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. If Goldsmith wins the mayoralty he should take Enfield unless it is an extremely narrow win. In 2012 Boris took Enfield by 34377 to Ken’s 33670. I don’t think demographic change has been so rapid that that should be discounted as a benchmark. I’m not convinced Zac is currently on track to win the mayoralty though.

  2. That, in a nutshell, highlights the mountain Goldsmith faces and how unlikely he is to win.

    He needs to win boroughs like Enfield and Redbridge even if he gets 70% of the second preference vote in the Bexleys and Bromleys. There is no way he will win Enfield unless Khan’s campaign stumbles disastrously.

    Goldsmith will probably get much less enthusiastic support than Boris in Bromley, Bexley and Havering, on account of his snooty environmentalism. He won’t connect with the cab driver demographic the way Boris does (or did, prior to Uber).

    All in all I’m expecting Khan to win London by 10% or more. I notice the early predictors of Goldsmith’s victory such as AndyJS and Christian have gone extremely quiet on the subject.

  3. If London swung in line with the rest of England, there is no reason why the Conservative mayoral candidate should not pick up areas like Enfield and Redbridge., and become Mayor. The problem is that London is swinging heavily towards Labour as compared to the rest of the country, not least because of the numbers of overseas voters, and their children, coming onto the register. It is difficult to see another Conservative following Boris Johnson as Mayor whilst this trend continues.

  4. I would be extremely surprised if Goldsmith won the mayoralty at this stage, there are just simply too many tribally loyal Labour votes in London nowadays. In hindsight what Boris did was pretty remarkable (eve though the margin was fairly narrow both times), winning twice in what is essentially a Labour city and the second time when the Tories were extremely unpopular nationally in the aftermath of the Omnishambles budget. I suppose Boris was also blessed in having the unpopular, gaffe prone Livingstone as an opponent in both elections.

    I wonder what boroughs Goldsmith will actually carry in London? I would think, barring a complete Tory meltdown, he can be pretty certain of carrying Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon, Richmond, Kingston, Sutton, Bromley, Bexley and Havering. I am currently thinking he will carry these plus Harrow and Hammersmith and Fulham.

  5. Are Labour votes in London “tribally loyal”? They seem to have lost the traditional whiite working class vote; but in London, unlike the provinces, they seem able to replace it by a more idealistic (and arguablly extreme) hard left vote. But I don’t have much evidence about this, it is admittedly an impressionist view: can anybody supply more harder evidence?

  6. It is possible for another Tory to win the mayoralty but it is hard to see it happening without a particularly good campaign, and perhaps the luck Boris had in facing Ken twice. So far Sadiq seems to be making use of his greater experience in front-line politics to run a very solid campaign that is both keeping the left on side and getting fairly good write ups in the Standard. Meanwhile Zac has been fairly lacklustre, mainly engaging in a negative campaign attempting to associate Sadiq with Corbyn. There is still time but not much time – only just over three months to polling day.

  7. As someone living in the sticks, miles away from London, I would make two points.

    1/ Both Livingstone and Johnson were well known nationally and beyond, which is not the case with either Khan or Goldsmith, to the same extent. They will not therefore have the benefit of recognition with the less politically aware.

    2/ Goldsmith’s tactic of associating Corbyn with Khan, would appear to be a waste of time, when Livingstone won twice (once as independent) and has always been associated with the left.

  8. Livingstone had a funny sort of populist appeal with Londoners in the early 2000s that extended to many who aren’t natural lefties and are probably very unlikely to vote for a Corbyn-led Labour. So associating Khan with JC isn’t entirely stupid – it may win votes in outer London especially. But mayoral elections are, as history suggests, ultimately about the candidates and largely detached from national developments so it would be silly to go too hard on it. Goldsmith will need to beat Khan himself, not just Corbyn.

  9. “Livingstone had a funny sort of populist appeal with Londoners in the early 2000s that extended to many who aren’t natural lefties and are probably very unlikely to vote for a Corbyn-led Labour.”

    Indeed. I regret it with hindsight, but even I voted for Livingstone in 2008. I (wrongly) thought Boris would be a total buffoon and it’s the only time I’ve ever voted Labour in more than 20 years of voting.

    In 2000, remember Livingstone ran as an Independent, enabling a lot of Tories to vote for him. I did some campaigning for Norris in Bromley that year and there were huge numbers of Tory voters going for Livingstone.

