Enfield, Southgate

2015 Result:
Conservative: 22624 (49.4%)
Labour: 17871 (39%)
Lib Dem: 1518 (3.3%)
Green: 1690 (3.7%)
UKIP: 2109 (4.6%)
MAJORITY: 4753 (10.4%)

Category: Semi-marginal Conservative seat

Geography: Greater London. Part of the Enfield council area.

Main population centres: Southgate, Hadley Wood.

Profile: This the the prosperous, leafy western part of the Borough of Enfield and natural Conservative territory. It is more cosmopolitan than the Conservative suburbs of south-east London, there are sizeable Muslim, Jewish and Cypriot populations here, and the Bowes Park area to the south of the constituency is solidly Labour, but overall Southgate tends towards a middle-class Conservative area. To the north the seat becomes semi-rural as it takes in Trent Park and the Middlesex University campus and stretches into the hugely expensive Hadley Wood area.

Politics: Enfield Southgate is normally a reliable Conservative seat that was famously won by Labour in 1997. Many elections have particular contests that capture the public imagination and Stephen Twigg`s victory over Michael Portillo in Enfield Southgate symbolised the Labour victory in 1997 in the same way that David Amess`s defence of Basildon characterised the Conservative win in 1992. A book about election night 1997 by the journalist Brian Cathcart was later published with the title "Were you still up for Portillo?". Enfield Southgate was won back by the Conservatives in 2005 and its brief time as a Labour seat seems to have been an aberration in its otherwise constant representation by the Conservative party.


Current MP
DAVID BURROWES (Conservative) Born 1969, Cockfosters. Educated at Highgate School and Exeter University. Former solicitor. Former Enfield councillor. Contested Edmonton 2001. First elected as MP for Enfield Southgate in 2005. Founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship along with Tim Montgomerie.
Past Results
2010
Con: 21928 (49%)
Lab: 14302 (32%)
LDem: 6124 (14%)
GRN: 632 (1%)
Oth: 1366 (3%)
MAJ: 7626 (17%)
2005*
Con: 18830 (45%)
Lab: 17083 (40%)
LDem: 4724 (11%)
GRN: 1083 (3%)
Oth: 490 (1%)
MAJ: 1747 (4%)
2001
Con: 16181 (39%)
Lab: 21727 (52%)
LDem: 2935 (7%)
GRN: 662 (2%)
Oth: 403 (1%)
MAJ: 5546 (13%)
1997
Con: 19137 (41%)
Lab: 20570 (44%)
LDem: 4966 (11%)
Oth: 518 (1%)
MAJ: 1433 (3%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

Demographics
2015 Candidates
DAVID BURROWES (Conservative) See above.
BAMBOS CHARALAMBOUS (Labour) Educated at Liverpool Polytechnic. Solicitor. Enfield councillor since 1994. Contested Epping Forest 2005, Enfield Southgate 2010.
PAUL SMITH (Liberal Democrat) Educated at Oxford University. Contested Enfield North 2010.
DAVID SCHOFIELD (UKIP) Enfield councillor 2002-2006 for the Conservatives.
JEAN ROBERTSON-MOLLY (Green)
Links
Comments - 296 Responses on “Enfield, Southgate”
  1. This would be my suggestion for the boundaries around this area:

    Enfield North: Current seat + Stamford Hill
    Enfield Southgate: Current seat + Bush Hill Park
    Tottenham North and Edmonton: the rest of the current Edmonton + Northumberland Park, White Heart Lane, West Green, Bruce Grove.
    Tottenham South and Stamford Hill: the rest of current Tottenham + Brownswood, Woodbury Down, Stamford Hill West, Cazenove, Springfield, Lea Bridge.
    Hornsey and Wood Green: Current seat (unchanged)
    Chipping Barnet: Current seat (unchanged)
    Finchley and Golders Green: Current seat + Mill Hill
    Hendon and Edgware: Current Hendon + Canons, Edgware (Harrow ward).
    Harrow East and Kenton: rest of current seat + Marlborough, Greenhill, Kenton.
    Harrow West and Pinner: rest of current seat + Hatch End, Pinner, Pinner South.

