Hampstead & Kilburn

2015 Result:
Conservative: 22839 (42.3%)
Labour: 23977 (44.4%)
Lib Dem: 3039 (5.6%)
Green: 2387 (4.4%)
UKIP: 1532 (2.8%)
Independent: 113 (0.2%)
Others: 77 (0.1%)
MAJORITY: 1138 (2.1%)

Category: Marginal Labour seat

Geography: Greater London. Parts of Camden and Brent council areas.

Main population centres: Hampstead, Kilburn, Kendal Rise.

Profile: Hampstead itself is stereotypically, but not entirely inaccurately, portrayed as the home of the chattering classes and the liberal intelligensia, although the extreme house prices mean it is increasingly the home to city financiers, celebrities and business entrepreneurs. The desirable location, Hampstead Heath and direct transport links into central London and to Canary Wharf mean the rest of the seat is rapidly gentrifying and house prices rocketing as young professionals move into the area. Kilburn is a more socially deprived area with a large proportion of social housing and large Irish and Caribbean communities. Gentrification is having its effect even here though and the large South Kilburn council estate is in the process of being redeveloped.

Politics: Hampstead and Kilburn was created for the 2010 election, a cross borough seat based on the old Hampstead and Highgate seat of Glenda Jackson and the Brent East seat of Sarah Teather, who opted to fight the Brent Central seat instead. In 2010 the result was an extremely tight three-way finish between Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat with Labour only winning by 42 votes. In 2015 the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed, but the battle between Labour and Conservative remained tight, with Tulip Siddiq winning by only two percent.

Current MP
TULIP SIDDIQ (Labour) Born 1982, Mitcham, granddaughter of Sheikj Mujibur Rahman, first President of Bangledesh. Educated at University College London. Former corporate communications executive. First elected as MP for Hampstead & Kilburn in 2015.
Past Results
Con: 17290 (33%)
Lab: 17332 (33%)
LDem: 16491 (31%)
GRN: 759 (1%)
Oth: 950 (2%)
MAJ: 42 (0%)
Con: 10886 (29%)
Lab: 14615 (38%)
LDem: 10293 (27%)
GRN: 2013 (5%)
Oth: 366 (1%)
MAJ: 3729 (10%)
Con: 8725 (25%)
Lab: 16601 (47%)
LDem: 7273 (21%)
GRN: 1654 (5%)
Oth: 1154 (3%)
MAJ: 7876 (22%)
Con: 11991 (27%)
Lab: 25275 (57%)
LDem: 5481 (12%)
Oth: 617 (1%)
MAJ: 13284 (30%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005, name changed from Hampstead & Highgate

2015 Candidates
SIMON MARCUS (Conservative) Born Hampstead. Educated at City of London School and Kings College London. Camden councillor since 2012. Contested Barking 2010.
TULIP SIDDIQ (Labour) Born 1982, Mitcham, granddaughter of Sheikj Mujibur Rahman, first President of Bangledesh. Educated at University College London. Corporate communications executive.
MAAJID NAWAZ (Liberal Democrat) Born 1978, Westcliff on Sea. Educated at Westcliff High School for Boys and SOAS. Executive director of Quilliam Foundation. Former member of extremist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, he left HUT in 2007 to become a campaigner against extremism. Received death threats in 2013 for tweeting a Jesus and Mo cartoon.
MAGNUS NIELSEN (UKIP) Educated at George Dixons Grammar School and University of London. Contested Holborn and St Pancras 2001, Hampstead and Highgate 2005, Hampstead and Kilburn 2010.
REBECCA JOHNSON (Green) Educated at Bristol University. Academic and nuclear disarmament expert.
ROBIN ELLISON (U Party) Educated at Manchester Grammar School and Cambridge University. Pensions lawyer. Chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds.
THE EUROVISIONARY CARROLL (Independent) Born 1934, Belfast. Singer and entertainer. British entrant to the Eurovision Song Contest in 1962 and 1963.. Contested Hampstead and Highgate 1997, Uxbridge by-election 1997, Hartlepool by-election 2004, Haltemprice 2008 by-election. Died on 13th April 2015, after the close of nominations.
Comments - 765 Responses on “Hampstead & Kilburn”
  1. They do hate crossing borough lines but with the strict quota they’re going to have to do it a lot more. I certainly wouldn’t rule out the BC proposing a Kensington and Chelsea seat but its certainly not penned in as a certainty. Creating such a seat causes a lot of problems in seats nearby and as it happens more cross borough seats elsewhere anyway.

