e. people standing to represent the party on the ballot in areas where they do not expect to win and do very little campaigning) the UKIP candidate usually got more votes. In some areas (Great Yarmouth, Dudley, Basildon) UKIP polled quite serious vote shares of over 20 per cent in many wards. However, it has not managed to target its campaigning effectively for local authority elections, in contrast to the Greens, and it made no net gains in the elections despite its strong vote. The lack of targeting seems to me to be a puzzling aspect of UKIP strategy; it would surely be in the interests of the party to prioritise gaining elected local representatives, but it seems to concentrate on building its vote share, perhaps as a means of putting pressure on the Conservatives.

Wales, because every seat in 21 of the 22 councils was up for election (rather than a third of the seats, as with most of England), saw a huge turnover of seats and sweeping Labour gains, effectively reversing two sets of quite bad losses in 2004 and 2008. Overall, Labour made a net gain of 231 seats across Wales, with the Conservatives (-61), Lib Dems (-66) and Plaid Cymru (-41) all suffering losses. The most dramatic result was the Labour win in Cardiff, with a gain of 33 seats. But there were also some quite surprising Conservative losses of control of their councils in Monmouthshire and Vale of Glamorgan, where the party has generally been on an upward trend.

 

Local elections – Scotland

Because local elections are conducted under a proportional system in Scotland, changes in seats are less dramatic but in some ways the story there is the most surprising of all. The SNP gained, but by less than some over-optimistic expectations, and so did Scottish Labour despite their drubbing in the Scottish Parliament election last year. Both parties profited from the collapse of the Liberal Democrats, the SNP making a net gain of 57 and Labour of 58. In Edinburgh, where the Lib Dems had led the council since 2007, the Lib Dems dropped to three seats (and saw one of its candidates famously outpolled by a man in a penguin costume), Labour emerged as the largest party and formed a coalition with the SNP to run the city, the first Labour-SNP coalition in Scottish politics.

The SNP will be very disappointed. In many elections in the past, the SNP has ramped up expectations and believed its own hype, and seen the results come well below what was hoped. In the Scottish Parliament elections in 2007 and, dramatically, 2011 this did not happen, but this old pattern has reasserted itself. The reality was that it was a moderately encouraging result for the SNP but not a breakthrough, and had it not been for the expectations and the results of the 2011 elections it would have been seen as good news for the SNP.

The importance of the elections was in the possibility that local government, collectively – with the trade unions the main non-Nationalist area of public life in Scotland – would become part of the developing SNP establishment. The SNP duly won outright control of two councils – Dundee and Angus – where this might have been expected given the SNP’s long-established strength in that part of Scotland. They fell short in other north eastern councils such as Aberdeenshire and Moray, and were cut out of a share of the administration by deals between Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Independents. The hopes of using local authorities and COSLA to support the push for independence in the forthcoming referendum came to nothing. Labour lost one council (Midlothian) it had gained because of a defection, held two (Glasgow and North Lanarkshire) and most surprisingly gained two (Renfrewshire, displacing an SNP-Lib Dem administration, and West Dunbartonshire). Labour also came out ahead in seats but without an overall majority in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. In Aberdeen they formed a coalition with the Conservatives and Independents and in Edinburgh with the SNP.

With control only in Dundee and Angus, and the SNP locked out by surprising coalitions among the other parties in other councils (Lab-Con is the formula not only in Aberdeen but also in Stirling where the SNP did well, Inverclyde, Falkirk and even South Ayrshire where the parties have been harshly competitive), something clearly has been going on. A lot of it has to do with the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The parties opposed to independence (i.e. Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and most Independents) have decided to deprive the pro-independence parties (SNP and Green) of the levers of power in local government. Local government could have been used as a way of promoting independence, and giving pro-independence SNP activists publicly funded full time positions running councils, but this will not now happen. This could be an important result of the 2012 local elections.

London

The result was more or less as expected, with Boris Johnson re-elected as Mayor and Labour dominating in the Assembly election. However, Johnson’s margin of victory was smaller than many had expected during the campaign – 3 points after distribution of second preferences rather than the 6-8 points suggested by most polls and some expectations of a bigger win for Johnson than that because of differential turnout. Johnson’s re-election had been so widely expected that it had effectively been ‘priced in’ to media assessments of the results, and the fact that it was fairly narrow was added to the evidence that the Conservatives had a bad night.

What appears to have happened is that the suburban Conservative vote, which had turned out very strongly for Johnson in 2008, was less enthusiastic this time, probably as a reflection of dissatisfaction with the central government’s performance. Labour also seems to have had, this time, a superior ‘get out the vote’ operation on the ground, perhaps particularly in strong areas like Newham and Barking & Dagenham (where anti-BNP campaigning had revitalised the party in 2010) and in Enfield and Hackney.

But it was not quite enough to get Ken Livingstone across the line. In 2000 he was vastly popular and won as an Independent, and in 2004 he was much more popular than the Labour brand, but in 2008 the electorate appeared to be getting tired of him and this was even more evident in 2012, even though his first preference vote was its highest ever. Unlike before, his popularity did not reach beyond Labour’s – and did not even extend to all of the Labour Party. There were appreciable numbers of Labour supporters who did not vote for him.

 

Labour Assembly list % Mayoral FP % Mayoral advantage %
2004 25.0 36.7 +11.7
2008 27.6 37.0 +9.4
2012 41.1 40.3 -0.8

 

Conservative Assembly list % Mayoral FP % Mayoral advantage %
2004 28.5 29.1 +0.6
2008 34.6 43.2 +8.6
2012 32.0 44.0 +12.0

 

The election will have no particularly strong influence on policy in London, with Johnson (who has been notably slow to change much that he inherited from Livingstone in 2008) now overseen by a strengthened Labour group on the Assembly,  although the Assembly’s power is so weak that it will not be much of a constraint.

The detail of the election reveals some fascinating demographic and social trends about London. Working class areas of outer London appear to be changing rapidly and becoming much more ethnically mixed – for instance in Enfield and Croydon – while a wedge of London to the south west is becoming increasingly dominated by the wealthy (Wandsworth, Wimbledon etc).

What seems to have happened to the social bases of each candidate is that Livingstone lost the liberal middle class vote he had done very well among for a Labour candidate – Hampstead, Richmond, central Ealing, Muswell Hill, Wimbledon… but recovered some ground among the outer London white working class that he had done particularly badly among in 2008.