    You have to remember that the abolition of the GLC in 1986 left London transport in a mess which got worse and worse as every year went by, and by 2000 some radical solutions were needed which only Livingstone seemed to be willing to answer. The congestion charge being the most obvious example, which despite Tony Blair being petrified of it proved to be a big vote winner and IMO Livingstone deserves huge credit for it. Also for the stunning success of London Overground, securing the Olympics and pushing CrossRail through a reluctant Treasury.

    For a decade or so these achievements pushed Livingstone’s loony left associations into the distant mists of time, but they came back in his 2012 campaign with the Lee Jasper stuff and have dominated his public persona again ever since.

  10. ‘Livingstone had a funny sort of populist appeal with Londoners in the early 2000s that extended to many who aren’t natural lefties and are probably very unlikely to vote for a Corbyn-led Labour.”

    That’s very true

    I know many Tory-voting friends who voted Ken in 2000 and 2004 when he was invited back into the fold

    You only have to look at the map – in 2000 he won against the very electable Steve Norris in every borough, except Bromley and Westminster

    For the most part, Livingstone was actually quite a credible mayor and it does seem odd that since his defeat in 2008 he has returned to his old Left-Wing policies which helped make Labour so unelectable in the 1980s

  11. “You only have to look at the map – in 2000 he won against the very electable Steve Norris in every borough, except Bromley and Westminster”

    Having campaigned for him, I can tell you Norris was not at all popular on the doorsteps. The best you could say was that he was more electable than Jeffrey Archer. In 2004, Norris’s association with Jarvis was a significant drag on his campaign, with the Potters Bar rail crash still quite fresh in the mind.

    Having said that I agree with the rest of your post.

  12. “You have to remember that the abolition of the GLC in 1986 left London transport in a mess which got worse and worse as every year went by, and by 2000 some radical solutions were needed which only Livingstone seemed to be willing to answer.”

    This is very true. I am just about old enough to remember the Tube in the late 1990s/very early 2000s and it really had been allowed to get into a very bad state. Badly graffitied trains with ripped cushions were common and the service was much less reliable than it is now (that all the complaints these days are about the franchised mainline routes into London says a lot for how much the Tube and London Overground has benefited from investment). There were also lots of stations, even in central London, that evidently hadn’t seen a lick of paint for about 30 years. In the end it was probably the fact of the mayoralty rather than Ken’s particular talents that delivered change but with his history people looked to Ken as the person to turn things around. To be fair he pushed for things that others might not have and they have paid off – nobody would now say we shouldn’t have a congestion charge and London Overground has been such a success that even the Tories are strongly in favour of further extending what is essentially a nationalisation programme.

  13. “In the end it was probably the fact of the mayoralty rather than Ken’s particular talents that delivered change”

    I disagree with that. Tony Blair was determined to engineer the election of a New Labour stooge as mayor in 2000. Such a figure would not have stood up to Blair and Brown over issues like the congestion charge, Crossrail and Overground, all of which were opposed by the government as either too expensive or electorally risky. It took someone as tenacious as Livingstone to give the mayoralty the power to stand up to the government that Boris has continued with.

  14. ‘I am just about old enough to remember the Tube in the late 1990s/very early 2000s and it really had been allowed to get into a very bad state.’

    I’m just about old enough to remember what the tube was like in the late 1980s very early 1990s and it was considerably worst then

    Livingstone’s finest hour for me was the resonating speech he gave after the 7/7 undergound bombing attacks where he condemned the “cowardly attacks against normal, working class Londoners”.

    Judging by his answer on Question Time to a question a few weeks ago, that’s another ‘sane’ view he seems to have changed his mind about

  15. “I am just about old enough to remember the Tube in the late 1990s/very early 2000s and it really had been allowed to get into a very bad state.”

    When I moved to London in 1995, the tube seemed a bit less dilapidated than I remembered it when I visited as a child in the early/mid 1980s. The problem was that the population growth in London, which we are seeing in spades now, had already started, so the tube and the trains were getting busier with almost no investment in new capacity.

    Very similar thing with the buses. When I lived on Edgware Road in 95/96 you had to wait ages for a bus, which when it eventually turned up was always a narrow, chugging routemaster packed like a sardine tin. These days, like all main roads in London, it is choc a bloc with too many buses, all with plenty of space.

  16. Reckon I would have voted for Ken as an Indy in 2000. Even I as then only an occasional visitor to London recognized public transport was the main thing that needed sorting out. Ken was sound on that, while I always thought Steve Norris was a bit of a road enthusiast.

    Was never keen on Norris, so not sure what I’d have done in 2004 when Ken was Labour again.

