Hendon

2015 Result:
Conservative: 24328 (49%)
Labour: 20604 (41.5%)
Lib Dem: 1088 (2.2%)
Green: 1015 (2%)
UKIP: 2595 (5.2%)
MAJORITY: 3724 (7.5%)

Category: Marginal Conservative seat

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

Main population centres: Hendon, Edgware, Mill Hill.

Profile: A north-west London seat in the borough of Barnet. It is an ethnically diverse seat, with around a third of residents describing themselves as non-white and one of the highest Jewish populations of any seat in the UK (largely in Edgware, which is almost half Jewish and is home to twelve synagogues). Equally the seat has economic contrasts, from the wealthy suburbs of Edgware and Mill Hill to council estates in Burnt Oak and Colindale. The seat also contains the Hendon Police College, the main training centre for the Metropolitan Police.

Politics: The seat was held by Labour from 1997 to 2010, but the predecessor seat Hendon North was safely Conservative, represented by the semi-detached Conservative MP Sir John Gorst who along with Hugh Dykes had threatened to defy the whip and bring down the ailing Major government in an attempt to save the A&E department at Edgware hospital. The result in 2010 was one of the closest in the country and the defeated Labour MP Andrew Dismore initially threatened to seek an election petition due to claimed administrative failures at the election, but ultimately declined to do so quoting reasons of cost. In 2015 it was one of Labour`s easiest targets on paper, but one they failed to gain.


Current MP
MATTHEW OFFORD (Conservative) Born 1969, Alton. Educated at Amery Hill School, Alton and Nottingham Trent University. Former BBC political analyst. Contested Barnsley East and Mexborough 2001. First elected as MP for Hendon in 2010.
Past Results
2010
Con: 19635 (42%)
Lab: 19529 (42%)
LDem: 5734 (12%)
UKIP: 958 (2%)
Oth: 518 (1%)
MAJ: 106 (0%)
2005*
Con: 15897 (38%)
Lab: 18596 (44%)
LDem: 5831 (14%)
GRN: 754 (2%)
Oth: 761 (2%)
MAJ: 2699 (6%)
2001
Con: 14015 (34%)
Lab: 21432 (52%)
LDem: 4724 (12%)
UKIP: 409 (1%)
Oth: 271 (1%)
MAJ: 7417 (18%)
1997
Con: 18528 (37%)
Lab: 24683 (49%)
LDem: 5427 (11%)
Oth: 420 (1%)
MAJ: 6155 (12%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

Demographics
2015 Candidates
MATTHEW OFFORD (Conservative) See above.
ANDREW DISMORE (Labour) Born 1954, Bridlington. Educated at Bridlington Grammar and Warwick University. Solicitor. Westminster councillor 1982-1997. MP for Hendon 1997-2010.
ALASDAIR HILL (Liberal Democrat) Born Moray. Educated at Aberdeen university. Teacher.
RAYMOND SHAMASH (UKIP) Educated at Leeds University. Semi-retired dentist.
BEN SAMUEL (Green) Born 1986. Horiculturalist.
Links
Comments - 335 Responses on “Hendon”
  1. You’re getting a bit carried away with language though….disaster, bloodbath, game over…..you don’t work for The Sun or The Mail do you?

    A “bloodbath” for the Tories would be 1997. Narrowly losing power is not a bloodbath. Nor is losing 6 marginal seats in London a bloodbath, they will still comfortably have more London seats than in 2005.

    On Hendon in particular, with some local knowledge, I agree with Barnaby. Labour will almost certainly win it but on a smaller than average swing. The seat is unusually polarised even for London and the Tories are not going to be as low as 34, nor will UKIP be as high as 9.

  2. In the same day 2010 council elections, the Tories were 2000 votes (4%) ahead in the council wards for the constituency. There is clearly some split voting that goes on in Barnet. Given that a general election turnout tends to favour Labour in council elections because there is a greater proportion of working class voters who vote only in general elections and the fact that any personal vote that Dismore had should still be there as he has been reselected as the candidate, I think the Ashcroft numbers make sense. The Greens stood all across the constituency in the council elections whilst UKIP did not stand in every ward. In some wards the Greens also stood full slates of candidates, whereas UKIP only ever stood one candidate. Standing one candidate is unlikely to hit any party when calculations are done on the highest vote method, whereas standing all three may well do if people go Greens at a local and Labour at a GE. This may be a relatively low swing compared to the rest of London because of polarisation but I doubt it will be compared to the country as a whole.