Overall, Labour’s Assembly election results were good – but perhaps not that good. The party was 9 points ahead on the list vote, although in the General Election of 2010 Labour led by 2 points. The swing was therefore 3-4 per cent to Labour, while in general the swing in the rest of England was around 8 per cent. There are a couple of viable alternative explanations for this discrepancy:

  • Perhaps having Livingstone at the top of the ticket dragged down the Labour share in all the elections in London, while Johnson probably dragged up the Conservative list. This can work through turnout – if a Labour supporter is unenthusiastic about Livingstone, she may just fail to vote, while an unhappy Conservative may find himself reluctantly voting only because he likes Johnson.
  • Perhaps the swing to Labour in London really is less than it is outside the capital. This could be because Labour did not do as badly in London in 2010 as elsewhere, so there is less of a mountain to climb. Or it could be because of other particularities of the politics and sociology of London.

It is likely that both factors contributed a bit to the small Labour swing in London.

 

Local elections – effects

The effect of local elections on the national political environment is complex. While they are largely determined by the state of general public opinion, they have feedback effects. Governments that suffer bad results often see their position decline once the elections are over, sometimes in public opinion (as with the severe and surprising Tory losses in 1993, or Labour’s drubbing in 2008) and often in broader ‘climate’ terms.

After a bad defeat, the media become more critical, troublesome backbenchers make more and louder trouble than they have already been doing, previously loyal MPs start to murmur dissent, ministers start to fear or hope for reshuffles, and in general a bad atmosphere descends. Sometimes, as in 1993 and 1995, it degenerates into a real crisis for the government; it nearly did in 2009 as well but the anti-Brown plotters mishandled it. So far in 2012 the political effect on the government from the local elections has been fairly modest. The government is still in trouble, but it has not deepened since the ‘omnishambles’ period of March and April, and in some polls the Labour lead has subsided a bit as May has gone on. But the local elections have consolidated the new post-Budget political narrative (and reality) of a government in trouble, rather than the ‘Labour failing and Ed is hopeless’ mood with which we started 2012.

The elections are part of a pattern of events. One casualty has been the reputation of George Osborne as a political strategist, given that his budget contained one extremely provocative measure (the top rate tax cut) and a number of smaller measures that have caused a series of minor political explosions and alienated several interests (pasties, caravans, historic buildings, pensioners…) at once. There has also been, it appears, an effort to shift blame onto Osborne for this from elsewhere in government, for instance briefing that Andrew Cooper at Number 10 was not permitted to test the tax cut with public opinion, or that Osborne wanted to cut to 40p but was stopped by Cameron and Clegg. Conservative journalists have written stories suggesting that Osborne has not been working hard enough, trying to divide his time between the Treasury and political strategy and doing neither well enough, and his lack of attention led to him being ‘bounced’ by the Treasury civil servants into a number of the minor changes that have proved politically difficult. Neither has Cameron’s leadership looked very sure-footed since, with tetchy performances at PMQs and apparently ever-deeper problems with Hunt and Leveson.

The Conservative Party is in a more disenchanted condition than it has been probably since 2003; while only eccentric lone voices such as Nadine Dorries have been open with harsh criticism of Cameron, there is a murmur of unease with the direction of policy under the coalition, with Cameron’s personal performance and attitude to his MPs, and for the first time with the party’s electoral prospects. The government has been in place for two years without a reshuffle, other than emergency mini-reshuffles after the resignations of Laws and Fox, and the mood of instability, plotting and every-man-for-himself that comes with reshuffle speculation has started (although Number 10 is trying to say that the reshuffle will be in September, not before). The high votes for UKIP in a number of constituencies will have impressed some Tory MPs – UKIP at around 10% in his Bury North constituency will merely encourage rebellious right-winger David Nuttall to be even more rebellious, for instance.

The election results combined with the economic news , and the sense that the argument for austerity is starting to be lost with the ‘double-dip’ recession and the election result in France, is shifting views. The Conservative right is keen for some ‘red meat’ to give to supporters who are abstaining or voting UKIP, in the form of dropping the gay marriage proposal, confronting Europe some more and adopting the Beecroft proposals on employment law.

The Lib Dem response to another horrible set of results was fairly calm. If a person is punched in the face twice, the second punch is less shocking (even if it may end up doing more long term damage than the first blow).This has been the fourth year in a row of local election losses, and after the trauma of their worse-than-expected massacre in 2011 they were resigned to a bad result in 2012. There were some crumbs of comfort in some areas where the results were better than last year (Hull, Basildon, Wigan and others). The Lib Dems, I think, know that the die was cast in 2010 by joining the coalition on the terms they did, and that there is not a lot they can do about it now except to hope that they survive the journey to 2015 and that there is a record of achievement in government to show for it with which they can impress voters at the election.

Part of the reason for the passive response among MPs is that for many of them the local results were not bad, often appreciably better than last year. This table shows the local election results in a number of Lib Dem held seats in England where there were local elections. In some the chances of Lib Dems holding on against Labour seem very remote, but against the Conservatives in suburban England they did pretty well. Rebellious MPs Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) and Bob Russell  (Colchester) saw their local election colleagues do well, and in Chris Huhne’s Eastleigh the Lib  Dems won another landslide victory. These sorts of figures give the party some hope that where there is a functional Lib Dem local organisation, a local MP and a number of electors who have a partisan identification with the Lib Dems, survival is possible.

 

2010 general election

2012 local elections

 
 

Con

Lab

LD

Con

Lab

LD

‘Result’

‘Swing’
Manchester Withington

11

41

45

5

57

25

Lab

18% to Lab
Burnley

17

31

36

6

53

34

Lab

11% to Lab
Cheadle

41

9

47

33

17

36

LD

2% to Con
Cambridge

26

24

39

15

43

25

Lab

17% to Lab
Southport

 

36

9

50

21

20

35

LD

None
Portsmouth South

33

14

46

25

21

47

LD

5% to LD
Colchester

 

33

12

48

23

21

39

LD

1% to LD
Hazel Grove

34

13

49

27

23

42

LD

None
Sheffield Hallam

24

16

53

17

23

39

LD

11% to Lab

 

For Labour, the results have consolidated Ed Miliband’s leadership. This would have been regarded, a year to six months ago, as being a paradoxically good thing for the Conservatives! But Miliband has grown in confidence and stature during 2012 and the elections have helped him in terms of his personal confidence and in encouraging Labour to have faith in him. Labour’s mood has, sensibly, been of satisfaction rather than complacency and the party tried hard to take a humble tone after the election results. But with a solid election win, a sense that the party’s arguments about economic policy are being vindicated and at last gaining some traction, and a party organisation whose greater efficiency was shown in its campaigning this year, Labour is in a better mood than it has been probably since autumn 2007.