  2. The cross-borough ‘rule’ (I’d call it a preference, not a rule) just won’t work in London given the quota and the size of many London wards.

  3. Jack
    It won’t really work anywhere but your right its definitely a preference rather than a rule. If it can be avoided great if not, never mind.

  4. Maxim
    Its not a terrible amalgamation, Hampstead was paired with Highgate prior to 2010.

    I do think though its far more likely they’ll add the Kilburn ward from Brent instead of the Highgate ward from Haringey, less disruptive what with Kilburn already being in the seat and Hornsey and Wood Green being in quota.

  5. Inner / Outer London split (on the old ILEA boundaries):

    Inner London
    Remain 931,696 72%
    Leave 368,262 28%

    Outer London
    Remain 1,331,823 54%
    Leave 1,144,970 46%

    Hopefully I’ve done the calculation correctly.

    Outer London is not too dissimilar to the country as a whole and more Leave than Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff and Bristol. The big outlier is Inner London.

  6. Hounslow was very surprising at 51% Remain. One can only assume Feltham & Heston voted to Leave despite having a higher EM population than Brentford & Isleworth.

  7. It does seem the suggestion that BME support for Leave was surprisingly (to people who had assumed them to be a pro-Remain group) strong proved to be correct. See also the results in Newham, Enfield, Harrow and Redbridge. And outside London Bradford voted Leave, as did Slough and Oldham.

  8. Very interesting. So wealthier, more Tory-voting areas (Frognal and Fitzjohns, Hampstead Town, etc.) were more strongly for remain than Labour strongholds such as Kilburn. A pattern that has been replicated in many areas in and outside London, but which one would have thought to be somewhat softened due to the more ethnically diverse and “liberal intelligentsia” type of Labour voter here. Is there still a small white working class in the estates of Camden?

  9. Maxim
    Frankly who knows, I can think of dozens of equally plausible scenario’s when you factor in all the various considerations of these chaotic times, so much so I think making a prediction on any seat at present to be very brave.

  10. If I may tweak your question slightly:

    Yes, I think Labour (under Corbyn in 4-6 weeks from hence) would hold this seat.

  11. How many seats do people think Labour would lose if May called an election in a few months time assuming Corbyn is still leader. Barrow is probably a near certain loss but what else?

  12. Probably at least 20-30, if not more. Today’s ICM poll puts the Tories on 42% and Labour 28% if May and Corbyn are named as leaders. FIgures which imply a majority of about 70-80.

    But I can’t see an early election happening.

  13. Pepperminttea
    I reiterate who knows, people on this site (myself included) frankly have a terrible record at predicting electoral outcomes and those were the days when there was supposedly a political rulebook with past precedents. From 2015 onwards that rulebook had been tossed aside and proven unequivocally wrong on dozens of occasions, since the EU ref the rulebook has been incinerated and the ashes encased in concrete and buried at the bottom of the North sea. We are in totally unknown territory and thus making any specific predictions is a very brave move in my eyes.

  14. @rivers10 I agree if the next election is 2020 which is too far off to make predictions. But if an election is held in the next few months in the midst of a Labour Party civil war with an astoundingly unpopular electoral liability as Labour leader I don’t think it is a stretch to assume Labour would crash and burn while the Tories would get a substantially increased majority.

  15. Pepperminttea
    Its not a stretch its a very reasonable prediction but one that there are far too many variable on to grant more than a 50% probability really. A weeks a long time in politics as they say, recent weeks have shown one hour is a long time, who knows what could happen in 6 weeks or more.