  3. Re demographic change as suggested by Peter, I don’t think it’s a very major factor in this seat. I don’t see any real demographic change in Hendon, Mill Hill or Hale wards, nor really Edgware although the Jewish population in the latter in particular is not quite as high as it was (it’s still high for Britain though). If there were major demographic change afoot in the seat, the long-term Labour-held ward of W Hendon would not still be competitive for the Tories, yet it still more or less is. There has been a strengthening of the Labour majorities in Burnt Oak & Colindale to some extent, though from an already high base in what have long been safe Labour wards.
    The comparison with Harrow E is interesting – Canons & Stanmore Park wards do have some affinity with Mill Hill & Edgware wards in this constituency, though oddly not Edgware ward in Harrow E which is a largely council-estate ward based on the old Stanmore S. The ratio of safe Labour to marginal Labour to safe Tory wards in the constituency is similar to Hendon too, but Labour does tend to be somewhat less safe in its stronger wards in Harrow E, the main exception being Wealdstone, which is perhaps why the Tories are rather stronger there overall.

  4. I don’t think this part of London is moving much against the Conservatives demographically atall – it did – but that could have gone slightly into reverse. I expect a very very close result here.

  5. I haven’t noticed you think that Labour are going to take any seats yet, Joe – don’t you think you are being a bit optimistic?

  6. Barnaby…check the results in colindale in 2010 and the by-election in 2014 and tell me that demographic change isn’t a factor….

    results in 2010 colindale ward…

    Labour Geoff Johnson 3,259
    Labour Gill Sargeant 2,836
    Labour Zakia Zubairi 2,711
    Conservative Brian Mann 1,175
    Conservative William Nicholson 1,175

    2014

    Nagus NARENTHIRA (Labour Party Candidate) 2,190
    Gill SARGEANT (Labour Party Candidate) 2,088
    Zakia ZUBAIRI (Labour Party Candidate) 2,015
    Nneka AKWAEZE (Conservative Party Candidate) 501
    William NICHOLSON (Conservative Party Candidate) 466
    Golnar BOKAEI (Conservative Party Candidate) 420

    you can actually see that slight demographic shift in the names of the conservative candidates in 2014 as compared with 2010….

    The earlier comment about Burnt Oak having more indigenous WWC than Colindale these days is well observed…whereas in the 80s Colindale was slightly more Tory.

    This isn’t the case now. All things being equal, I expect a labour gain here, just on the basis on the change I think has happened in this one ward.

  7. the names of the new candidates not just the tory ones, i meant.

  8. I didn’t say there was no demographic change & agree that there has indeed been quite a bit in Colindale, and also to some extent Burnt Oak. I merely said that it wasn’t to the extent seen in many other London seats.

  9. Mike – you have a point there. Joe perhaps finds it hard to imagine anyone votes Labour at times. Even Peter Crerar & Robin have at least predicted some Labour gains. Perhaps Joe has but I haven’t seen any yet.

  10. This will be an interesting seat to keep tabs on on election night in the sense that if there’s any speculation about a recount or close result it probably means Ed Miliband won’t be in a position to form a government. The actual winner isn’t so important in the scheme of things. A Labour majority of 500 or so will be nice for the party locally but would proboably mean disappointment nationally.

  11. I fail to see on current polling how Labour could fail to gain Hendon and gain it well. We know from the Euros that they’re doing particularly well in London and this will probably be no exception.

  12. Enfield North is pretty certain.
    There are several seats in the NW and the Midlands conurbation I’m quite worried about.

    The question should be asked the other way round – it’s natural in opposition to expect a swing away from the Government but the Government may slightly extend it’s lead.

  13. I have had some involvement in this seat and I don’t think the demographics are moving away from the Tories – certainly not any more.
    Either way, this will be very close.