Last but not least in importance, the election results in Scotland were the first dent in Alex Salmond’s armour for a long time; Scottish councils are unlikely to be used as forward bases to push for independence, and we are back to close rivalry of Labour and SNP rather than SNP domination. The launch of the Yes campaign for the independence referendum (25 May), after the local elections, did not seem part of a triumphant progress towards the SNP’s goal.

Comments Off

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LOCAL ELECTIONS 2012

Posted on 10 April 2012 by admin

The big contest, looming over the rest of the electoral landscape this May, is the election for Mayor of London. The Mayoralty is powerful, London is politically marginal territory, polls so far suggest that the race will be close and as in 2008 Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson are both strong personalities, so there is reason even apart from the media’s metropolitan bias to concentrate on this election. It is very difficult to call, and may come down to events during the London campaign. Johnson is a lot more viable as a candidate in London than a generic Conservative – if it were purely about national party support, Labour would walk the election because they have a 16-point lead over the Tories. Labour’s general strength in London may show through more in the Assembly elections, where Labour should become the largest party for the first time in the Assembly’s history. This has few consequences for policy, because the Mayor decides, but Labour would find it particularly satisfying to knock out Brian Coleman in Barnet & Camden. The BNP won an Assembly seat in 2008 but are unlikely to do so this year; the Greens and Lib Dems should get representation. (Update 4/2012: UKIP also stands a good chance of qualifying for a list seat).

The London contest might attract most of the attention a large proportion of the rest of the country will also have local elections. Every seat in Scotland and Wales (except for the Isle of Anglesey) is up for election, as are a third of the seats in each of the 36 metropolitan boroughs and some unitary and district councils, mostly in the larger urban areas. A few councils will have half or all of their members being elected this year – the English local election calendar is not straightforward.

When assessing gains and losses in local elections, it is important to look at the areas where the elections will happen, and the political climate last time the seats were contested. The seats this time are more urban than in 2011, when Labour did well in the cities but did not make much of an impact in suburban and rural areas. The political climate in 2008 was catastrophic for Labour and it was the peak Conservative performance in any recent set of local elections. Labour should be winning back fairly large numbers of seats.

Opinion poll ratings at the time of recent local elections

% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Con 37 44 40 36 36 36 (33)
Lab 32 26 24 29 41 41 (42)
LD 18 17 18 23 10 12 (8)
Others 14 13 19 12 13 11 (17)

 (2012 column: first numbers March, second YouGov 5 April)

National equivalent vote share in local elections

% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Con 40 43 35 37 38
Lab 26 24 22 30 37
LD 24 23 25 24 16
Others 19 10 18 10 9

 

Looking at the current opinion polls (March), if there is not a change in public opinion between now and early May, the results overall will be pretty similar to 2011. In councils where there are elections in both years, this will be a useful benchmark for the performance of the parties.  Even a repeat of 2011 means a swing of 9 per cent from Conservative to Labour and 10 per cent from Lib Dem to Labour, and yield a haul of seats and councils controlled. Labour lost 434 seats in 2008. Recovering these means getting back to where Labour was in 2004, which was itself a pretty poor year. Three hundred of them would fall if Labour repeated its 2011 performance in the metropolitan boroughs alone, so Labour sights should be set higher than that – perhaps a net gain of 700 would be ‘par’.

In some places Labour victory is almost inevitable. In Harlow, for instance, the Conservatives have a majority of 1, a legacy from their extraordinary performance in 2008 when they won every single seat in the town (4/2012 correction: while Labour won no seats in 2008, there were two Lib Dems as well as the Conservatives, although one has subsequently died and one has defected to Labour). Even a historically poor Labour showing in 2012, as long as it is even slightly better than 2008, will do to win control. The task is harder than this in several other councils, but Labour should be winning control in Thurrock, Plymouth, Southampton, Exeter, Reading and perhaps Norwich, creating some satisfying red splodges on the map of southern and eastern England. The Southampton election is particularly interesting because it is currently run by a particularly right wing pro-cuts Tory council. Labour gained a swathe of councils in the metropolitan areas of the midlands and north in 2010 and 2011, but a few more low-hanging fruit should fall from the tree in Birmingham, Bradford, Wirral and perhaps Walsall. The hard tests, that would indicate Labour advancing significantly since 2011, are Swindon, Dudley and Cardiff. Swindon and Dudley are two party straight fights with the Conservatives in areas with marginal and volatile parliamentary seats, where the Tory vote held up reasonably well in 2011. Cardiff is more of a contest with the Lib Dems, who should put up more resistance there than one can expect in the northern cities where they are likely to be massacred for a second year.

The local elections in Scotland are different for three reasons. The simplest is that these seats were last contested in 2007, rather than 2008. The electoral system is also different – Scotland has the Single Transferable Vote (STV) proportional system for its local elections. The third reason is the political context, in which the SNP dominates Scottish politics and this set of results will be seen more of a test of the SNP’s aspirations for independence than Labour’s UK-wide performance. A repeat of the SNP landslide in the 2011 Holyrood elections would see the nationalists controlling most councils in Scotland even under PR. This is unlikely, but it seems likely that the SNP will gain ground, principally at the expense of the Lib Dems but also to some extent Labour and Independents. The big battleground is Glasgow, where the SNP will try to demolish the last bastion of the Scottish Labour establishment. Most people seem to think that Labour will lose outright control.

(From Progress magazine, April 2012)

 

Comments Off

In poll position (3 April 2008)

Tags: , , , , ,

In poll position (3 April 2008)

Posted on 03 April 2008 by admin

London elections 08: So far, the opinion polls have varied widely on the winners’ margin. Why is that?

The ICM poll showing Boris Johnson narrowly ahead of Ken Livingstone in the contest to be mayor of London is welcome news for Labour, who had feared that the contest was slipping away after two YouGov polls had shown Johnson 12 and 10 points in the lead. Has there been a pro-Livingstone swing, or is one or other of the polls just wrong?

