Basildon and Billericay
2010 Results:
Conservative: 21922 (52.74%)
Labour: 9584 (23.06%)
Liberal Democrat: 6538 (15.73%)
BNP: 1934 (4.65%)
UKIP: 1591 (3.83%)
Majority: 12338 (29.68%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 18092 (46.5%)
Labour: 12840 (33%)
Liberal Democrat: 4982 (12.8%)
Other: 3006 (7.7%)
Majority: 5252 (13.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 25487 (52.2%)
Labour: 14281 (29.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 6471 (13.2%)
BNP: 1435 (2.9%)
UKIP: 1184 (2.4%)
Majority: 11206 (22.9%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 21608 (47.4%)
Labour: 16595 (36.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 6323 (13.9%)
UKIP: 1072 (2.4%)
Majority: 5013 (11%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 22033 (39.8%)
Labour: 20677 (37.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 8763 (15.8%)
Other: 3947 (7.1%)
Majority: 1356 (2.4%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: John Baron(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)
John Baron(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)Allan Davies (Labour) Basildon councillorMike Hibbs (Liberal Democrat)Alan Broad (UKIP)Irene Bateman (BNP) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84261
Male: 48.2%
Female: 51.8%
Under 18: 23.2%
Over 60: 20.9%
Born outside UK: 4.5%
White: 97.1%
Black: 0.6%
Asian: 1%
Mixed: 0.9%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 74.1%
Full time students: 1.7%
Graduates 16-74: 12.9%
No Qualifications 16-74: 31.6%
Owner-Occupied: 70.7%
Social Housing: 23.5% (Council: 17.9%, Housing Ass.: 5.6%)
Privately Rented: 4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 2.1%
I disagree.
Not that Stephen Pound has a personal vote but on how much effect it could have had in 2010.
As he has been MP for the constituency since 1997 the electoral benefit from his personal vote should have been already built into his previous majority.
Unless that is he has done something especial to increase it since 2005.
Which I doubt – while its easy to destroy a personal vote or create a large negative personal vote within a short time (Jeremy Thorpe is the classic example) its a lot harder to increase a positive one after the first term or two.
Anyone know how the lovely Teresa Gorman is these days?
Well clearly not impossible, as Stephen Pound has done it!
Like Richard I’m not sure how much Stephen Pound’s personal vote came imnto iot as there were plenty of old Tory seats (lost in 97) throughout the capital where Labour held on with barely no reduction in their majority – Mitcham & Morden, Hayes & Harlington, Brent North etc
Significant demographic change in recent decades strikes me as a more likely explanation as to how Labour largely bucked the trend in London
The difference may be that unlike the other seats Tim mentions, many people still see Ealing North as being a potential Tory seat in the future.
I should have said the (post Stephen Pound) future.
“Well clearly not impossible, as Stephen Pound has done it!”
But has he? Is there any evidence that some people who voted non-Labour or who didn’t vote in 2005 decided to vote Labour in 2010 only becuase of how they now viewed Stephen Pound.
Or was the strong Labour performance simply a result of demographic and electoral changes?
Perhaps a strong personal vote is only noticeable during an election with a high turnout as it occurs among politically uninterested people?
“The difference may be that unlike the other seats Tim mentions, many people still see Ealing North as being a potential Tory seat in the future.”
Which people?
I would hope that anyone who knew about electoral and demographic trends would not be among them.
Because they certainly shouldn’t be.
Which was what by original comment was all about.
Well now you’re starting to sound rather like someone who desperately WANTS to believe that there are deeper underlying reasons why Ealing North is now so safe for Labour-reasons that will persist beyond the retirement of Pound.
But I for one have seen very little evidence of any great shift in Ealing North’s demographics to the extent that you’re suggesting.
Ealing North has voted Labour in the past during times of Conservative government and no doubt it will do so again. But the post Pound future for Labour in Ealing North is not quite as rosy as you would like to believe. That seat will be competitive again one day.
“But I for one have seen very little evidence of any great shift in Ealing North’s demographics to the extent that you’re suggesting.”
Well the census results might reveal more details.
And its not just demographics but other fundamental electoral trends which are moving the urban areas leftwards politically. Trends which will be encouraged by the economic changes which will happen over the next few years.
And you sound like someone who wants to believe that Ealing North is winnable for the Conservatives and only stopped from being so by Pound’s personal vote.
That sort of wishful thinking is likely to see the Conservatives waste more time and resources and more importantly affect policy choices. All of which will make it harder to win areas that are trending towards them.