  14. Again peter makes an excellent and forensic point about colindale…colindale and even burnt oak are even more ethnically diverse than they were in 2010. I think labour will pick up 500-800 extra votes from these two wards alone… I don’t think this seat will be that close, but let’s see.

    It’s striking that the tories got 1,175 votes in the Colindale ward in the election in 2010. one can only assume that all (or 95%+) these 1,175 voters voted for Offord, the tory candidate….He won the seat by 100 votes…the deterioration of the tories’ position in this one ward- all things being equal- would give the seat to Labour.

  15. If Joe you mean ANY government can extent its lead, then yes it can. If you mean this one, you need to explain how you think that is likely to happen. It seems to be inconceivable that Labour will fail to pick up at the very worst a small increase in its percentage vote on the basis of the collapsing LD vote, so for the Tories to increase their lead they will need to poll considerably more than in 2010, despite the intervention of UKIP. Surely you can’t really think that can happen, given the current state of the polls? David Cameron isn’t the most incompetent Tory leader of recent times, far from it, but he isn’t a magician with a magic wand either.

  16. extend* its lead

  17. I think the idea of the tories gaining more than their current 305 seats at the next election is laughable. It just ain’t gonna happen.

    Now, i still think there’s a chance that the tories could end up losing 10 seats on a net basis and just be the largest party, but even the chances of that happening are lengthening.

    since october 2012, I have thought we’re heading for some kind of labour government and nothing that has happened since has changed my view.

  18. ‘I think the idea of the tories gaining more than their current 305 seats at the next election is laughable. It just ain’t gonna happen’

    Whilst it might be hard to imagine it happening, such a suggestion is by no means laughable

    The Tories will certainly gain seats from the Lib Dems – maybe not as many as their more optimistic supporters would like to think – and being considered a very poor leader this clise to an election doesn’t bode well for Ed Milliband

    And think of the role of the press who copuld prove as helpful to the Tories as they were to the ‘No to AV’ campaign, which they completely swung

    It’s not so laughablre to imagine them doing the same in 2015

  19. I beg to differ. To believe that the tories will improve their current number of seats in the house, you have to believe that the tories will gain more seats from the decline of the liberal democrat vote than they will lose to labour for the exact same reason.

    This is bonkers, frankly…

  20. BTW, the most significant force behind the crushing of the yes to AV referendum was not the media….the unions played a big role.

  21. Peter

    I think we all know your point of view by now. Why do you insist on repeating it 50 times per day? You are almost rivalling The Results in terms of pointless and repetitive overposting.

    Tim has been coming here for years and is as entitled to his opinion as you are.

  22. Labour are pretty much guaranteed a 3%+ rise because of the LD decline.

    I think the LDs will get about 13% compared to 24% in 2010.
    I’d expect UKIP to be about 8% (around 5% up on 2010 in aggregate vote).
    Some posters on the North Kent threads recently thought I was
    under-estimating UKIP by a very significant amount. I could be but
    doubt it.
    And just recently, The Results estimated 14% for them in Croydon Central.
    I seriously doubt that, although many of his predictions are actually
    quite good.

    So my reasoning is there are substantial numbers of LD votes (from 2010)
    and UKIP votes (from the polls now) up for grabs.
    Hence there will be a squeeze on third and other parties
    in marginal seats and it would be pretty surprising if some of that
    didn’t drift over to Con aswell.

    Tactical voting often doesn’t show up to very late.
    This is a quite new situation.
    The Tories will need right leaning LIb Dems who don’t want the 2 Eds to lend us their vote.

  23. PS you can always tell when it’s university holidays on here

  24. I’m not that young – but think you missed my post just before.
    lol.

  25. HH

    everyone is entitled to their view, but it’s nice to hear a rationale behind it…

    sorry i like to follow some kind of logic. I simply don’t understand the logic of saying that the tories benefit more from the lib dems’ fall than they lose to labour from the same phenomenon. I genuinely want to learn some of the thinking that underlines the stuff written here.