Opinion poll methodology is an abstruse field, and blundering into it unwarily is dangerous, but the striking difference between the two polls may be something to do with how the polls were taken. Getting London – a vast, diverse place where the voters move around more frequently then elsewhere – right in polling terms is a challenge. Both ICM and YouGov are respectable and professional firms that try to get the answer right – the fact that YouGov’s client is the vehemently anti-Livingstone Evening Standard does not affect the way the pollsters do their job.

Sampling for YouGov was taken over the Easter weekend, and holiday times sometimes produce funny numbers (although a YouGov poll taken the previous week also produced a similar topline result). But there are some other issues. ICM ensured that ethnic minority voters were represented in the poll in proportion to the population in London (29% is the official number), and this is important because black and minority ethnic voters are particularly pro-Livingstone.

Some of the differences in weighting are also interesting. YouGov did not adjust for likely turnout. Does anyone expect, as the first YouGov poll implies, that for every three votes cast by people aged 45-54 there will be five cast by people aged 18-24? London may have a young population, but no real election, with the possible exception of one or two of the Democratic primaries this year, shows that sort of turnout pattern. However, ICM’s sample showed Johnson further ahead (48-40) among people who claimed to be certain to vote, so Labour cannot assume that the army of young pro-Johnson voters found by YouGov is entirely illusory.

There are staggering differences in the detail of ICM and YouGov, with YouGov finding that women were more pro-Johnson than men (a 14-point lead, rather than six-point) and ICM the reverse – men giving Johnson an 11-point lead but women giving him an eight-point deficit. The last YouGov poll shows that more people who identify with the Liberal Democrats intend to vote for Johnson (40%) than their own party’s candidate Brian Paddick (31%) which although possible seems peculiar and implies a 7% swing of Lib Dems from Paddick to Johnson in a period of just over a week since their previous poll.

The past two mayoral elections have seen unusual constellations of voters. In 2004 Livingstone’s strength was in inner London, even in areas that are normally Conservative or Lib Dem. He won all but one ward in Camden, for instance, even leading in the upper middle class heights of Hampstead Town. Steve Norris polled best in the outer boroughs, many of which are ambivalent about their allegiance to “London”. Johnson seems, whichever poll one looks at, to have maintained the Conservative advantage in outer London and pulled away some non-Labour voters in inner London who supported Livingstone in 2004. Interestingly, YouGov finds Labour’s vote in the assembly election pretty much identical to Livingstone’s support, also suggesting that Livingstone’s vote this time will be a more conventional Labour party coalition of support.

The polls are also consistent in showing that Johnson is doing better in the contest for Lib Dem second preferences, in marked contrast to 2004, when Livingstone tended to benefit. This reflects Johnson’s greater crossover appeal, Livingstone’s accumulated discontents of eight years in office, and the closer relations between Lib Dems and Tories in London. The two parties run several boroughs in coalition and work together on the Greater London Assembly in opposition to an informal Labour-Green alliance.

Livingstone has had a rotten few weeks. Labour’s national popularity has sagged badly in several polls, with the Conservatives taking a strong national lead that is also reflected in Londoners’ voting intentions. Closer to home, there has been the resignation of two of his City Hall advisers, including Lee Jasper, under clouds of suspicion, something that has encouraged a “time for a change” feeling. Voters who dislike the apparent cronyism of Livingstone’s City Hall and distrust his honesty and currently intend to vote for Johnson may not feel the same after a look at Johnson’s own chequered record in precisely these matters. Livingstone also has formidable basic strength in public opinion, in that he is regarded even by people not currently intending to vote for him as having done a good job as mayor. His specific policies attract more support than Johnson’s on issues such as the congestion charge and public transport. Livingstone is also articulate and clear on detail, while Johnson is not. While Johnson has done enough to dispel the impression that the campaign is merely an exercise in vanity, he still looks flimsy on detail and competence and is being kept out of the way by his hard-right Australian campaign adviser Lynton Crosby.

Polls, whatever technical issues may arise and however they are reported, are more reliable than the only alternatives – self-interested claims by the parties, and the water-divining approach to public opinion by which a journalist sniffs the air and gets a “feel” for how it is going. If ICM had shown a Johnson lead even half as large as YouGov’s, it would be tempting to claim that the race was already over. Defeatism was starting to pervade Labour’s approach to the campaign. The new poll should dispel that, and if the party knows what it is doing, prompt a vigorous fightback that has every chance of success. Livingstone’s choice is to give up wearily but gracefully – which has looked a possibility – or hammer Johnson on policies and personal competence. Labour needs to energise its difficult to reach electorate, and the closer and more publicised the election, the better for them. Johnson, Crosby and the Evening Standard – salivating at the chance to inflict a fatal blow in its long vendetta against Livingstone – are not going to play nice either. With so much at stake, and (according to ICM at least) still all to fight for, it will be a brutal April in London politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/03/inpollposition

Comments Off

GLA Constituency Profiles (8 February 2008)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

GLA Constituency Profiles (8 February 2008)

Posted on 08 February 2008 by admin

Barnet and Camden

Held by: Conservatives

The Barnet and Camden constituency stretches from the very centre of London around Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Holborn all the way out to the rural fringes of Arkley and Chipping Barnet. Most GLA constituencies are large and diverse, but Barnet and Camden is perhaps more so than any. Labour’s core areas in past elections have been the urban wards along the east of Camden, from Highgate down to Covent Garden, while the Conservatives are dominant in the suburbs of Chipping Barnet and Edgware. However, there are Labour votes to be found in Finchley and Hendon, and Conservative ones in Hampstead. The Lib Dems have areas of local strength in West Hampstead in particular, and must be hoping that they can improve their showing after good local elections for them in Camden in 2006.

In the two GLA elections so far, the Conservatives have come out on top here. This is partly because suburban Barnet is so much larger than inner-city Camden and turnout there a bit higher, making up 64% of the constituency’s votes in 2004. It is competitive, however, as Labour had a 40% to 35% lead in the 2005 general election.

The constituency is a closely fought marginal and perhaps the seat Labour would most like to see change hands. Since his election in 2000, Brian Coleman has been an outspoken and controversial incumbent, coming into frequent conflict with Ken Livingstone and also attracting some notice for the size of his taxi expenses claims. Labour’s Nicky Gavron, currently deputy mayor, is giving up a list seat on the assembly to fight the constituency. Both the Labour and the Conservative campaigns are well financed and organised. The contest for Barnet and Camden will be the one to watch when the GLA election results are declared, and is probably second in interest only to the mayoral contest itself.

