Uxbridge & Ruislip South

2015 Result:
Conservative: 22511 (50.4%)
Labour: 11816 (26.4%)
Lib Dem: 2215 (5%)
Green: 1414 (3.2%)
UKIP: 6346 (14.2%)
TUSC: 180 (0.4%)
Loony: 72 (0.2%)
Independent: 14 (0%)
Others: 120 (0.3%)
MAJORITY: 10695 (23.9%)

Category: Very safe Conservative seat

Geography: Greater London. Part of Hillingdon council area.

Main population centres: Uxbridge, Hillingdon, Cowley, Yiewsley, South Ruislip.

Profile: A suburban seat on the fringe of west London, this covers Uxbridge, Hillingdon, Cowley and Yiewsley and then, north of Northolt Aerodrome which runs down the middle of the seat, South Ruislip.This is middle-of-the-road suburbia, hidden away at the end at the far end of the Metropolitan line.

Politics: A relatively safe Conservative seat, it has seen held by the Conservatives since 1970 but not always by large majorities. In 1997 this became the first by-election hold for the Conservatives for 18 years when John Randall was returned following the death of Michael Shersby, the first time the Tories had held a seat at a by-election since William Hague held Richmond in 1989. Since 2015 it has been the new seat of Boris Johnson, elected MP while still serving as London Mayor.


Current MP
BORIS JOHNSON (Conservative) Born 1964, New York, son of former MEP Stanley Johnson. Educated at Eton and Oxford University. Former journalist, author and editor of the Spectator. MP for Henley 2001-2008, Mayor of London since 2008. First elected as MP for Uxbridge & Ruislip South in 2015. Shadow higher education minister 2005-2007. Instantly recognisable by his dishevelled appearance, blond thatch of hair and bumbling public-schoolboy mannerisms, Boris Johnson has become a media celebrity through appearances on Have I Got News For You and a tendency to make gaffes. His first period as an MP saw a brief shadow ministerial career cut short by denials of an affair that turned out to be true and he resigned from Parliament to become Mayor of London. In 2014 he announced he would seek to return to Parliament with the barely disguised ambition to stand as the next party leader.
Past Results
2010
Con: 21758 (48%)
Lab: 10542 (23%)
LDem: 8995 (20%)
BNP: 1396 (3%)
Oth: 2385 (5%)
MAJ: 11216 (25%)
2005*
Con: 16840 (49%)
Lab: 10669 (31%)
LDem: 4544 (13%)
BNP: 763 (2%)
Oth: 1562 (5%)
MAJ: 6171 (18%)
2001
Con: 15751 (47%)
Lab: 13653 (41%)
LDem: 3426 (10%)
UKIP: 588 (2%)
MAJ: 2098 (6%)
1997
Con: 18095 (44%)
Lab: 17371 (42%)
LDem: 4528 (11%)
Oth: 398 (1%)
MAJ: 724 (2%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005, name changed from Uxbridge

Demographics
2015 Candidates
BORIS JOHNSON (Conservative) Born 1964, New York, son of former MEP Stanley Johnson. Educated at Eton and Oxford University. Journalist and author, former editor of the Spectator. MP for Henley 2001-2008, Mayor of London since 2008. Shadow higher education minister 2005-2007. Instantly recognisable by his dishevelled appearance, blond thatch of hair and bumbling public-schoolboy mannerisms, Boris Johnson has become a media celebrity through appearances on Have I Got News For You and a tendency to make gaffes. His first period as an MP saw a brief shadow ministerial career cut short by denials of an affair that turned out to be true and he resigned from Parliament to become Mayor of London. In 2014 he announced he would seek to return to Parliament with the barely disguised ambition to stand as the next party leader.
CHRIS SUMMERS (Labour) BBC journalist. Ealing councillor since 2010.
MICHAEL COX (Liberal Democrat) Educated at Salesian Missionary College and Brunel University. Chartered accountant. Hillingdon councillor 2002-2010. Contested Ruislip Northwood 2001, 2005, Uxbridge and South Ruislip 2010.
JACK DUFFIN (UKIP) Educated at Stratton Upper School and Brunel University. student.
GRAHAM LEE (Green)
SABRINA MOOSUN (Communities United)
JENNY THOMPSON (Independent)
MICHAEL DOHERTY (Independent)
LORD TOBY JUG (Eccentric Party of GB) Musician. Contested West Ham 1992, 1997, Folkstone and Hythe 2005, Huntingdon 2010.
JANE LAWRENCE (Realists)
JAMES JACKSON (No description) Retired auditor.
GARY HARBORD (TUSC)
HOWLING LAUD HOPE (Loony) Born 1942, Mytchett, real name Alan Hope. Publican. Contested Teignbridge 1983, 1987, 1992, Aldershot 1997, Eddisbury 1999, Kensington and Chelsea 1999, Brent East 2003, Hartlepool 2004, Aldershot 2005, Blaenau Gwent 2006, Sedgefield 2007, Norwich North 2009, Witney 2010, Barnsley Central 2011, Bradford West 2012, Manchester Central 2012, Eastleigh 2013, South Shields 2013, Clacton 2014.
Links
Comments - 1,016 Responses on “Uxbridge & Ruislip South”
  1. I shouldn’t have thought many members of the public would even have heard of Heidi Allen or Tom Tugendhat.