    And sorry, i don’t think that the fact that one of your buddies has posted here for many years is either here or there…

  26. ‘I simply don’t understand the logic of saying that the tories benefit more from the lib dems’ fall than they lose to labour from the same phenomenon’

    You seem to be making the flawed assumption that the polls won’t change between now and the time of the next election is held (about 10 months away)

    10 months before the 92 election, once the Major honeymoon had passed, Labour were leading the Tories by an even greater margin than what they are now – and yet the 10 months were long enough for the press to win the election for the Tories

    Now I’m not saying the same will happen in 2015 – I personally think we’ll see another hung Parliament – but thinking it might is far from bonkers or laughable

    You’re completely underestimating the ability of the press to get what it wants

  27. i don’t believe the press has this power, but that’s a personal view…let’s leave this debate and see what happens…

  28. This is the kind of thing we’re probably hoping to achieve.

    Con 39% +2 307 seats
    Lab 34% +4 279
    LD 13% -11 35-40 seats
    UKIP 8% +5 0/1
    Oths 6% +0 SNP and Greens up a bit but not much. BNP disappears.

  29. Tim – it is lazy to assume that the polls will be the same in 2015 as they are now. I make no such assumption – I am on record as saying that I expect the Tories to outpoll Labour by between 1 & 3 % in the general election, but that the latter will end up as the largest party, in fact by quite a wide margin, without securing an overall majority. But there is no hard & fast rule that the polls will move. Sometimes they don’t. It is much more likely than not that there will be some swing from Lab to Con between now and 2015; the question is as always how much of one, and from whom will the Conservatives derive the necessary votes (the answer I guess is undecideds, and UKIP, predominantly).
    Re Joe, at least he has made a decent attempt to explain his reasoning. I don’t however find it all that believable that the Tories can poll 2-3% more than they did in 2010.
    And finally going back to Tim, that’s true, but we know that the polls got the result completely wrong anyway. They consistently said throughout the campaign that Labour were 3% ahead, but of course the result was way, way out from that. A very small part of that could have been a late swing, but the great majority was down to the polls simply being wrong. I don’t think that there was much swing at all from 10 months before that election to polling day. Indeed in the 1991 local elections Labour failed to gain any national lead over the Tories at all, representing a big swing from the previous year’s elections when Thatcher was still PM. This is almost all old ground but it is necessary to go back over it, since so much of it appears to have been forgotten. I watched the polls extremely closely during that election & my recollection is accurate!

  30. Matthew Offord, as it says at the top of the page, previously stood in Barnsley East and Mexborough in 2001.

    A lot of the current Tory MPs (especially ones first elected in recent elections) seem to have got experience of fighting hopeless seats for their party before being elected for a decidedly more promising seat. A lot of Conservative MPs who sit for safe seats had in the past stood in either safe Labour seats or at the very least Lab-Con marginals, and ones that spring to mind are Gregory Barker, Hugo Swire, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jonathan Djanogly, Mark Francois etc. the list goes on.

  31. What is noteworthy about that exactly? As you say yourself the list is endless. This has always been the case with MPs of all parties – look through the biographies of any Times Guide

  32. Well it’s interesting in the sense that it gives them more of a chance of getting elected in the future- It’s good experience to have in terms of campaigning as a candidate for example.

    Some MPs will have fought in some utterly hopeless seats in the past and been grateful for the opportunity years later when they found a seat in Parliament- It’s having the past result(s) on your CV that gets you noticed by local party associations.

  33. ‘A very small part of that could have been a late swing, but the great majority was down to the polls simply being wrong.’

    They were wrong because they were being lied to by the people taking part

    There were A LOT of centrist voters in that election who reluctantly voted Tory – largely due to Neil Kinnock, which again the press played a massive role in – but didn’t want to admit it

    You can’t compare 1992 to 2015 because Labour are starting from a much stronger position but like 92 I think it’s going to be a very close election and its in elections like those that the press can make a difference – unlike in 97 where the cowardly Sun newspaper backed Blair because it knew he was going to win with or without their support

  34. This is starting to read like an autistic therapy group.

    I’m off here for a bit, for the sake of my sanity.