  17. “while I always thought Steve Norris was a bit of a road enthusiast.”

    Yes, this was also a drag on Norris in 2000.

    As a minister in the 1990s he caused a lot of controversy by refusing to ban “bull bars” on the front of jeeps and SUVs, which were thought to be responsible for a number of pedestrian deaths every year. Defending Chelsea tractors doesn’t generally go down well on London doorsteps even in the nicer suburbs.

  18. Of course the things Ken has very irresponsible views on – the economy, defence, foreign policy etc. – don’t fall within the Mayor of London’s responsibilities. Probably explains in part why Londoners that would never support somebody like him for PM were able to support him as Mayor.

  19. ‘As a minister in the 1990s he caused a lot of controversy by refusing to ban “bull bars” on the front of jeeps and SUVs’

    And he refused to be interviewed about it too – which back in the mid 90s was really seen as a sign of it being unjustifiable

    However I thought in the 2000 mayor race he campaigned on keeping the tube open throughout the night

    The Tories obviously thought his socially wet and economically dry policies would be appealing to Londoners – and he did at least beat the official Labour candidate – Northerner Frank Dobson – into 2nd place, which in 2000 was some feat for any Tory – especially in Labour-leaning London

  20. “The Tories obviously thought his socially wet and economically dry policies would be appealing to Londoners – and he did at least beat the official Labour candidate – Northerner Frank Dobson – into 2nd place, which in 2000 was some feat for any Tory – especially in Labour-leaning London”

    Yes, but there was a proper London Labour candidate already in waiting “Ken Livingstone”, who was cheated of the nomination by the way the London Labour electoral college was set up for the nominating process, and the arm twisting of some union leaderships by New Labour aparatchiks, to ensure that some trade unions didn’t ballot their members to decide who the TU votes would be cast for.

    I still believe more London Labour Party members will have voted for Ken than Frank as 1st preference that year, although it’s impossible to prove one way or the other.

  21. “However I thought in the 2000 mayor race he campaigned on keeping the tube open throughout the night”

    As many have done ever since, with too little thought as to how they are going to make it happen in practice, especially getting the tube unions to agree.

    London is also full of more local controversies at borough level which Norris had a bad habit of putting his foot right into. In Bromley he enraged the local Tories by backing Lambeth’s objections to their proposed redevelopment of Crystal Palace park, which contributed heavily to the scheme collapsing. With hindsight he was right to do so but it undoubtedly cost him a lot of grassroots workers in the borough, many of whom refused to vote for him.

    “The Tories obviously thought his socially wet and economically dry policies would be appealing to Londoners – and he did at least beat the official Labour candidate – Northerner Frank Dobson – into 2nd place, which in 2000 was some feat for any Tory – especially in Labour-leaning London”

    Even a Tory was less unpopular than a New Labour stooge candidate in that election. It was basically a good way of kicking Blair in the balls without risking a Tory government.

  22. Indeed, I think the 2000 mayoral election probably marked the end point of Blair’s long honeymoon with the electorate.

  23. By then the Tories had already topped the poll at the European election a year earlier, though on a pitiful turnout.

    But, yes, Blair was made to pay in 1999/2000 for failing to appreciate what devolution meant. He thought that he could create a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a London mayoralty but control them in essentially the same way the government had controlled the Scotland Office, the Wales Office and the Government Office for London. He was wrong – devolution was about taking power away from the centre, not just powers, and perceived meddling went down very badly indeed.

  24. “I wonder what boroughs Goldsmith will actually carry in London? I would think, barring a complete Tory meltdown, he can be pretty certain of carrying Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, Barnet, Hillingdon, Richmond, Kingston, Sutton, Bromley, Bexley and Havering. I am currently thinking he will carry these plus Harrow and Hammersmith and Fulham.”

    I think this is a pretty accurate prediction of the boroughs that Goldsmith will carry. Barnet and Harrow may have been more competitive if Labour had a centrist leadership and/or if Jowell (maybe) was their candidate.

  25. Ealing and Merton in the past would have been a strong Goldsmith prospect and Hounslow would have been perceived possible.

    The Conservatives would not have won these boroughs but they would have got a good vote in Lambeth (due to Streatham and Norwood), Southwark (due to Dulwich), Greenwich (due to Eltham), Newham (due to Newham South), Lewisham (Lewisham East and Lewisham West) and Brent (due to Brent North). Now these boroughs are solidly Labour.