    But even if we put aside all that there are dozens of other things to consider. First time incumbency, the effect of the EU ref, will the Leave/Remain voters coalesce around one party and if so which party, will any Brexit skeletons emerge to haunt certain parties, what will happen to UKIP, what will happen to the Greens, will the Lib Dems see a resurgence, is Corbyn as big a liability as people think, how will the public take to May, what’s the effect of the mass sign ups in the run up to the EU ref, what will the turnout be, are people enthused post EU ref or will voter fatigue set in…

    To conclude too many questions to which we just don’t have an answer, any one of those issues could throw up a shock result, all of them together, hell we could wake up the morning after the election to Tim Farron as PM…

  16. Tim Farron as PM… Now that is a stretch. Despite all the rhetoric there has been no evidence of any Lib Dem recovery they are still where they were pre referendum which is where they were in May 2015. The Lib Dems are largely ignored now a days, Farron is lucky if he can get a 30 second statement on the news once in a blue moon.

    Yes Corbyn is an electoral liability to think he isn’t is simply wishful thinking. You don’t get -41 net approval ratings if you are an electoral asset.

  17. I was only really joking about Farron although there have been some frankly remarkable local by elections for the Lib Dems since the EU ref, can’t read too much into them but its something.

    Didn’t say he was an asset just perhaps he’s not as much of a liability as some think. As I said rulebook is gone and as things stand we can only look at two pieces of evidence, actual election results and polling. In every election Corbyn has contested as leader (bat Scotland but that’s a different kettle of fish) Corbyn has either done well or at the very least exceeded expectations. Then there is polling, polling aint good at the moment but that’s almost certainly due to the current drama, prior to all this we were neck and neck, now one could argue he should have been miles ahead at this point etc etc but one interesting thing to note is there doesn’t seem to be anything in the way of a correlation between a leaders approval ratings and the parties ranking in the poles. Just something to think about.

  18. Labour did better than a lot of people expected in the local elections because the bar was set unrealistically low. But the performance was miles below where it ‘should’ have been for an opposition headed for government. Labour haven’t taken the lead at all in the polling trend line even after ‘omnishambles budget redux’. After that Labour should have been convincingly ahead the fact that they weren’t shows that Corbyn’s Labour are doing appallingly compared to what most past oppositions (even ones that went on to lose) at comparable points.

  19. As I said I’m not making any predictions but two very important points.

    First of all re the local elections (I was thinking of other elections as well but anyway) they were not set unrealistically low, many would argue the bar was in fact set too high. We were coming from a high base in 2012 thus to have a net gain of just 1 seat we would have had to have had an 8 point lead on the day, one year on from an election when we were 8 points behind and frankly that’s a tall order, an unprecedented 16% swing (of the kind Blair didn’t even achieve at his peak to gain just 1 extra seat, to gain something comparable to the seat gains of earlier cycles we’d be looking at a record high swing of 20% of more. As I said rulebook is out the window and looking at past precedents only gets you so far, saying “party X in opposition should be achieving this” when likelihood is party X didn’t have to deal with many of the things parties today have to deal with which thus makes a straight comparison unrealistic and unfair. If nothing else the local election reforms in the noughties which reduced the number of councillors made the type of seat gains that were commonplace in earlier decades very difficult these days simply because less seats are contested.

    Second point re polling, as I said we were steadily gaining ground and we were running even prior to the current mess. Would I have liked to do better? Of course but I again find these past comparisons silly (rulebook has flown out the window remember) Literally a slew of the laws of polling have been broken in the last two years, for example incumbent governments supposedly never increasing their vote share after a full term, many respected pollsters were making predictions and one of the key reasons for their thinking was “the Tories will not achieve more than 37% of the vote (because of the aforementioned reason) it can only go down) what actually happened? The Tory vote share rose slightly… Thus for the fabled book of what “should” happen to be so totally trashed it seems silly to keep referring back to it. So to say a party of opposition HAS to win X to be in with a shot at some future date seems laughably simplistic given the circumstances. Will it remain accurate in this instance? Maybe but quoting it like its infallible seems very unwise to me.