Richard, I really don’t think Ealing North has changed as much as you think or other parts of London that have produced similar Labour trends.
It might have done, and I don’t go there that often (not that far away) but I suspect it’s not changed as much as Harrow or Ilford.
Joe
Perhaps not demographically but how about politically.
Ealing North is sterotypically metroland middle suburban sprawl.
Such areas were not good places for the Conservatives in 2010 and with the economic trends which are happening that is likely to continue.
So Ealing North has both a demographic and an electoral/economic trend away from the Conservatives and it already has a big Labour majority.
It is therefore unwinnable for the Conservatives unless they get a 100+ majority and perhaps not even then.
And what’s the point in the Conservative leadership targetting seats which are only winnable in a landslide election. Far better to look for seats which could help secure a 20-40 majority and/or which are demographically and electorally/economically trending towards them.
Thinking of Ealing North as a winnable seat is wishful in the extreme and requires Stephen Pound to have built up an enormous personal vote of 6000+ since 2005.
Now I have no personal knowledge of Ealing North but nor have I heard anything that suggests Pound has done that.
Joe is spot on – Ealing N has changed demographically, but not as dramatically as Ilford S or Harrow W for example. It is still predominantly white although the Asian vote has grown. Some wards such as Hobbayne are actually better for the Tories now than they once were. I reckon Pound has a personal vote in the low thousands but it doesn’t account of course for all of his 10,000 majority – but he is unusually popular for an MP in the communities he represents.
Rather than getting sidetracked into how popular Stephen Pound actually is, I think Richard’s broader point has merit
When he was first elected and prior to the economic crisis, Cameron spent a good two years ‘reaching out’ to the urban middle classes who had abandoned the Tories en masse in the 1990s – and yet in the election it was precisely these types of voters which the Tories were unable to win back.
It was seats like this one with a high proportion of lower middle class aspirational voters where the Tories did best and the only flaw I see in Richard’s point is that the Tories did so well in the places he suggests they target I don’t see how they could better their 2010 performance when they won places like Thurrock, Ipswich, Yarmouth and Bedford
Surely the Tories best chance of winning a majority at the next election is by focusing on dislodging those Lib Dem MPs in much more conventionally middle class constituencies, which means Cameron might have to take another hike with the Huskies
While I agree with TJ that LibDem constituencies should provide the Conservatives with plenty of opportunities for gains in 2015 I think they will depend more on the loss of tactical votes from natural Labour supporters and/or the loss on the incumbancy factor as LibDem MPs stand down.
The traditional middle class Cosnervative constituencies that the LibDems hold such as Twickenham, Hallam, Leeds NW, Bath, Cheltenham and even Cheadle look out of reach for the Conservatives though.
The Conservatives better chances come in more lower middle class and rural LibDem areas. Such areas are unlikely to be impressed by any more husky or cycle & chauffeur photostunts.
Nor for that matter will Con/Lab marginals.
‘The traditional middle class Cosnervative constituencies that the LibDems hold such as Twickenham, Hallam, Leeds NW, Bath, Cheltenham and even Cheadle look out of reach for the Conservatives though’
Before the last election seats like Harrogate, Winchester and Oxford West all looked pretty safe for the Lib Dems, but the Tories picked strong candidates who managed to win the seats back and if the Lib Dems dire poll ratings continue then I think even the seats you mention might come into play
Generally you’re right though – it’s those more rural, less compolitan seats like, particularly in the South West of the UK, that seem most at risk – specifically from Labour voters returning home, which means the Tories won’t even have to anything to win the constituency
I doubt we’ll ever see the ‘bleeding heart liberal’ that Cameron tried to portray himself as when he first got the job – somethying most Tory MPs won’t be too sorry about
“lower middle class aspirational voters ”
I don’t think there are as many people who would fit this description anymore in Outer London. Most of these voters who voted for Thatcher in the 80′s have moved out the capital to Essex, Herts and Kent in particular. I think that sense of you can aspire to be something is not as prevailent in post Labour Britain as it was years and years ago. I also think councils are to blame as once they allow areas to fall into a depressing state it dictates the type of people that are going to move there.
Dale Farm looks like it’ll be another chance for Cameron to show some leadership. ( aka kick some ass)
He has been suprisingly quiet on the issue
“Dale Farm looks like it’ll be another chance for Cameron to show some leadership. ( aka kick some ass)”
I’m not sure if that was supposed to be deliberately ironic or not. I can’t think of an occassion when Cameron has “shown leadership” towards anyone that he cannot bully. And I doubt these so called ‘travellers’ are the sort who will be bullied.