  2. Well obviously BM is right about that. Even cabinet ministers can walk down the average British high street unrecognised. I remember on the day George Osborne was made editor of the Evening Standard, the BBC did a bunch of vox pops in which it was clear that the majority of people hadn’t got a clue who he was.

    On TJ’s comments – I think it is important to note that talent within the Conservative party is not confined to the wets – I don’t think anyone can accuse Dominic Raab of being an idiot, for example, even if you are put off by his dry-as-dust Thatcherism.

  3. Re my point about talent on the Tory backbenches, it isn’t a left/right issue, some of the people I have in mind I utterly despise cos of their views but part of the reason they wind me up so much is that they tend to present those views in a measured way that tends to go down well and from my perspective that’s dangerous. I could create a hypothetical Tory cabinet that I think would be a real threat and yes while there would be more of the One Nation Cons in it, it would by no means be dominated by them.

  4. Polltroll
    “Steady on now. I know the prospect is more serious than it used to be, but he’s not actually Prime Minister yet ”

    You know what I mean

    As for Cooper vs Ummuna there are some big differences. First of all I’d have to put Cooper into context, I don’t see her as a party leader, indeed I only see her as a high ranking shadow cab member in one of the dryer positions (Foreign Sec would be ideal for her me thinks)

    Her main assets though are as follows, firstly unlike Umunna she is clearly very smart and I don’t mean academically rather she is capable of dissecting an argument Keir Starmer style in a way that Ummuna just isn’t (or at least he’s never shown an ability to do it) Also Cooper is surprisingly nimble on her feet and does quite well under pressure, Ummuna on the other hand descends into a pitiful mess if you break his politicians veneer and actually becomes a very chippy and angry individual once his defences are broken.

    Another differences is that while its quite hidden Cooper clearly does have a personality and an actual set of beliefs, she came across very well in the final days of the Lab leadership contest when talking about refugees. Ummuna on the other hand is totally stuck in politician mode at all times, not only that but his brand of politician mode is literally the worst kind, well spoken yes but also highly evasive, quite sneering and slick to the point of sliminess, its so engrained in his image that I don’t think he can actually break out of it. He’s essentially the British, male version of Hilary Clinton.

  5. Again, I quite like Hilary Clinton and don’t fully understand why she was/is so unpopular. I accept she wasn’t squeaky clean, but her flaws were drawn way out of proportion because she is probably the most scrutinised individual in history. Questionable (and not even necessarily wrong) actions in her past came to light (and were then expanded into absurd conspiracy theories) that wouldn’t have if literally anyone else running for president had committed them, because there have been people with ulterior motives working for decades to undermine her.

    Now, of course, I understand that that has traction with the average gun-toting, Fox-watching redneck, but the progressive hate for her is rather more mystifying. Can you actually point out to me any concrete examples of her policies working against the interests of the working class? (And not just the “she’s in the pocket of Wall Street” meme, I’m talking actual policies she has proposed or enacted.) I suspect that, for many on the left, they have unwittingly and subconsciously bought in to the propaganda of those they despise – which would explain the cretins who voted Obama then Trump, or for Sanders in the primary and then for Trump.

  6. ‘I think it is important to note that talent within the Conservative party is not confined to the wets – I don’t think anyone can accuse Dominic Raab of being an idiot, for example, even if you are put off by his dry-as-dust Thatcherism.’