  20. @rivers10. The government had just delivered a car crash of a budget and was dropping manifesto pledges left, right and centre. Any competent opposition should have been miles ahead at that point. ‘Steadily gaining ground’ and nearly breaking even in these circumstances is disastrous when you should have really opened up a 10%ish lead. I know historical precedent is there to be broken but the fact that you could only equal the Tories under Corbyn when they are in train wreck mode is telling…

  21. Pepperminntea
    You may well be right but its disingenuous to presume that everything was all sunshine and roses on the Labour side. From day dot the majority of the PLP have made Corbyn’s life a living hell (columns in the Tory rags, staged resignations on the Daily Politics, briefing against the leader etc) I’d bet a pretty penny we would have been doing vastly better had the PLP focused their sights on the Tories rather than their own leader. Now one could chalk that as another flaw of Corbyn but I just want to point out practically everyone said that the moment Corbyn was elected Labour would implode and all of its voters would flee as far away as possible, that not only didn’t happen it still hasn’t happened despite the shambles the PLP have created. We’re still polling better than Brown did for most of his premiership, that’s obviously not an impressive feat but as I keep reiterating context is integral. As far as I can tell there is very little evidence to suggest Corbyn himself is totally unelectable, he may well be in the wrong place at the wrong time, he may well have handled things badly and he may very well be a liability overall but this presumption that regardless of the circumstances he would lead Labour to catastrophe just by being himself is nothing short of lazy.

  22. It’s fortunate that Corbyn is both disorganised and can’t lead – otherwise his terrifying ideas / policies might actually have started to take hold more widely.

  23. BT
    Inaccurate partisan nonsense.

  24. @rivers10 Labour was the government during the Brown years thus that polling comparison is irrelevant. Governments usually poll relatively badly and oppositions pretty well (except for Corbyn’s Labour that is). I never said it is impossible that he could win for the simple fact that very few things in life are impossible (except for stuff written in religious texts but that’s another conversation entirely…) but it is very unlikely he could win. Also nobody really said Labour would completely implode and lose all its voters as there is 28%ish of the electorate that would vote for a donkey in a red rosette, so there is really only so far Corbyn could plunge your party not withstanding a split.

    Also it is worth noting that the increased closeness in polling pre-referendum was mostly caused by the Tories coming down as opposed to Labour coming up. When you couple this with the fact that the Tories always do better than polling suggests and Labour almost always do worse and that the Tories were in a complete mess with their train crash of a budget, Corbyn’s Labour’s polling record to date is nothing short of disastrous.

    BT’s comment is essentially a fact (or the first part is anyway). Corbyn is disorganised and has little to none in the way of leadership skills. Even people who like Corbyn such as Owen Jones have come to this conclusion of late.

    As for the PLP I think most of them did try to work with Corbyn, yes there were some who were always trying to get rid of him but these were a minority. I agree that the coup was Blairite orchestrated but the non-Blairite, non-Corbynista factions of the party (who constitute the majority of the PLP) wouldn’t have gone along with it if they thought Corbyn was some kind of amazing electoral asset. My guess is these people were (with good reason) highly disappointed by his weak leadership and they realised in their interactions with the general public he wasn’t cutting through to voters not part of Labour’s base.

    Just out of interest are you going to vote for Corbyn, even with the danger of a split?

  25. 27.6% which rounds to 28% lol

  26. To be honest I feel Labour’s floor may be a bit lower than 28%, it’s probably closer to 20%. A lot depends on what happens with UKIP over the next few years, but a large part of the “donkey with a red rosette” brigade voted to leave the EU – indeed they were probably the constituency that swung the referendum, an event which has exposed the gulf between those who vote Labour and those whom they elect.

    Add a potential SDP 2.0 squeezing the middle-class vote to the mix, and… well it’s not the healthiest state to be in.

  27. I wonder what the Tory floor is. Based on 1997, 2001, 2005 one would think 32% but I’d bet it was lower now, thanks mainly to UKIP

  28. Pepperminttea
    As is often the case we disagree wand are unlikely to convince one another, I would just add that prior to jis election many on here were redicting (cant recall if you were amongst them) that Labour would be polling vastly worse than they are at present mere few weeks after Corbyn’s election. A very common prediction was somewhere I the high teens, now as always I never say never (something we agree on) but that looks unlikely even at present. Yet the same people on this site who got that little facet so god awfully wrong are usually the pioneers of every other Labour doomsday scenario thrown about. I actually find it very ironic since they often accompany their utterances with something to the effect of “the left never learn” yet they seem woefully incapable of learning from their own dire predictions but alas.