  2. Harrow East has only ever been Labour in their very best years – 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001 – with the exception of 2005, when Labour did well to hold on to all of the seats we’re talking about in North London that they’d gained in ’97 apart from Enfield Southgate. So I don’t think it has ever been a safe Labour seat. It has pretty much always been a Tory-leaning marginal, which is what it is today.

  3. Harrow East saw massive boundary changes in 2010 which subtracted 4-5000 from Labour’s 2005 majority. Basically the whole of central Harrow was moved to Harrow West. I think Harrow East would have been a Labour seat in 2010 on the 1983-2010 boundaries, perhaps not in 2015 but it certainly would not be a reliable Tory seat as it was 1983-92.

  4. It would be a similar status to the current Harrow East, perhaps slightly safer for the Tories.

    You also cannot make comparisons prior to 1983 because Harrow then had 3 seats. Harrow Central was basically made up of the less desirable south/central bit of the borough which is mostly in West today, Central would be quite a safe Labour seat if it existed now.

  5. I’ve had a go at doing all of London but south London does require at least a few rather other ugly looking seats particularly around the Croydon area. I can’t be bothered to type up the wards so I’ve typed the electorates instead:

    1. Upminster (77,109)
    2. Hornchurch and Chadwell Heath (76,094)
    3. Romford and Hainault (76,575)
    4. Dagenham (72,230)
    5. Ilford (78,212)
    6. Wanstead and Woodford (74,049)
    7. Newham North (71,782)
    8. East Ham and Barking (76,034)
    9. Poplar and Canning Town (77,434)
    10. Leyton and Walthamstow South (77,145)
    11. Chingford and Walthamstow North (71,466)
    12. Limehouse (71,445)
    13. Bethnal Green and Shoreditch (78,074)
    14. Hackney Central and Stoke Newington (74,473)
    15. Islington South and The City (71,087)
    16. Islington North and Highgate (76,861)
    17. Hampstead and Maida Vale (71,857)
    18. Holborn and St Pancras (73,268)
    19. City of Westminster (75,055)
    20. Kensington and Chelsea (76,454)
    21. Brent East (71,031)
    22. Brent West and Shepard’s Bush (77,604)
    23. Brent North (72,796)
    24. Harrow West and Pinner (76,393)
    25. Harrow East and Kenton (77,012)
    26. Hendon and Edgware (74,408)
    27. Finchley and Golders Green (78,011)
    28. Chipping Barnet (72,480)
    29. Hornsey and Wood Green (74,641)
    30. Tottenham South and Stamford Hill (77,522)
    31. Tottenham North and Edmonton (73,667)
    32. Enfield Southgate (72,787)
    33. Enfield North (74,422)
    34. Hammersmith and Fulham (71,109)
    35. Ruislip, Northwood and Northolt (78,155)
    36. Uxbridge (73,081)
    37. Southall and Heston (78,143)
    38. Hayes and Harlington (76,152)
    39. Brentford and Isleworth (72,778)
    40. Ealing South and Acton (78,017)
    41. Ealing North (72,324)
    42. Hampton and Hanworth (73,610)
    43. Richmond and Twickenham (76,553)
    44. Kingston and Surbiton (72,543)
    45. Wimbledon and Maldon (75,681)
    46. Putney and Wimbledon Park (77,676)
    47. Battersea and Clapham (76,964)
    48. Balham and Tooting (77,562)
    49. Mitcham and Morden (76,090)
    50. Streatham (77,889)
    51. Sutton and Cheam (75,224)
    52. Carshalton and Coulsdon (77,479)
    53. Croydon South and Beddington (74,837)
    54. Addington and West Wickham (78,329)
    55. Croydon North (77,813)
    56. Brixton (76,584)
    57. Vauxhall and Camberwell (78,344)
    58. Bermondsey and Old Southwark (77,623)
    59. Dulwich and Peckham (73,263)
    60. Lewisham West (76,118)
    61. Lewisham East (72,898)
    62. Greenwich and Deptford (78,023)
    63. Thamesmead (71,469)
    64. Erith and Welling (77,693)
    65. Bexleyheath and Sidcup (73,127)
    66. Eltham and Chislehurst (72,977)
    67. Bromley and Beckenham (74,971)
    68. Orpington (78,277)

    This is not in any way partisan I have tried to draw the most sensible constituencies that the numbers would allow. For example Croydon has stupidly large war sizes so arranging them in a ‘sensible’ way is pretty difficult.