Results

2004 election
Con – 47,640 – 35.3%
Lab – 36,121 – 26.7%
LD – 23,603 – 17.5%
Green – 11,921 – 8.8%
Ukip – 8,685 – 6.4%
Respect – 5,150 – 3.8%
CPA – 1,914 – 1.4%
Turnout – 38.4%

2000 election
Con – 41,583 – 32.9%
Lab – 41,032 – 32.5%
LD – 22,295 – 17.6%
Green – 14,768 – 11.7%
Ukip – 2,115 – 1.7%
Respect – 3,488 – 2.8%
Other – 1,081 – 0.9%
Turnout – 37.5%

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Bexley and Bromley

Held by: Conservatives

Bexley and Bromley is the safest Conservative seat on the London assembly. It comprises two suburban boroughs in the south-east of the capital, many of whose inhabitants would regard themselves as being in Kent rather than London. The only substantial Labour area is the Thames estuary frontage around Thamesmead and Erith in the north of Bexley. The Liberal Democrats are strongest around Orpington, and there is a non-Tory element at Crystal Palace and Penge, but on the whole this is deeply Conservative suburban territory. In the 2006 council elections the Tories won landslide victories in both boroughs, ending a surprising four years of Labour control in Bexley.

While Ukip did exceptionally well in 2004 when the London and European elections were held at the same time, they can expect their vote to fall back in 2008, and the Lib Dems will hope that their strong showing in the Bromley and Chislehurst byelection in 2006 will boost them into second place. That byelection saw the incumbent Conservative assembly member, Bob Neill, gain another public appointment, as MP, but he decided to serve out his term as an assembly member. James Cleverly, who fought the Lewisham East seat for the Conservatives in 2005, and the Lewisham mayoral election in 2006, is on an easier wicket here. Cleverly made the “a-list” of parliamentary candidates and is well-regarded among his young London Conservative colleagues. He will hope to make a mark early in his term on the assembly.

Results

2004 election
Con – 64,246 – 40.4%
Lab – 24,848 – 15.6%
LD – 29,992 – 18.9%
Green – 8,069 – 5.1%
Ukip – 26,703 – 16.8%
Respect – 1,673 – 1.1%
CPA – 3,397 – 2.1%
Turnout – 41.5%

2000 election
Con – 64,879 – 47.2%
Lab – 30,320 – 22.1%
LD – 29,710 – 21.6%
Green – 11,124 – 8.1%
*Respect – 1,403 – 1%
Turnout – 37.9%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Brent and Harrow

Held by: Conservatives

Brent and Harrow was the only assembly constituency seat that changed hands at the last election in 2004, when the former Conservative leader of Brent council, Robert Blackman, defeated Labour’s Toby Harris. The result was a blow for Labour, as Harris was one of the party’s senior GLA members (and the first person to be declared a member of the authority back in 2000).

It was also somewhat surprising as Labour has all but one parliamentary seat in the area and the one exception, Brent East, was lost to the LibDems in a by-election in 2003.

Even in 2004, Labour led in nearly all of Brent South and Brent East, with a significant outpost around central Harrow. The suburbs of Brent North and the north side of Harrow were all Conservative.

Differential turnout was a strong influence on the result in 2004, with Harrow, despite having a smaller electorate, casting 52% of the votes in the constituency.

In the 2005 general election, Labour had a massive lead in this constituency, outpolling the Conservatives 47% to 29%.

But the local government results in the area in 2006 were bleak for Labour, with a Conservative majority running Harrow and a Conservative-Lib Dem alliance in charge in Brent, leaving Labour candidate Shafi Khan with a lot of work to do to overhaul the Conservatives’ initial advantage.

Results

2004 election
Con – 39,900 - 34.0%
Lab – 35,214 – 30.0%
LD – 20,782 – 17.7%
Green – 6,975 – 5.9%
Ukip – 7,199 – 6.1%
Respect – 4,586 – 3.9%
CPA – 2,734 – 2.3%
Turnout – 38.0%

2000 election
Con – 32,295 – 33.1%
Lab – 36,675 – 37.6%
LD – 17,161 – 17.6%
Green – 8,756 – 9.0%
*Respect – 2,546 – 2.6%
Turnout – 33.2%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

City and East

Held by: Labour

The City and East constituency is another radial slice of London, starting near the centre at Fleet Street but stretching out as far as Chadwell Heath in the north of Dagenham. In parliamentary terms, the City of London is paired with parts of Westminster, but for the GLA its representation is shared with the boroughs to the east. Its immediate neighbour is Tower Hamlets, which combines a heavily Bangladeshi area, the traditional East End and the new developments in Docklands. The borough of Newham, around Stratford, West Ham and East Ham, is working class with a high proportion of ethnic minority residents (both black and Asian) and it is also the centre of the London Olympics development.

Barking and Dagenham, the easternmost borough and as much Essex as London in some respects, is mainly white and working class but parts around Barking are changing as multi-ethnic London ripples outwards.

City and East is not as monolithically Labour as it might superficially appear, as shown by the very low winning share of the vote for John Biggs in 2004. However, Labour’s position is bolstered by the chronic divisions in the opposition forces. There was a four-way pile-up between Conservatives, Lib Dems, Ukip and Respect for second in 2004. The Conservatives polled quite well in Tower Hamlets (coming astonishingly close to being the largest party, running only 35 votes behind Labour) and among the few voters who live in the City. Respect did well in Tower Hamlets and Newham, while Ukip came a close second in Barking & Dagenham and the Lib Dems had some votes everywhere.

Labour will no doubt be hoping that some of the Muslim voters in Tower Hamlets and Newham who defected from the party in 2004 will return this time, and that hope will be encouraged by the split in Respect. It seems likely that the BNP will contest the constituency seat, emboldened by its election successes in Barking and Dagenham in 2006, and probably sweep up a lot of the former Ukip vote.

Labour led with 46% in 2005, with Respect and the Conservatives tied for second on 17%. While a Labour hold is the likeliest outcome in City & East in 2008, it remains a volatile and complicated constituency.