“He has been suprisingly quiet on the issue”
That sounds more like Cameron.
You would expect the PM to have some kind of opinion on the subject but so far we have heard nothing from him.
It is a shame that the new town area of Basildon cannot be made into one seat, similar to Harlow but without the rural fringes. The seat could take in Basildon itself, Laindon, Pitsea, Vange and Langdon Hills and if the electorate is too large Langdon Hills could be removed.
The problem is not with the Basildon wards. The 9 New town wards of Basildon have an electorate of around 72,000 which would have been spot on before but would be just under quota on the new rules. The addition of a neighbouring ward such as Crouch or Orsett would bring it up to quota. This would be therefore a slightly enlarged version of the 1983-97 Basildon which did unite most of the New Town in a single seat (though Laindon was not included). The problem lies with the ‘East Thurrock’ wards which contain some 27,000 voters. They cannot go with Thurrock itself as that seat is already at quota. They can’t go with Castle point as that can also not accommodate so many extra voters plus there is no direct link (they are separated by Vange Creek). The solution from 1983 to 1997 was to include this area with Billericay which was never entirely satisfactory but which in any case necessitated the inclusion of Laindon to link the two distnct areas. The only solution therefore since 1997 has been to link the East Thurrock wards with parts of Basildon and hive off other Basildon wards into other seats
So before 83 Stanford and Corringham was included in Thurrock?
Yes – the Thurrock seat before1983 was the same boundaries as the borough
It might be possible to add East Thurrock to Brentwood. The 2 District Councils have an electorate of 165,000 so you’d only have to lose a ward or two somewhere else. Epping Forest & Harlow have a joint electorate of 155,000 and it’s very surprising that the Boundary Commission hasn’t made 2 seats here, but have proposed extending Harlow into Uttlesford while leaving Ongar with Brentwood.
Everyone in Basildon as well as most outside observers would prefer a seat which brings the town into 1 constituency.
It isn’t the insanest idea I’ve heard and makes far more sense than the BC’s proposed Billericay & Great Dunmow seat. Perhaps you should submit a proposal?
I find the BIllericay and Dunmow seat too big and it covers areas with nothing in common.
What wards from Thurrock could be added to Brentwood? I presume the Stanford and Corringham/Fobbing wards (I think there are 5 or 6 of them), East Tilbury and Orsett?
I agree Billericay and Gt Dunmow is a bizarre combination! There was a lot of grumbling in Chelmsford about the Chelmsford wards that were moved in to Saffron Walden last time, splitting from them off from the town and combining them with a town 20 miles away which they have little in common with. They will be even less happy with Billericay and Gt Dunmow!
The logical thing to do is to add Corringham & Fobbing (4500 votes) to Basildon town to bring it up to quota, since as Pete says the town is just a little too small.
East Tilbury is just too big to go back to Thurrock, so either has to join Stanford and Orsett in Brentwood (the Commission has already moved Orsett to Brentwood), or has to be swapped for Ockendon.
Assuming the latter this gives Brentwood & Stanford an electorate of 84,500 which is too many, so you would have to lose Ingatestone into a seat to the North.
Since the Castle Point/Southend seats make sense, that leaves you with Rayleigh, Wickford, & Billericay seat which has according to my count an electorate of 81,700. This is over quota unfortunately. No-one ever said the Boundary Commission’s job was easy.You’d have to either split a ward off Billericay, or better split a ward off Rayleigh and add it to Southend East.
You will then have a seat much like now that links the Western wards of Chelmsford District (plus Ingatestone) with Uttlesford.
I really do think that this makes more sense than the Boundary Commission’s current proposal.
Adding Ockendon to Brentwood would probably be a good move as Ockendon is not as far from Brentwood as East Tilbury. Ockendon also adjoins Orsett ward which will mean all of North Thurrock will be within the Brentwood seat – which is mostly rural anyway.
That way East Tilbury could be included in the Thurrock seat which would make more sense than it becoming a part of Brentwood.
Stanford linking with Brentwood sounds fine while Corringham and Fobbing moving into Basildon sounds fine – Ingatestone linking with West Chelmsford and Uttlesford also makes logical sense as it will not be able to join Brentwood. That way you would have Basildon and Corringham, Thurrock and East Tilbury, Brentwood and Stanford – three fairly reasonable seats.
Thanks for the support. I will now definitely submit this proposal to the Boundary Commission.