  26. I think H&F and Harrow are more likely to be carried by him, than Redbridge. Having spent some time last summer in the latter, it’s not hard to see which direction the borough is moving in. Maybe even in spite of Corbyn as Labour leader. Woodford remains solidly Conservative, Wanstead seems to be moving to Labour and Ilford is starting to resemble East Ham in places (but not as depressing yet). There’s probably some middle class/LMC presence north of the town centre.

  27. In fact Goldsmith probably has a better chance of winning Merton (not that I think he’ll win that either) than he does Ilford (or Enfield for that matter). The Tories were only 4,300 behind Labour in Merton in May compared to about 7,000 behind in Ilford. Goldsmith will also probably more appealing to the wealthy Tory base in Merton (Wimbledon) than he will be to what’s left of the Tory base/swing voters in Enfield and Redbridge.

  28. “Merton would be a shock but then if the turnout is high in Wimbledon it’s not outside the bounds of possibility that it could outvote MM and thus enable Goldsmith to carry Merton. Highly unlikely but not impossible.”

    As Trinity and Dundonald are getting wealthier, Lower Morden, Cannon Hill and West Barnes are demogrpahically going in Labour’s direction. Those wards in ten years time will resemble East Mitcham.

  29. As a guide here are the boroughs Boris won in 2012, and the margins:

    Bromley – 45978
    Richmond upon Thames – 26964
    Havering – 26303
    Barnet – 25604
    Wandsworth – 22131
    Bexley – 21446
    Kensington and Chelsea – 18851
    Sutton – 17649
    Hillingdon – 17141
    Westminster – 15011
    Kingston upon Thames – 13886
    Hammersmith and Fulham – 12846
    Croydon – 9697
    Harrow – 7468
    Merton – 4085
    City of London – 965 (n.b.: very small electorate)
    Enfield – 707

    The sizes of majorities are obviously effected by the varying sizes of the electorate (I can’t be bothered to work out % and can’t find it anywhere) but the point is that, given how narrow Boris’s 2012 win was, Zac pretty much needs to match this. Will be very tough.

    Also for reference, Ken took the following narrowly:

    Hounslow – 156
    Redbridge – 1227
    Greenwich – 3974

  30. I think Enfield should be carried by Khan reasonably well, given that continued demographic change has probably swung further to Labour in four years, Boris’ personal vote has gone and he himself only took it by a knife edge in 2012.

    Merton and Croydon should definitely be the ones to look out for this time around.

  31. Quite a result here, confirming the general view that this is trending Labour:

    Goldsmith 10677 40.9%
    Khan 10632 40.8%

    With postals the gap will have been wider, but even so this no longer looks like a seat Labour would need a landslide year to win.

  32. If Labour manages to somehow take this in 2020 it definitely won’t be because of the leadership. Since the 2014 locals, it’s become very very obvious where trends are going.

  33. I note Labour carried Southgate Green and Southgate in the constituency member election as well as Chase over in Enfield North.

  34. Certainly looking at these results if the North London boundaries are broadly unchanged, as per the 2013 proposal, if I were Labour I’d be targeting this far more than Hendon or Harrow East.

  35. Excluding postal, Harrow W was Khan 43.1, Goldsmith 39. So a similar result to the GE, though with postal it may have been closer. It certainly looks a decent prospect for being regained at the moment, and if the boundary review gives the seat back the strong Tory wards currently in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner then it is possible it will already be notionally Tory at the 2020 GE.

  36. ‘2016 was a worse year for the Tories than 2014?’

    Was it? In 2014 Labour led by 11.3% in London, on 2016 mayoral first preferences they led by 9.2%.

    Also, whilst we have often discussed the demographic change here in the past on these boundaries I don’t think Burrowes is likely to be in serious danger in an election the Tories win.

  37. 25% of the electorate here are “white other”. That must be one of the largest non-British white populations of any seat. What is the dominant group….Turks?

  38. Greek Cypriots as well.

  39. I’m certainly no expert on Enfield (or London) so you’d have to ask a local but the data does seem to suggest Enfield is trending Lab, demographically and the resulting elections. Even in the whitest, most middle class and most elderly ward in the borough (Cockfosters) Lab managed their best ever result in 2014 and the Tories managed their worst.

    Southgate certainly isn’t trending Lab as quickly as the other Enfield seats, indeed the fact that Lab won North in a year like 2015 when the seat didn’t contain Labs historically strongest ward in the old seat (Ponders End) is telling. I imagine the Tories will only ever win North in a very good year now and if Ponders End is added probably not even then.