  6. Some hideous proposals amongst that lot, though I accept the regulations make it inevitable. The question is where they should go. The blue rinse ladies would certainly be spitting feathers about linking Chislehurst and Eltham, and Hampton and Hanworth, I would expect some quite powerful forces to defeat ideas like that.

  7. “But parts of Richmond on Thames will have to be paired with at least a couple of wards of Hounslow”

    I think Chiswick would be the easiest social fit, though the cross-river links are better further west. Is it not possible to pair bits of Feltham & Heston with Hayes & Harlington? A much more natural fit than with Twickenham.

  8. @H.Hemmelig I never really considered linking Chiswick with Barnes/Richmond I’ll have a think about that. There are always a couple of Hounslow wards left over after drawing every other North London seat (counting Twickenham/Hampton as south London) so it might well work.

    Also how do you submit proposals. I’ve looked all over the commissions website and I can’t find any reference to it.

  9. Ask Pete Whitehead, he still posts on Vote UK I think. Also some on here like John Chanin might know.

  10. Well without knowing the exact wards its impossible to make a judgment but claiming those boundaries are not partisan is a bit rich. Some of those seats are truly horrific, much better, less disruptive alternatives could be found and just so happen to be the best amalgamation for the Tories in the area.

  11. Lol. Too true.

  12. Some of the proposals certainly are not the best amalgamation for the Tories in their remaining areas of strength in London….Chingford & Walthamstow North stands out as particularly bad for them, almost certainly a Labour seat even under Corbyn.

  13. Chingford is literally the one area of London that its impossible to be good for the Tories, an undersized seat surrounded by Lab areas. As it happens Chingford and Walthamstow North is actually one of the better arrangement’s for the Tories in the area, they would at least be competitive.

    Its actually possible to keep all of Waltham Forest contained to two seats (most arrangements including Pepperminttea’s leave one ward left over), the only possible amalgamation though is the (quite horrible) option of splitting the borough East/West. This would be a horrible arrangement for the Tories as it would create a reliable Lab seat and a notionally Lab marginal.

  14. Seriously some of these seats…

    Hampstead and Maida Vale
    Harrow West and Pinner
    Hammersmith and Fulham
    Battersea and Clapham
    Balham and Tooting
    Carshalton and Coulsdon
    Eltham and Chislehurst
    Erith and Welling
    Addingtona and West Wickham
    Ruisilip, Northwood and Northolt

    These are literally dream Tory seats. Its gerrymandering on the scale that would make Republicans in the US blush at the audacity.

  15. “Chingford is literally the one area of London that its impossible to be good for the Tories, an undersized seat surrounded by Lab areas.”

    When’s the last time you visited Woodford? That certainly isn’t a Labour area.

  16. “Why were Leyton & Wanstead and Chingford & Woodford Green created instead of Leyton & Chingford and Wanstead & Woodford Green.”

    Leyton & Chingford would have been an even more horrible seat than Leyton & Wanstead is. At least Leyton and Wanstead are both linked by the central line. Chingford would fit with Walthamstow better than Leyton.

  17. “When’s the last time you visited Woodford? That certainly isn’t a Labour area”

    I meant its already in the Chingford and Woodford Green seat though. All the surrounding wards NOT in the current seat are either solidly Lab, Lab competitive or trending Lab.

  18. Er Rivers10 I imagine you mean it metaphorically but bviously it is nowhere near as bad as the Republicans in the US (see congressional districts lik the one that runs from inner city Akron to inner city Cleveland). And the Democrats do it to look at the Maryland congressional district map if you don’t believe me.

    Plus when you give your suggestions they are almost almost alwas extremely Labour biased. nevertheless the ones you mentioned do favour the Tories (except Balham and Tooting because the boundaries I have input is losing Earlsfield and gaining Balham and Colliers Wood so the effect is largely neutral). But you also fail to mention all the seats that help Labour e.g Chingford and Walthamstow North, Ealing South and Acton as examples.