Results

2004 election
Con – 23,749 -18.1%
Lab – 38,085 – 29.1%
LD – 18,255 -13.9%
Green – 8,687 – 6.6%
Ukip – 17,997 – 13.7%
Respect – 19,675 – 15%
CPA – 4,461 – 3.4%
Turnout – 33.4%

2000 election
Con – 19,266 – 19.5%
Lab – 45,387 – 45.9%
LD – 18,300 – 18.5%
Green – 11,939 – 12.1%
*Respect – 3,908 – 4.0%
Turnout – 29.4%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Croydon and Sutton

Held by: Conservatives

Croydon and Sutton is a safe Conservative seat on the London assembly, not so much because it is overwhelmingly Tory but because the party is strong in both suburban boroughs.

Croydon is a battle between Labour and the Conservatives, with Labour dominant in the ethnically diverse wards in the north of the borough and the Tories enjoying popularity in the suburban south around Purley. The Lib Dems hardly figure. But Sutton is a two-party battle between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, with Labour nowhere. The north tends to vote Lib Dem, and the south Conservative.

Because of the near-impossibility of getting Sutton to vote Labour, or north Croydon to vote Lib Dem, the Conservatives win almost by default by having a reasonably strong vote in most areas of the constituency. Even at the 2005 election, they lead the combined seats with 39% to 30% for Labour and 28% for the Lib Dems. Tory chances are enhanced by good results in the 2006 borough elections, winning control of Croydon and narrowing the Lib Dem majority in Sutton.

The incumbent Conservative, Andrew Pelling, is standing down, having been elected MP for Croydon Central in 2005 – although he is also standing down from Westminster. Pelling’s successor, Steve O’Connell, has been deputy leader of Croydon council since 2006.

Results

2004 election
Con – 52,330 – 38.6%
Lab – 25,861 – 19.1%
LD – 28,636 -21.1%
Green – 6,175 – 4.6%
Ukip – 15,203 – 11.2%
Respect – 3,108 – 2.3%
CPA – 4,234 – 3.1%
Turnout – 37.8%

2000 election
Con – 48,421 – 40.6%
Lab – 29,514 – 24.7%
LD – 30,614 – 25.7%
Green – 8,884 – 7.4%
*Respect – 1,823 – 1.5%
Turnout – 35.5%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Ealing and Hillingdon

Held by: Conservatives

The Ealing and Hillingdon constituency covers most of suburban west London, stretching from Acton all the way out to Heathrow, Uxbridge and Northwood. When this assembly constituency was created in 2000, Labour was widely expected to win, but both elections so far have taken place at a relatively poor time for the party, and the Conservative candidate Richard Barnes has prevailed twice by relatively substantial majorities.

In 2004 the Conservatives outpolled Labour across most of the constituency, winning every single ward in two of the parliamentary constituencies (Uxbridge and Ruislip Northwood) that make up Hillingdon, and polling well in Acton. Labour was reduced to its core strongholds in Southall and Hayes, despite the Ealing North seat being won by Labour with a sizeable Westminster majority. The Liberal Democrats are not expected to make up too much ground in the area.

The chances of Labour unseating Richard Barnes in 2008 look remote at best. The borough elections in 2006 saw the Conservatives gaining strongly in both Ealing and Hillingdon. While their win in Hillingdon was expected, their triumph in Ealing was a surprise to most observers. The controversial proposal for a tram along the Uxbridge Road from Shepherd’s Bush to Ealing, a London-wide matter discussed in the Assembly, is thought to have harmed Labour in the borough elections and this factor could linger in 2008.

Results

2004 election
Con – 45,230 – 32.4%
Lab – 34,214 – 24.5%
LD – 23,440 – 16.8%
Green – 9,395 – 6.7%
Ukip – 14,698 – 10.5%
Respect – 4,229 3.0%
CPA – 3,024 – 2.2%
Ind – 5,285 – 3.8%
Turnout – 37.3%

2000 election
Con – 44,850 – 37.4%
Lab – 38,038 – 31.7%
LD – 22,177 – 18.5%
Green – 11,788 – 9.8%
*Respect – 2,977 – 2.5%
Turnout – 33.5%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Enfield and Haringey

Held by: Labour

Enfield and Haringey is the most marginal assembly constituency, with Joanne McCartney having a narrow 1,574 majority for Labour. It is a starkly divided chunk of north London in terms of its voting patterns. There is a Lib Dem redoubt in the western half of Haringey, in the parliamentary seat of Hornsey and Wood Green that they gained in 2005, while Tottenham, in eastern Haringey, is solidly Labour. Enfield is just as divided, with a strongly Labour area in the south-eastern corner at Edmonton and steadily safer Conservative territory as one moves north and west.

Labour were probably saved in 2004 by some good fortune among the minor party nominations. Ukip ate a bit into the Conservative vote, particularly in Enfield, and some who had voted for an independent pro-Livingstone candidate in 2000 returned to Labour. The result was that the swing against Labour was very small and the Tories were disappointed in 2004.

The Conservatives will be hoping that it is third time lucky in 2008. Elections since 2004 have been mixed. While the Conservatives picked up the Enfield Southgate seat on a high swing in 2005 they missed out on Enfield North. Labour led with 46% of the vote to 28% Conservative and 20% Lib Dem, in the constituencies in the two boroughs in 2005. Labour can find more grounds for optimism from the 2006 borough elections in this seat than most others, having fought off a determined Lib Dem challenge in Haringey and seen an unusual pro-Labour swing in Enfield. The Lib Dems have a solid base in western Haringey but not much support elsewhere. It will be an interesting election.

Results

2004 election
Con – 32,381 – 27.9%
Lab – 33,955 – 29.2%
LD – 19,720 – 17%
Green – 10,310 – 8.9%
Ukip – 10,652 – 9.2%
Respect – 6,855 – 5.9%
CPA – 2,365 – 2%
Turnout – 36.1%

2000 election
Con – 31,207 – 29.2%
Lab – 34,509 – 32.2%
LD – 14,319 – 13.4%
Green – 10,761 – 10.1%
*Respect – 3,671 – 3.4%
Other – 12,581 – 11.8%
Turnout – 34.3%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Greenwich and Lewisham

Held by: Labour

Greenwich and Lewisham in south-east London form the basis for what should be a safe Labour assembly constituency, which the party has had no trouble holding even in bad years like 2000 and 2004.