    Also as an aside the Brownites were all in on the coup as well, from what I’ve heard some of them (Chris Leslie springs to mind) where at the forefront. Blairites and Brownites together and your looking at a little over half the PLP who openly loath Corbyn.

    I’ll be voting for Corbyn, not because I have any great faith in him but because frankly the PLP have behaved disgracefully and (circumstances permitting) I anticipate that this will all be forgotten by Joe public come the other side of 2020 and if Corbyn wins we’ll definitely have a more left wing Lab party by then, I imagine pretty much all of the moderates will be gone one way or another and replaced by those on the soft and hard left and anti austerity politics will be entrenched within Lab by then. Then come the following election (circumstances permitting) we’d be in with a shot. I may be totally wrong but that’s what I predict things will look like on the other side of 2020.

  29. ‘a little over half the PLP who openly loath Corbyn.’

    I don’t think any Labour MPs openly loath Corbyn – he’s seen as a decent, stand-up kind of guy, but one whose political career has been defined by non-conformity and those people tend to make terrible leaders

    More importantly, Labour MPs recognise that under Corbyn they are heading for an electoral drubbing if the opinion polls are even half to be trusted, the same polls which just three years showed Ed Miliband’s Labour about 10 pts ahead of the Tories.

    I have to say though there are considerably better potential leaders within the Labour Party than Angela Eagle or Owen Smith

    Corbyn won the election fair and square. He played by the rules and won a landslide victory but you can understand why Labour MPs are feeling their party is moving away from them, given that most of the people who voted for Corbyn weren’t Labour Party members even five years ago

    Whilst Corbynites will be rejoicing when he inevitably wins the next contest, the only people joining them in their celebrations will be people like Dan Hannan, Borros Johnson and Runnymead, whose plans for the country ought to worry me just as much Corbyn’s.

    They ought to worry the Trots too

  30. I can’t see it being as bad as 1983 for Labour otherwise not only would they lose seats like Hampstead, Tooting, Eltham or even Ealing Central or Brentford but even seats like Ealing North or Erith and Thamesmead or Dagenham and Rainham would be in danger.

    The 2017 and 2018 locals will be interesting yes if something unthinkable like Ealing going Conservative again then yes it would be sub-foot levels. I am guessing it maybe almost as bad as 1987, certainly not 1983 I would think.

  31. @surreypolitics I don’t think that even in a meltdown Corbyn labour could sink to sub Foot levels in London. Certainly I cant see the Tories going anywhere far in seats like Ealing North or Brent North for that matter. Of course Wales, the North and the Midlands could well be worse than Foot in a Corbyn meltdown.

    @Maxim I went for a Hampstead seat containing the Camden wards of Kilburn, West Hampstead, Fortune Green, Swiss Cottage, Belsize, Hampstead Town, Frognal and Fitzjohns and the Barnet wards of Childs Hill, Golders Green, Garden Suburb. Garden Suburb’s full name is Hampstead Garden Suburb which is why there is some logic to linking them. this seat would be essentially a safe Tory seat (~10,000 majority) but it has the knock on effect of making the resultant Hendon and Finchley seat an ultra marginal (Tory by ~500 votes).

  32. @Maxim the problem with that Ham and High seat is Gospel Oak is really needed in Holborn and St Pancras.

  33. Have you done a whole plan for London Maxim?

  34. In a landslide (CON 43, LAB 27 as in 1983) I’d say, current boundaries…

    Definite CON gains in London: Harrow West, Ilford North, Hampstead and Kilburn, Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing C&A, Eltham

    Seats that would be v. close in London: Enfield N, Westminster N, Tooting, Dagenham and Rainham (possibly three-way marginal like Thurrock), Carshalton and Wallington (I expect Brake’s vote would recover but a strong LAB-CON/UKIP-CON swing could still see him lose), Feltham and Heston (long shot but a Leave voting area where the swing v LAB may well be greater if Corbyn is leader than in central London), Hammersmith (not at all convinced this is winnable for the Tories but they would target it if polls suggested a landslide).