  35. At the risk of annoying HH even further the reason the polls were wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they were. Therefore they were almost certainly wrong in 1991 too. Therefore, again, there wasn’t a large swing between late summer 1991 & general election 1992.

  36. You are not annoying me, and as you know I largely agree with your forecast.

    What is seriously pissing me off is carpet bombing of the threads, reaching a new low with the extremely interesting information that some MPs have previously stood in unwinnable seats. Well knock me down with a feather at that breaking news. As I said, I’m off for a bit, as it seems many of the regulars including Pete already have.

  37. I can’t do anything right can I?

    I have tried to actively post relevant information to these seats and MPs, and obviously I’m not allowed to do it.

    I’m off as well then in that case.

  38. I have to agree with HH on this, although I might not put it quite as baldly. It is a long-established tradition in British politics that candidates will often stand in unwinnable seats before trying their luck in winnable or safe ones. It is not interesting to list politicos who have done this since they are too numerous. I cannot help thinking about the Ripping Yarn episode “The Testing of Eric Outhwaite” (might have the spelling slightly wrong) as I write this. Now HH come back & just ignore the boring stuff. (TheResults – not EVERYTHING you write it boring, but that was, I’m afraid.)

  39. this is very dull…the fact is that many people on this site think of polls as share prices which can go up and down at will…

    the tories haven’t polled 39% since omnishambles in March 2012…for them to do so now means that they need to find at least another 5% of the voters, about 1.6 million voters, who have been saying consistently for 2 and a half years that they won’t vote tory.

    I am very boring- apologies to the irascible HH- when someone glibly writes Conservative 39% +2%, he/she has to ask themselves how this actually translates. which seats are likely to be gained or lost?

    I can see the blues hoping for such an outcome. I can “hope” to marry Scarlett Johanssen, but without an actual route map and plan, it’s hard to do that.

  40. barnaby is right about 1992; there is so much myth and misguided folk memory about that election, it’s difficult to know where to begin to dispel some of the many misconceptions and confusions surrounding that particular election.

    I have done this before, so I won’t try now…I hope for one outcome of the 2015: that no one ever again says an election will be “like ’92″… post 2015 I hope the ’92 election is confined to blessed oblivion

  41. I agree with the substance of what you are saying….but do you have to restate time after time it in SO many posts? Added to The Results and his statements of the bleedin obvious, it crowds out the threads.

    Have to say I’m just envious of both of your spare time….a stack of work to do here.

  42. where there is error let me bring truth…enough for today!

  43. If you think about the likely LD vote in some of these marginals then you end up with a high 2 party vote, hence some increases for the Cons.
    Anyway, we’ll soon know.

  44. Woops! Damn it.
    Wrong log in.

    I did that deliberately cryptically.
    Tory predictions not really GP range

  45. You don’t mean…

  46. I agree with Peter. Comparisons with 1992 are tiresome. Polling methods then would be laughed at compared with now which have proven to be more accurate. As a Labour activist I have no interest in artificially inflating predictions of my own party’s support and as a Tory I doubt Peter does either. That’s not to say Peter and myself are necessarily correct, just want like I’m sure many others do for predictions to be made on evidence rather than hunches or false historical comparisons.

  47. Andy – Gloy’s identity was surely well known quite a long time ago. I had it confirmed to me in May when I met his “minder”.

  48. I did that post above deliberately as a joke. Sue, welcome to the site. I don’t think Labour members are deliberately inflating their predictions but under-estimating the numbers of squeezeable votes from third parties and I don’t believe they will split one way.

  49. “I don’t think Labour members are deliberately inflating their predictions”

    Plenty of people on here who expect a Labour government are not Labour supporters – myself, Peter Crawford, Tory, LBernard etc etc.

    I can only think of yourself, Dalek, Robin and perhaps Tim Jones who dissent from the prevailing view at present.

  50. You can add me to a certain extent. I remain convinced that the Conservatives will have a clear but not large (c. 3%) lead in the popular vote and that this will translate to approximate parity in seats. I think 1992 does offer some precedents in the sense that many people when faced with the imminent prospect of a highly unsuitable individual becoming Prime Minister will recoil at it.

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)