    As to Hammersmith and Fulham as I have said multiple times it is virtually inevitable due to Kensington and Chelsea’s almost certain return. Carshalton and Coulsdon is also extremely likely due to the virtual necessity for a Croydon-Sutton cross borough seat, the Lib Dems are helped out by the moving of St Helier into that seat. Battersea and Clapham is a better seat for Labour than the current Battersea so I can’t understand why you don’t like that one, it is by far the most neat arrangement that fit the quota in those parts anyway. So yo can strike at least 4 off your ‘gerrymandering’ list.

    Also with Hampstead and Maida Vale I actually (even without my partisan specs on) is by far the nicest option though. The cities of London and Westminster is forced to gobble up 3 or 4 wards from Westminster North (depending on whether it loses the City of London to Islington South or not in my proposal it does) this then leaves a sad rump of the old Westminster North left over. The poorer North Western wards fit very nicely into a Brent East seat (across Queens Park) while the richer wards gel very nicely with the Camden part of Hampstead and Kilburn. Islington North then has the Highgate ward (most of the population is closer to there than Hampstead).

  19. Peppermintea
    Re Gerrymandering in the US don’t worry I was only joking on that one, the US takes Gerrymandering to a whole new level and yes the Democrats are guilty too but an impartial observer would have to admit the Republicans are worse but that’s another issue.

    I’ll try and be fair and admit that the Carshalton and Coulsdon seat is one of the better options for the area and I’ll take your word on Balham and Tooting even though I have yet to look at the notionals for such a seat.

    However this is where the criticism starts. Battersea and Clapham and Chingfrod and Walthamstow North are both better for Lab than the current seats true but in both cases their the best (sensible proposals) for the Tories too. I already explained Chingford in an earlier post and that splitting Waltham Forest East/West (horrible as that looks) allows all of the borough to remain in two seats but would be a terrible arrangement for the Tories. As for Battersea last time the BC proposed a Vauxhall and Battersea North seat which would have been pretty safe Lab. Something along those lines makes more sense.

    And for Ealing S and Acton, two things, firstly it doesn’t help Lab by all that much, secondly though due to the size of the Ealing wards its one of the only proposals for the area that fit the quota.

    Hammersmith and Hampstead though are the real gripe to me but I’ll explain that in another post.

  20. Right looking at your Kensington/Hammersmith proposals. By placing all of the Kensington borough in one seat (something nice I admit) you have created dozens of new cross authority seats elsewhere totally negating any benefit.

    The current boroughs of Westminster (plus the city) K and C and H and F currently have 5 seats, under the new figures they’re due four. Your proposals have not only broke the historic pairing of the City with Westminster, you have created two additional cross borough seats with Camden and Brent.

    But take a look at my proposals…
    Cities of L and W gains Lancaster Gate and Bayswater from Westminster N and Brompton and Hans Town from K and C, that’s not ideal but as far as wards that fit the area Brompton fits perfectly with Westminster what with containing the Chelsea parts of Belgravia and various other museums to go along with the ones in the current Cities of L and W seat.

    Hammersmith just gains Fulham Broadway which fits the seat perfectly what with the les affluent parts of Fulham already being in the Hammersmith seat this ward being the one exception.

    The rump Westminster North is then paired with the 7 Kensington Wards that make up Notting Hill (all north of and including Norland and Pembridge) forming a new “Notting Hill and Regent’s Park” this is actually a very nice fit too of rapidly gentrifying former council estates and inner city housing, areas with a large Afro Caribbean community in both parts of the seat.

    Finally what remains of Chelsea and Fulham is paired with Kensington proper, a kinda weird reverse L type seat but one that takes in the three wealthy city worker type territories of central London.

    Bonus no dipping into other boroughs than the ones already involved.

  21. Battersea and Clapham is actually the most sensible proposal for that area, linking it to Vauxhall requires one Bats ward to be left out and the seat looks and is frankly disjoint and vile while Battersea and Clapham is pretty compact and contains all of Clapham Commmon and is a perfectly acceptable seat. Far better than pairing it with Vaauxhall to say otherwise you are jut being partisan). Yu can’t add another Wandsworth ward to the current Battersea as it makes it too large.

    Chingford ad Walthamstow North is not the best arrangement or the Tories by a log way the best would just simply to add Bridge to the existing Chingford and Woodford Green.