Lewisham has three safe Labour seats, and Greenwich comprises one-and-a-half safe Labour seats, plus a marginal seat in Eltham. Although a loss seems unlikely, Labour needs to watch Greenwich and Lewisham a little more closely in 2008, particularly if the Conservatives manage to reclaim support lost to Ukip in 2004.

Having been a model Labour authority, Lewisham fell to divided control in 2006, electing a Labour Mayor but depriving the party of a majority on the council. The peculiarity of Lewisham is that, even for London, its politics is variegated.

It has the largest Green group on any London borough (six councillors including list assembly member Darren Johnson), enclaves of socialist and Conservative support and a fair scattering of Lib Dems.

Greenwich stayed Labour, but the Conservatives polled well in the Eltham section of the borough and it is a more straightforward two party authority.

Greenwich and Lewisham in 2008 may, like North East in 2004, end up seeing a comfortable Labour win despite the party’s share of the vote falling below 30%, as four other parties will be scrapping to pick up support.

Results

2004 election
Con - 22,168 – 20.4%
Lab – 36,251 – 33.3%
LD – 19,183 – 17.6%
Green – 11,271 – 10.4%
Ukip – 13,454 – 12.4%
Respect – 2,825 – 2.6%
CPA – 3,619 – 3.3%
Turnout – 35.1%

2000 election
Con – 22,401 – 23.6%
Lab – 40,386 – 42.6%
LD – 16,290 – 17.2%
Green – 11,839 – 12.5%
*Respect – 3,981 – 4.2%
Turnout – 32.2%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Havering and Redbridge

Held by: Conservatives

Havering and Redbridge are the two outer eastern boroughs of London, based around Romford, Ilford and Woodford. The postal address for nearly all the area is Essex rather than London, and culturally rather than administratively much of it is white, lower middle-class south Essex rather than east London. This ambivalence towards London is reflected in its election results. Ken Livingstone won only one ward in Havering in the 2004 mayoral election, the smallest haul of any borough in London, with the rest all voting for Steve Norris. Redbridge is rather more mixed, with Ilford South being unusual in its pro-Labour voting patterns and its large ethnic minority population, but it is a minority element in this mainly white and right-of-centre assembly constituency.

The Conservatives have steadily recovered ground here in general and local elections, picking up Romford and Upminster in 2001, and Hornchurch and Ilford North in 2005. Ilford South (with the Wanstead part of the Leyton and Wanstead constituency) is the only area with a Labour MP. The Conservatives also gained Redbridge borough in 2002 and Havering in 2006. The BNP has significant support in parts of each borough, particularly Havering. Havering local politics is also complicated by a strong Residents’ Association. However, Conservative assembly member Roger Evans is overwhelmingly likely to win the election.

Results

2004 election
Con – 44,723 – 34.6%
Lab – 28,017 – 21.7%
LD – 13,646 – 10.5%
Green – 6,009 – 4.6%
Ukip – 18,297 – 14.1%
Respect – 5,185 – 4%
CPA – 2,917 – 2.3%
Res Ass – 6,925 – 5.4%
Other – 2,031 – 1.6%
Ind – 1,597 – 1.2%
Turnout – 39%

2000 election
Con – 40,919 – 37.5%
Lab – 32,650 – 30%
LD – 14,028 – 12.8%
Green – 6,803 – 6.2%
*Respect – 1,744 – 1.6%
Res Ass – 12,831 – 11.8%
Turnout – 33.5%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Lambeth and Southwark

Held by: Labour

Lambeth and Southwark are inner-city south London boroughs, stretching from the South Bank opposite Westminster and the City down through Brixton, Camberwell and Dulwich to the borders of suburbia at Streatham and Norwood. The parliamentary constituencies in the area are perhaps not a very interesting lot, with four out of five safe for Labour and the other, Southwark North and Bermondsey, safe for Simon Hughes and the Lib Dems. Local government politics in the two boroughs, however, has been interesting and explosive. The GLA results have come in something between the two, with Labour having a comfortable margin in 2000 but fighting off a strong Lib Dem challenge in 2004.

Labour should be able to win again – it would be a disaster indeed if this seat were to fall. The Lib Dem challenge here in 2004 was boosted by Hughes’s presence at the top of the ticket as mayoral candidate, a factor which will not be present in 2008. Lib Dem support in 2004 was quite localised, with strongholds in north Southwark and to a lesser extent in Streatham. The results in 2005 suggest a basically strong Labour position, with 48% of the vote to 29% for the Lib Dems and 16% for the Conservatives. Labour will also be encouraged by the 2006 borough elections, in which Lambeth was their only gain in the country in that bleak year for the party and there was also a pro-Labour movement in Southwark. Valerie Shawcross, the former leader of Croydon council, stands again for Labour.

Results

2004 election
Con – 17,379 – 15.2%
Lab – 36,280 – 31.7%
LD – 30,805 – 26.9%
Green – 11,900 – 10.4%
Ukip – 8,776 – 7.7%
Respect – 4,930 – 4.3%
CPA – 3,655 – 3.2%
Ind – 608 – 0.5%
Turnout – 33.4%

2000 election
Con – 19,238 – 19.1%
Lab – 37,985 – 37.6%
LD – 22,492 – 22.3%
Green – 13,242 – 13.1%
*Respect – 6,231 – 6.2%
Others – 1,797 – 1.7%
Turnout – 32%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Merton and Wandsworth

Held by: Conservatives

Merton and Wandsworth constituency covers a stretch of south-west London. Its innermost corner is at the New Covent Garden market at Nine Elms, and it stretches outwards as far as Putney Heath, Wimbledon Common, Mitcham and Morden.

Its political geography is rather unusual, in that the outer borough of Merton is better for Labour than the inner borough, Wandsworth. In 2004 Labour was ahead in a solid clutch of wards in Mitcham and Morden, and immediately across the border in the south Tooting wards of Wandsworth. The Conservatives led everywhere else, except one ward in Battersea. Merton and Wandsworth also saw a big gap between voting patterns for the assembly and mayor, with Ken Livingstone sweeping all but a few wards, even in Tory strongholds like riverside Putney and suburban Wimbledon.

It appears that voters in Wandsworth in particular, who often split their ticket between Labour for government and the local Conservative council, make distinctions at GLA level as well. In the 2005 general election, despite gaining Putney and Wimbledon and narrowly missing Battersea, the Conservatives still lagged 43-36 behind Labour, although this does not mean much for the 2008 assembly contest.

