Chesham and Amersham
2010 Results:
Conservative: 31658 (60.37%)
Labour: 2942 (5.61%)
Liberal Democrat: 14948 (28.5%)
UKIP: 2129 (4.06%)
Green: 767 (1.46%)
Majority: 16710 (31.87%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 27234 (55.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 12642 (25.7%)
Labour: 6339 (12.9%)
Other: 2982 (6.1%)
Majority: 14592 (29.7%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 25619 (54.4%)
Labour: 6610 (14%)
Liberal Democrat: 11821 (25.1%)
Green: 1656 (3.5%)
UKIP: 1391 (3%)
Majority: 13798 (29.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 22867 (50.5%)
Labour: 8497 (18.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 10985 (24.3%)
UKIP: 1367 (3%)
Green: 1114 (2.5%)
Other: 453 (1%)
Majority: 11882 (26.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 26298 (50.4%)
Labour: 10240 (19.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 12439 (23.8%)
Referendum: 2528 (4.8%)
Other: 692 (1.3%)
Majority: 13859 (26.6%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Cheryl Gillan(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)
Cheryl Gillan(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)Anthony Gajadharsingh (Labour)Tim Starkey (Liberal Democrat) born 1974. Barrister.Nick Wilkins (Green) Alan Stephens (UKIP)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89228
Male: 48.3%
Female: 51.7%
Under 18: 22.9%
Over 60: 22.3%
Born outside UK: 9.3%
White: 95.5%
Black: 0.3%
Asian: 2.5%
Mixed: 1.1%
Other: 0.7%
Christian: 74.7%
Muslim: 1.9%
Full time students: 3.1%
Graduates 16-74: 31.3%
No Qualifications 16-74: 18%
Owner-Occupied: 79.5%
Social Housing: 12.6% (Council: 1.5%, Housing Ass.: 11%)
Privately Rented: 5.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 2.7%
The Republicans also seemed to have done well at Governor level.
It seems they do better the more ‘local’ the level.
But re HH’s point about tackling the debt problems.
Not going to be done, default and bankruptcy is the way things will end. Together with serious social unrest.
“default and bankruptcy is the way things will end. Together with serious social unrest.”
Unfortunately it’s hard to disagree.
We are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic that those who benefit from excessive state spending have an increasing ability to outvote those who pay for it.
Before the default and bankruptcy I think the politicians will try to solve the debts with runaway inflation…which of itself will add fuel to the eventual unrest.
“This was the first presidential election in recorded history where the majority of registered independents voted for the loser.
According to the CNN exit poll, Romney won independents by 5%.
This election was the final death knell for the Clinton and Blair concept that “elections are won by those in the centre ground”. Because the majority of those in the centre ground supported the loser.
The fact is that recession, state/benefit dependence and race politics has built up such a big core vote on the left that it is big enough to outvote both the right and the centre added together.”
This is the best analysis that I have seen or heard of the election today, most of which has implied that Obama won the centre ground and talked about the importance of women voters and the young etc. No doubt these are factors, but Romney had a clear lead amongst white women and white young voters. The single deciding factor in this election was the ability of the Democrats to bring out monolithic voting blocs amongst certain minority ethnic groups, something they have been adept at since the days of Tammany Hall, but which can now decide a national election due to the increased numerical strength and the fortuitous distribution of these blocs. Not only were all the important swing states such as Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania decided by the black vote but even in supposedly liberal bastions like New Jersey, Maryland and California, white voters gave a clear majoirty of votes to Romney. But even a 60/40 advantage nationally is not enough when you have a voting bloc which is so tribal and ghettoised in its voting behaviour that over 90% will routinely and unthinkingly come out for the other party.
Its possible (and necessary) for the GOP to make big inroads into the Hispanic vote, as George W Bush showed in Texas and this is going to be crucial to remiaining competitive in places like Florida, Colorado and Nevada but that isn’t much of an issue in Ohio or Virginia or MIchigan where it is the monolithic nature of the African America vote which gives the Democrats an edge.
And to quote Enoch Powell slightly out of context “That … phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come.”
The difference here being that it is not so much a matter of neglect as a deliberate policy of ther last Labour goverment to import voters and thus to skew the electoral arithmetic here in a similar way. Of course HH is correct to refer to state benefit dependents in this who in this country at least remain majority white, so the issue he draws attention to is not purely one of race. I would however develop the point to illustrate the danger of small, unrepresentative but politically united minority groups exercising an effective strangehold over electoral outcomes in Western democracies. I gather also that Sarkoy won the majority of votes this year amongst the indigionous French people and it was similarly a monolithic (something like 92%) vote amongst the large muslim minority in France which delivered the election to Hollande. The problem here is that once in power, parties of the left see an easy way to boost their support by increasing the sie of these reliable voting blocs, whether by increasing immigration or by creating ever more state dependents. IN the case of the last Labour government they did both which was not enough to keep them in power, but most likley did stop the Conservatives winning a majority while the long term demographic vandalism inflicted on the country will make it increasingly difficult for parties of the right creating a continuous vicious cycle of demographic (not only ethnic) deterioration
Pete
The economic crash together with the energy crunch are going to bust things wide open.