    Those proposals are just eww. What would you even call that reverse L seat? You have farmed out parts of Fulham to Hammersmith and parts of both Kensington and Chelsea (parts of both are in Brompton and Hans Town) to Westminster… You accuse me of gerrymandering but that is a far more partisan proposal than anything I have come up with. Thankfully the commission won’t propose it due o that horrendous reverse L and the fact they will jump at the chance to do a K&C seat.

    If you want 4 seats perfectly contained within those 3 boroughs (which I don’t think the commission will do anyway) this is a far better arrangement than that monstrosity you just proposed:

    Hammersmith and Fulham: all wards except the northern most 4
    Kensington, Chelsea and Pimlico: The aforementioned places plus Knightsbridge and Belgravia.
    Cities of London and Westminster (or City of London and Westminster East): The rest of Westminster except the 3 North Western wards.
    Shepard’s Bush and Ladbroke Grove: the remaining wards.

    Although the last one does go across 3 boroughs it is far more sensible than your proposal which was ugly and highly partisan.

  22. Peppermintea
    We’d argue all day on the Chingford and Clapham seats, for Clapham all I’m saying is that last time the BC proposed a Vauxhall and Battersea N seat, they may try and do so again. And for Chingford excuse mu use of superlatives its ONE of the best arrangements.

    I’ll focus on the central London area.

    Re the partisan nature, is it benifical to Lab yes it is but it requires one of the smallest number of ward transfers of any proposal in the area, its actually not hugely disruptive.

    Hammersmith already contains two Fulham wards adding a third isn’t a huge deal.

    Brompton fits literally PERFECTLY with Westminster. As I said it contains the Chelsea parts of Belgravia and Knightsbridge and contains several city centre museums that many folk actually think are in Westminster even though they’re not.

    As for the reverse L have you seen the current boundaries for Tyneside North, Stockton North, Weaver Vale, Ribble Valley, Gower, Aberavon, Calder Valley, Meriden, Charnwood, Bury South, Maldon, Sussex Mid, Hampshire NE, New Forest West or Tewkesbury. Seats with odd protuberances, curves, or salients are not only common they’re essential because it follows the path of natural constituencies. Not all seats need to be a perfect little circle. Am I thrilled with the seat? no but its makes a very sensible “Chelsea, Fulham and Kensington” seat. Nothing eww about it.

  23. Oh I almost forgot your alternate proposals would be vetoed from the get go since three borough seats are basically forbidden unless there is NO other option and lets be real whatever you or I think of each others original proposals that last set is the definition of a gerrymander. Shove all the Lab voting parts into one seat, crossing three boroughs…yep not partisan at all.

    I also wouldn’t be so sure Kensington and Chelsea will be paired together, it might be but there are no guaranties.

  24. @rivers10 the numbers have changes since the last review what was acceptable then in the Battersea area is not now.

    Its not even vaguely sensible and certainly will not happen as I have said you have clipped off parts of Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea into neighbouring seats. If they don’t do a K&C seat what they will probably do is expand Chelsea and Fulham north in both boroughs. Then they will add some Westminster North wards to the Kensington seat. Then expand COL into Westminster North. Then you will get a Westminster-Brent or a Westminster-Camden seat depending on which wards they decide to add to Kensington. The K&C proposals are I believe far the most likely but if not it will be something like above. You might not like it but boundary changes are not going to be Labour gerrymanders everywhere.

  25. Pepperminttea
    Putting aside specific boundaries for a moment I want to speak more generally. I enjoy debating boundaries and as I said ages ago (not sure if you read that post) I have my own ulterior reasons in that I’m curious if the BC is biased (different issue lets not get bogged down on it)

    This may come as a surprise but I’m not trying to Gerrymander. For one what’s the point its not like what we propose makes the slightest difference (on that note by all means during the public consultation submit your proposals but don’t expect much to come of it, the consultation is basically a chance for the local parties to argue with the BC, a proposal by an actual member of the public will be totally lost amongst the political manoeuvring)My not wanting to gerrymander might not always come across since I don’t comment on many seats because the boundaries are obvious (Worcester for example is going to gain a Tory voting rural ward, bad for Lab but there is no other option) but there are cases when I have proposed things that are bad for Lab or accepted them. Warrington South for example the boundaries will likely be terrible for Lab, I only commented there because the boundary that the BC will almost definitely propose is kinda stupid since it dissects the constituency but there’s no rule preventing that so hey ho. Or the discussion I had with Tory on the West riding, I didn’t write a comment stating as such but I have come to the conclusion that his proposals (better for the Tories as they are) are probably preferable. Or Teeside where I proposed Darlington taking in its rural wards, this is awful for Lab but its the obvious thing to do. Do I have slight partisan specs on? Of course its impossible to totally take them off but I’m following the BC’s own rules assiduously.