The Conservatives have won both assembly constituency elections in Merton and Wandsworth and should have little difficulty in adding a third. Their incumbent, Elizabeth Howlett, stands down and is replaced by Richard Tracey, the former MP for Surbiton who lost his seat in 1997.

Results

2004 election

Con – 48,295 – 38.8%
Lab – 31,417 – 25.3%
LD – 17,864 – 14.4%
Green – 10,163 – 8.2%
Ukip – 8,327 – 6.7%
Respect – 4,291 – 3.4%
CPA – 2,782 – 2.2%
Ind – 1,240 – 1%
Turnout – 38.5%

2000 election
Con – 45,308 – 39.5%
Lab – 32,438 – 28.3%
LD – 12,496 – 10.9%
Green – 8,491 – 7.4%
*Respect – 1,450 – 1.3%
Other – 14,432 – 12.6%
Turnout – 36.4%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

North East

Held by: Labour

North East comprises the boroughs of Islington, Hackney and Waltham Forest. Like many assembly constituencies, it is a radial slice of London stretching from the heart of the metropolis at Clerkenwell all the way to the green spaces of Epping Forest. In North East the inner-city elements predominate, with Chingford being the only real piece of Tory suburbia included. North East, particularly in the central band of the seat from north Islington through Hackney to Walthamstow, is extremely culturally and ethnically diverse.

The two Labour victories in 2000 and 2004 do not mean that North East is an entirely safe and uninteresting seat, even though Labour did lead in the vast majority of areas included in it. The Liberal Democrats are the main electoral competition to Labour in most of North East in parliamentary and local elections, having a firm base in Leyton and Walthamstow within the Waltham Forest borough, and running Islington council. However, in 2004 they were only slightly ahead of the Conservatives. North East is also the strongest constituency for the Green party in first-past-the-post elections, with support highest in north Islington and parts of Hackney. With fairly significant Respect and Ukip votes in 2004, the voting pattern was very fragmented.

The prospects for 2008 suggest that a third Labour victory is the most likely outcome. Labour did reasonably well in the elections for the three borough councils in the area in 2006, and the Lib Dems fell back in their Islington heartland. Without a clearly defined challenger and a very diverse electorate, Labour could prevail again on a rather low share of the vote.

Results

2004 election
Con – 23,264 – 18.1%
Lab – 37,380 – 29.1% ns
LD – 24,042 – 18.7%
Green – 16,739 – 13%
Ukip – 11,459 – 8.9%
Respect – 11,184 – 8.7%
CPA – 3,219 – 2.5%
Comm – 1,378 – 1.1%
Turnout – 33.9%

2000 election
Con – 20,975 – 17.8%
Lab – 42,459 – 36.1%
LD – 24,856 – 21.1%
Green – 18,382 – 15.6%
*Respect – 8,269 – 7%
Others – 2,645 – 2.3%
Turnout – 33%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

South West

Held by: Conservatives

South West comprises the boroughs of Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston. It is a curious constituency in that it has elected a Conservative assembly member twice but still does not have any Conservative parliamentary constituencies within its borders. It straddles the Thames and also the political divide between the south-western suburbs and west London. In 2004, each of the component boroughs was very close, with Labour 505 votes ahead of the Conservatives in Hounslow, and Lib Dem leads over the Conservatives in Richmond of 226 and in Kingston a comparatively handsome 531 votes.

Labour’s best areas were Heston and Brentford, the Lib Dems polled best in Surbiton and Twickenham, and the Conservatives had some votes everywhere but were ahead in Chiswick, Barnes, west Feltham and north Kingston.

South West remains a Lib Dem target in 2008, although the task of beating the Conservatives in Richmond and Kingston while minimising their deficit in Hounslow, and appealing to Labour tactical voters, looks difficult. In the 2005 general election they were ahead, with 39% of the vote compared to 33% for the Conservatives and 23% for Labour, but this was with the help of personal and tactical votes for two well-established MPs. The 2006 borough elections were a confused picture, with the Lib Dems gaining Richmond from the Conservatives while the Conservatives did relatively well in Kingston and Hounslow. Stephen Knight, the deputy leader of Richmond council, will see if it is third time lucky for the Lib Dems in South West.

Results

2004 election
Con – 48,858 – 33%
Lab – 25,225 – 17%
LD – 44,791 – 30.3%
Green – 9,866 – 6.7%
Ukip – 12,477 – 8.4%
Respect – 3,785 – 2.6%
CPA – 3,008 – 2%
Turnout – 40.3%

2000 election
Con – 48,248 – 35.4%
Lab – 31,065 – 22.8%
LD – 41,189 – 30.2%
Green – 13,426 – 9.9%
*Respect – 2,319 – 1.7%
Turnout – 38.2%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under “Respect”

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

West Central

Held by: Conservatives

The West Central assembly seat comprises the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster. Most of the electorate in the latter two boroughs consists of extremely affluent residents of central London, with wards in Chelsea and Belgravia racking up 70% or higher Conservative shares of the vote. In recent decades Fulham has swung strongly to the Conservatives, and some Fulham wards can rival the more established wealthy areas for monolithic Conservative voting. There is something of a north-south divide in the seat, with the north-west corner of Westminster, North Kensington and Shepherd’s Bush being Labour’s better areas.

While Labour polled the most votes in the 1997 general election in the area, it was always going to be one of the Conservatives’ better bets to elect a constituency member and so it proved in 2000 and 2004 by a considerable margin. The incumbent member, Angie Bray, is stepping down to concentrate on campaigning for the new marginal parliamentary seat of Ealing Central and Acton. Conservatives won the Hammersmith and Fulham constituency in 2005 and the borough council in 2006. Kit Malthouse, a former Westminster councillor, inherits a safe assembly seat.

Results

2004 election
Con – 51,884 – 44.7%
Lab – 21,940 – 18.9%
LD – 17,478 – 15.1%
Green – 10,762 – 9.3%
Ukip – 7,219 – 6.2%
Respect – 4,825 – 4.2%
CPA – 1,993 – 1.7%
Turnout – 35.3%

2000 election
Con – 47,117 – 44.2%
Lab – 28,838 – 27.1%
LD – 14,071 – 13.2%
Green – 12,254 – 11.5%
*Respect – 2,720 – 2.6%
Other – 1,600 – 1.5%
Turnout – 34.2%

*London Socialist Alliance vote given under Respect

Source: The House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/48

Comments Off