  35. That’s pretty good analysis there Jack, I think UKIP vote may drop like a stone without Farage as leader and interestingly I think the Conservatives will benefit in places like Carshalton, I wonder what this might do to locals in 2018. The LDs could make gains in Kingston but at same time lose seats in Sutton (though I still think they will hold control of the council but maybe more like 2006 level).

    The boroughs to watch for the Con/Lab battles will be Hillingdon, Harrow, Barnet, Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth and Croydon.

  36. @MAXIM PARR-REID I think it would take a 1968 election for the Tories to gain Merton, the Mitcham wards are among the safest in London for Labour. (they even got 71% in the St Helier by-election)

    I would see Hounslow as more likely council gain in my honest opinion.

    Realistically Labour will still hold all 60 seats in Newham and do very well in inner London but could have their worst ever vote shares in Sutton, Bexley and Havering.

  37. Maxim- you have to go back to the Portillo era for the time when the Conservatives were still eeking out wins in Palmers Green.

  38. I doubt the council elections in 2018 will be as bad for Labour as a GE would be unless they’ve actually split by then. Corbyn isn’t on the ballot, it isn’t about running the country, govts always do badly in locals etc. If the Tories made seat gains and maybe took back control of Hammersmith and Fulham and Harrow, along with Havering (which is NOC due to the large RA slate, +7 UKIP Cllrs) it would be a strong indicator that they are likely to do very well in 2020.

  39. Yep, Croydon possible too. But as I say I wouldn’t expect the Tories to do that well in 2018. Even just a bit better than 2014 would be very good signs for 2020.

  40. I think all parties will have losses and gains, different patterns in different boroughs. Labour might strengthen further in Redbridge, Merton and Enfield for example. Though Lower Morden and Cannon Hill voted goldsmith, on the list and constituency it voted Labour. By 2018 it would demographically changed even further in the direction of Norbury. There is possibility Labour may gain Trinity due to local issues with the Crossrail 2 proposal, though it’s a gentrified ward it has a high number of private renters which may explain why Khan won that ward. If Labour can get representation back in Sutton or Richmond it would be a good night for them, though it may be very difficult as the Lib Dems are so organised in Sutton locals. (St Helier and Wandle Valley may have more heavily targeted to compensate possible losses to the Tories in the South of the Borough). In Richmond there only realistic target is Heathfield the LD vote isn’t so strong there as it is split with the conservatives. Mortlake was a good prospect in the old days but is no longer a working class area.

  41. This seat become notionally Tory. Loses the Brent wards gains Highgate, Childs Hill and Garden Suburb.

  42. The proposals here are rather bizarre, especially the name – ‘Hampstead and Golders Green’ despite the fact that Golders Green ward is going to Hendon, not to Hampstead. Just Hampstead would be much more sensible.

    The notional figures are:

    CON 26367 (48.02%)
    LAB 20202 (36.79%)
    LD 3363 (6.12%)
    GRN 3104 (5.65%)
    OTH 118 (0.21%)

  43. Bit of a dog’s breakfast. Can see Labour contesting the proposals….if they’re up for the fight at all on these boundary revisions, with all their other problems.

  44. Parties always contest boundary proposals….it’s which counter-proposals are accepted that are the key

    The one thing I’ve been right about this year is that these proposals look nothing like the ones people on here have spent months drawing up and insisting “the boundary commission is BOUND to do this”. Bet they wish they’d spent their months of wasted effort getting drunk or having sex 🙂

  45. HH
    Actually HH I could quota you a very large list of seats where the BC have done near enough exactly what I or Pepps have proposed.

  46. Knew you wouldn’t be able to risk taking the bait 🙂

    Well it depends what you call large – 5 is large to some people 🙂

  47. risk = resist

    Bloody predictive text again

    I did notice your Workington & Whitehaven has been proposed

  48. HH
    To be fair I’m not taking credit for Cumbria that was always obviously what they were going to do.

    I’m amazed that they proposed a Berwick and Ashington seat though, I wasn’t even serious about that one!!!

  49. Maybe I’m just jealous you all have so much free time

    Rivers – are you and Pepperminttea actually going to submit formal counter-proposals to the BC? Pete Whitehead from here did so previously IIRC. Will be interesting to see them all considered in print. You might as well as you’ve done so much work already.

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)