    The fact that we both are both being a wee bit partisan is actually a good thing, it means we bounce ideas off each other and its generally productive and when we first started doing this it was. However as of late (whether this is me being more attuned to it or because we have started discussing more complex areas) you have become blatantly partisan. You can deny it but its exceedingly obvious. With the exception of the Lancaster and Morecambe idea I haven’t seen you propose or accept a single unequivocally bad boundary for the Tories. You have started essentially vetoing proposals over trivial reasons, adhering to the BC’s rules only when it seems to suit you, frequently breaking the criteria that you set out to justify other seats. The description of my Chelsea seat as “horrendous” when the BC often propose much worse and I can guarantee they will in the future. What’s so bad about it? Its L shaped, so what that isn’t justification for a seat being deemed horrendous especially when the three areas it incorporates are demographically and economically identical and as I’ve said you’ve started doing this about each and every seats we discuss and it just becomes a tedious argument and takes all the fun out of it.

  26. I will accept bad boundaries for the Tories as long as it is sensible (see also I wanted to split Widnes and Runcorn into two seats). I on the other hand have never seen you come up with anything that would hurt Labour despite the fact in many places it is by far the most sensible option. However the nature of these boundary changes and electorate shifts it is highly likely that the boundary changes will not be remotely good for labour in most places. I agree the commission have done far worse but its because they have largely been forced to: here on the other hand you have a plethora of nicer options available. For example here is a far nicer option (contained within 3 boroughs) Hammersmith and Kensington North, Chelsea and Fulham, City of London and Westminster East, Kensington and Westminster West.

    Perhaps you would like these proposals more?

    Kensington and Chelsea: whole K&C borough
    Cities of London and Wesminster: Current + Church Street, Regents Park and Lancaster Gate.
    Westminster North and Queens Park: rest of Westminster North, Brent Part of Current Holborn and St Pancras + Kensal Green
    Brent Central: Current + Alperton (-Kensal Green)
    Brent North: Current (-Alperton)
    Holborn and St Pancras: Current (-Highgate)
    Islington North and Highgate: Current + Highgate
    Horsey and Wood Green: Current (unchanged)
    Hampstead: Camden part of Hampstead and Kilburn + Childs Hill, Golders Green, Garden Suburb.
    Finchley and Hendon: Finchley Church End, East Finchley, West Finchley, Woodhouse, Mill Hill, Hendon, West Hendon, Colindale.
    Chipping Barnet: Current (unchanged)
    Edgware: Hale, Burnt Oak, Edgware (from Barnet), Canons, Edgware, Kenton East, Queensbury, Belmont, Stanmore Park (from Harrow).
    Hammersmith and Fulham: all of H&F borough except the northern four wards.
    Acton and Shepard’s Bush: Shepard’s Bush Green, Askew, Wormholt and White City, College Park and Old Oak (from H&F), East Acton, Acton Central, South Acton, Southfield, Hanger Hill.

    I will try the rest of London with these arrangements later:

    These I think are pretty nice arrangements only one borough cross between Brent and Westminster. Hampstead Garden Suburb is now in the Hampstead seat etc. Believe it or not I am not trying to be difficult but I hope we can come to some kind of consensus.

  27. Well its by far the most desirable seat for a Tory, Enfield is notionally Con but as we have discussed at length its an area that’s trending Lab, Finchley and Southgate would be reliably Labour and the other two are now mega safe Labour.

    If he wants to remain an MP Chipping Barnet is the way to go

  28. I think it is more likely Burrowes will go for Enfield, despite the trend. He has been in Enfield politics for his whole political career so, even though the proposed seat contains little of his current seat, it would seem a natural fit. Though he could get Finchley and Southgate – which, though notionally worse for the Cons is long term probably a better prospect than Enfield – if Mike Freer decided to go for the Hampstead seat which includes a few wards from the current Finchley and GG.