    Its due to the strictness of the quota, once upon a time the quota was flexible and the BC was able to draw sensible looking seats, so if a borough could be split in half with two seats with electorates of 70,000 it was fine, now though they would be undersized and would HAVE to add wards from neighbouring boroughs to make the quota. I agree the quota is far too rigid at +/- 5% it should be 10% I think.

    The boundary assistant site I linked you too a while ago has the updated figures for the whole country so you can mess around on that.

  40. I think Barnet is fine on its current boundaries if you just add one ward from Camden or Haringey to Finchley and GG. Of course there may be knock-on effects from neighbouring boroughs but if possible I think the BC will want to minimise disruption and will be reluctant to start fiddling with one of the bits that adds up to start with!

    East Barnet and Cockfosters/Southgate do fit together quite well and if really necessary I don’t see why you couldn’t make a cross-borough seat out of that.

  41. What’s not sensible about Dulwich & West Norwood? Dulwich and Norwood are very similar – despite the stereotype, only a minority of Dulwich (the village) is posh. Arguably the seat is more sensible than the old Dulwich on 1983-97 boundaries which contained most of Camberwell and the fringes of Peckham. The bit of D&WN which doesn’t fit so well is the bit of Brixton within its borders, though most of this was only added in 2010.

    I’ll give you Leyton & Wantead, a most unsatisfactory seat, though Wanstead is fast trending to Labour these days.

  42. FWIW here are my proposals for Enfield and Barnet

    Edmonton (possibly Edmonton and Grange)
    Current Edmonton minus Ponders End, plus Grange and Winchmore Hill

    Enfield North
    Current seat plus Ponders End

    Southgate and East Barnet
    All the remaining Enfield wards plus East Barnet, Brunswick Park and Coppets

    Chipping Barnet
    What Remains of Chipping Barnet plus Mill Hill, Hale and Edgware

    Finchley and Golders Green
    Current seat plus the ward of Hendon

    Brent Cross
    The remaining Hendon wards plus from Brent Queensbury, Fryent, Welsh Harp, Dudden Hill, Dollis Hill and Mapesbury. Note I’m not a huge fan of this last seat.

  43. That would change the political complexion quite a bit. Right now the three Barnet are all quite similar. That arrangement would make Chipping Barnet much safer again and create Brent Cross as what would surely be a Labour seat.

  44. Jack
    Indeed it would change the composition of seats in the area pretty significantly. One would wonder given the trends in outer London could Lab ever win my proposed Chipping Barnet? The notional Tory majority for 2015 would have been about 40%

  45. @rivers10 ever is a long time but I seriously doubt Labour could come even vaguely close in that seat any time in the short or medium term. The parts of Chipping Barnet trending Labour you have moved into Southgate (with the exception of Underhill) i.e Coppetts, Brunswick Park and East Barnet. In their place you have added wards (Edgware, Hale, Mill Hill) which are essentially static or where the Tory vote is starting to shore up. It is simply a myth that all of North London is trending Labour, look at the direction of travel of the West Hendon ward for example. North East London is definitely trending Labour but North West London really isn’t (it did for a time but the trends appeared to have stopped or have begun to reverse).

  46. Though I do think Harrow West may be beginning the process of ‘coming home’ (i.e. will start voting Tory again).

  47. @PEPPERMINTTEA

    And Underhill probably won’t be trending Labour for very long, given that the Dollis Valley estate is in the process of being pulled down and replaced by much nicer housing.

  48. I am inclined to agree re my Chipping Barnet, it would probably be Tory for the very foreseeable future if not forever.

    Re Brent North I’m a bit sceptical that it will trend back to the Tories any time soon, my reasoning is peculiar but as far a I am aware no seat has ever drifted from being safe for one party to being safe for the opposing party and then back again if you get my meaning, (any examples that anyone can think of?) it may yet happen but it will probably be several decades yet.

  49. “The demographics of Brent North and Harrow East don’t seem too different but I would need a local perspective on each.”

    Brent North is much more downmarket than Harrow East nowadays. That of course is a reverse since the 1980s when Brent North was a safer seat than Harrow East and Harrow Central, and arguably a nicer area. Nevertheless the area is now quite tatty, and it is a less wealthy and newer Asian population than in Harrow.

    It is also important to remember that Brent North gained part of the old Brent South seat in the 2010 boundary changes, which significantly boosted Labour’s majority.

  50. Yeah the Tories aren’t winning Brent North unless there is some serious gentrificantion (which there likely won’t be). The will probably continue to hold the Kenton ward by large margins and stabilise in Northwick Park but that is probably the best they can hope for really.

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)