    It’s certainly not – although I’d argue that Tugendhat hasn’t been in Parliament long enough to be defined as a wet

    I wouldn’t have thought Raab a good example of a competent right-winger though. Some of the things he was saying about Brexit were from cloud cuckoo land which no intelligent person would believe

  7. Polltroll
    Re Clinton you have fallen into a classic centrist trap, Clintons issue wasn’t really the things she has done rather it was that she was the absolute epitome of an establishment order that people were sick off. I am in 100% agreement that there has never been a more qualified person for President, how then did she lose to the buffoon that is Trump, its cos Trump promised change and Clinton basically promised more of the same, this meant that Trumps bad ideas could be spun as “attempts to at least try and fix things” while Clinton could be accused of living in a bubble immune from reality. Trump was clearly not a politician while Hilary clearly was and this meant Trumps scandals made him seem even more like Joe public (locker room talk and all that jazz) while Clintons scandals just reinforced the image of a corrupt political class that Trump was going to smash.

    Perfectly composed career politicians are well and truly yesterdays people, the public want two things from a politician these days, someone who will clearly change things and someone who does not really resemble a politician at all. Clinton, Ummuna, Blair etc fall way out of that category.

    As for policies that work against the people she’s supposed to represent I can name countless examples, she’s opposed to removing big money from US election campaigns, she’s against a universal healthcare system, she’s opposed to the extension of trade union rights she doesn’t support raising the min wage to 15 dollars an hour etc

  8. Well, however left-wing you are, you can always be accused of crushing the working classes by not being even more left-wing. Bernie Sanders doesn’t want a $20 minimum wage and even lets people live in their own private homes, the bourgeois pig!

  9. “I am in 100% agreement that there has never been a more qualified person for President”

    When you are older and get involved in hiring/interviewing people, you will sometimes come across people who are superbly qualified for the job yet for some reason you just don’t want to hire them.

    Some years ago a friend in an investment bank interviewed a wizzkid who was perfect for the vacant position. But he was so rude to the receptionist that the boss said no way are we hiring this asshole. Kind of reminds me of Hillary.

  10. Hillary Clinton was/is certainly fairly dislikeable but let’s consider she was running against arguably the most dislikeable Presidential election in US history,. and he still managed to win

    And whilst it might be a moot point, it’s worth remembering that Clinton did get 3 million more votes than Trump – which points to major deficiencies in her campaign team which I’m surprised we haven’t heard much about (they shoukd have known Trump was ahead in Michigan and Pensylvania

  11. Having two dislikeable candidates means more people refuse to vote for either. I’ve personally encountered many Obama voters who abstained totally…my own wife was one of them. There can be little doubt this cost Hillary the presidency in narrowly losing Michigan and Pennsylvania.

  12. There can be little doubt this cost Hillary the presidency in narrowly losing Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    Without doubt although overall Clinton only got about 60,000 less votes than Obama managed in 2012

    Shows how tactically bad her campaign actually was. With all their recent problems you’d expect the pollsters to call a few states wrong but it seems mind-boggling that her expensive campaign was unaware she might lose Michilgan and Pennsylvania (which hadn’t voted Republican since the 1980s) and they can’t have done because she didn’t do any last-minute campaigning in either state – preferring to focus on Ohio and Florida

  13. There will have been a huge amount of voter churn in the election.

    The amount of non-voters that Trump will have motivated probably runs into millions, whereas Clinton will have put off the ethnic minorities (despite Trunp’s rhetoric) and the young.

    She had an infuriating sense of entitlement and lazily took to getting celebrity endorsements…

    Both were rubbish candidates, I wouldn’t have voted for either but if it was compulsory I’d have had to give with Trump, albeit reluctantly.

    Jonathan Pie was right about her, in every sense.

  14. Re Clinton’s campaign team let it be known far and wide they are/were beyond useless. There is a hilarious piece of news footage online of Chuck Schumer (the Democratic senator and architect of the Clinton campaign) smugly proclaiming before the election that their strategy was to overtly court moderate Republican voters and in his words

    “for every blue collar voter in rural Pennsylvania or young minority voter in downtown Philadelphia we lose cos of our campaign we’ll pick up 5 middle class moderate Republicans in the suburbs”

    The rest as they say was history. What’s more startling is this footage was thrown in his face after the election and he defended his comments saying that the strategy was “fundamentally sound” (facepalm)

  15. Richard Nixon was a well qualified Presidential candidate and was a better President than Trump is. Saying that Clinton is better than Trump is a limited argument.

    Clinton’s continuing attempts to blame everyone except herself for her failures suggests character issues.

    Had she won, her friendship with such delightful feminists such as Harvey Weinstein would have opened her to ridicule. What sort of “deplorable” would hang out with someone like that?

    Obviously Clinton would have been a far better President than Trump but that is not to say she would have been good or successful.

  16. That’s certainly one stain on the CV of Chick Schumer

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)