    I agree that of the five Chipping Barnet and Mill Hill is the only one that would essentially guarantee his future as an MP (as well as significantly bolstering the CON majority, the changes take out most of the territory that was trending Labour, leaving in the most staunchly Tory parts which are showing no sign at all of trending Labour). But the proposals include only one ward from Enfield Southgate so I don’t think he’d have a strong claim in any head-to-head with Villiers. His only chance of getting the seat is probably if she stands down, which I don’t rate as especially likely.

  29. Burrowes (unsurprisingly) isn’t very happy with the proposals – http://www.davidburrowes.com/content/constituency-boundary-changes

  30. Actually I hope he succeeds with an effective counter-proposal. These proposals for the area look pretty awful.

  31. Thing is if he tried running after Cockfosters into Chipping Barnet that’s probably going to weaken his claim to Enfield N. At present he’s probably the natural inheritor by default of being the only nearby Tory MP but if he wastes his time going after Barnet another Tory could be slipped into North.

    Better to have a marginal seat than no seat at all.

  32. Mike Freer also unhappy http://www.barnet-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=113088

    I must say I don’t think the proposals for Barnet/Enfield are that bad. Whilst I can see Burrowes’ point about wanting single borough MPs that isn’t really practicable with the 5% rule and Enfield does still have two MPs for seats entirely within the borough. The parts of his seat that have been broken up, whilst within Enfield council area, in practice have equal, if not greater, links with Barnet/Finchley as with Enfield/Edmonton so if you have to have cross-borough seats they aren’t illogical ones.

    The boundaries on the Barnet/Camden border, and in Brent/Harrow, look much more of a mess to me.

  33. Hampstead and Golders Green would be a lot better if it didn’t have Golders Green in the title, despite the fact Golders Green ward isn’t in it! Even so the inclusion of Highgate (Camden) ward means the inclusion of territory that can only be reached either by crossing Hampstead Heath or by going through other constituencies, which is far from ideal. As Tulip Siddiq has been pointing out in the media it also means Kilburn High Street is divided.rather arbitrarily, though admittedly this reflects borough boundaries.

  34. Labour candidate for GE2017 is Bambos Charambolus.

  35. Which direction?
    Probably almost no swing I would think.

  36. Looks like this could be on a knife-edge, Tories slightly favoured atm I think.

  37. YouGove has this seat down as a narrow win for Labour.

  38. If so, Jeremy Corbyn will be ordering the fair trade curtains for No 10, and the police will be trying to coax Plopwellian Tory from the edge of Beachy Head….still, unlike we higher rate taxpayers, at least Plop can look forward to a financial bonus from Corbyn ie no tuition fees.

  39. Atik M – that’s a great name! [the Labour candidate here]

    Is it a Greek thing? – I’ve seen several on the Roll with almost identical first and surnames eg Christos Christopholous.

  40. The YouGov estimate has Labour 1% ahead here – to close to call. Labour are 2% ahead in Enfield North..

  41. 2015 paved the way for this Labour gain on top of demographic change. A swing of nearly 10%. I think London-wide polling pre-election indicated this as a gain, so once the exit poll was released, thought this would go Labour quite easily.

    Could Burrowes’ support for Leave hurt his chances? 55% of Enfield went Remain, so a significant portion of Leavers too, though I don’t know if ward breakdown was ever published.

  42. “Could Burrowes’ support for Leave hurt his chances?”

    Tories in London got clobbered regardless of their Brexit stance. It is true that swings to Labour were higher in the pro-remain areas, but that does not imply causation. Rather, the same ideological preferences that were behind Londonders’ remain votes – muliticulturalism, social liberalism – also caused the swing towards Labour.

  43. So Burrowes has had done to him by Bambos Charalambous what Stephen Twigg did to Michael Portillo in 1997.

  44. This constituency was estimated to have been over 60% Remain, so it’s more Remain than the other two Enfield seats.

  45. But as mentioned, it’s not that simple – seats like Barking saw big swings to Labour despite being heavily Leave.

  46. Burrowes lasted longer as the MP here than Twigg did- he served from 2005 to 2017, as opposed to Twigg who was the MP from 1997 to 2005.

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)