How that will affect things politically I don’t know.
Also, it has been suggested that a ‘white block vote’ was at least partially responsible for the Boris London victories (and for that matter all those Republican Mayors in New York city).
Equally a white block vote must now exist in the US Deep South for the Romney wins there to be so conclusive. The House districts in those states also follow demographic patterns.
I would expect racially polarised elections to increase both in the USA and Europe.
But as I said the economic crash is probably not far off.
Thanks for your praise Pete and, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.
Those who believe that the monolithic voting blocs you describe will become any more favourable to voting Republican/Conservative as a result of further recession or the swing of the political pendulum are deluding themselves.
Perhaps I am unduly influenced by having a Cuban-American wife and having worked a lot in South Africa and observed exactly this mechanism with regard to the ANC.
On both sides of the Atlantic I’m afraid we are set for 20 years of left of centre domination of national elections due to the influence that monolithic voting blocs of racial groups and state dependents can bring about. It will render any serious efforts to cut state spending or increase basic tax rates impotent, leading eventually to the bankruptcy that Richard prophesises.
“Enough of this divisive racial shit please.”
- H.Hemmelig, Croydon North thread, November 4.
“or by creating ever more state dependents”
Its the process I’ve referred to before as ‘wefare consumerism’.
The ‘wefare’ part extends beyond mere welfare payments to having an increasing, and increasingly well paid, public sector workforce and also to having much of the private sector dependent upon government contracts and government approval.
The ‘consumerism’ part is the increased emphasis on consumerism as a measure of a person’s standing. As few people are able to earn enough to pay for all this consumerism the government then becomes necessary to provide the shortfall.
In short people become addicted to big government in order to fund their consumerism.
The ‘right to try’ has become a ‘right to have’.
And with addiction goes control.
It is needless to say that big business also benefits from this and an economic shift is made to them from small business.
I believe that Mandelson predicted a ‘post democratic age’. In reality this means we are heading towards a combination of two dystopias:
An Orwellian authoritarian-statist style dystopia based upon the ideals of the leftist overclass.
A ‘Bladerunner’ style dystopia based upon the ideals of the plutocrat overclass.
How much each dystopia will occur will vary from country to country depending upon local factors.
I think some of the comments on here following Obama’s re-election illustrate that the US isn’t the only country with an angry white male voting bloc
Picking up on Joe’s point about the Republicans losing seats in the senate – what was interesting was that two of the defeated Republican candidates that were defeated were those who spoke of ‘legitimate’ rape
It shows how for one the first time in many years, the Democrats more liberal approach to social issues actually won them votes rather than lost them votes
Romney won the white vote by 59% to 39%.
If you apply that to most other western nations Romney would have won easily because the proportion of white voters is higher than in the US.
So the same demographic voting in Canada, Australia, UK, etc. would have meant a Romney win.
The reason I point this out is that there has been a lot of nonsense written about how Romney’s failure is a lesson for conservative parties in other western countries like Britain.
Im not as pessimistic as Hemmlig or Richard yet. I fully believe that in an advanced democracy there is a natural balancing effect that will occur if one side gains too much power. People naturally wander away from government as middle class people did from the tory party. If labour is getting 90% of the black vote then others will move away from the party, as the WWC have done.
It is really divisive though that voting should go on racial lines, and really not desirable. Id much rather we won 40% of the white vote and 40% of the black rather than 45% and 10% respectively but ultimately that’s not something we can control other than treating the black electorate as no different to the white electorate which I believe we largely do. Theres no reason why black people would vote in such numbers for labour other than demographics (those not pertaining to race) and eventually they will even out with other demographics and thus I have every confidence that over time race will cease to be a factor.
This country isn’t South Africa, we have a proper democracy rather than a banana republic voting huge majorities for the same party each time because of our racial background rather than what we believe to be right. People aren’t going to give the same party 5 or 6 terms.
“People naturally wander away from government as middle class people did from the tory party. If labour is getting 90% of the black vote then others will move away from the party, as the WWC have done.”
However that does not apply any more to the US, where the amenable white vote has now been totally maxed out by the GOP.
In order to get a higher percentage of the white vote, the Republicans would now have to get people like Robin Hood, Barnaby Marder and The Results voting for them, which is never going to happen.
The fact is with a good candidate the republicans would have beaten Obama. As it was with a billionaire who spouted off some dodgy comments (imagine if DC said what MR said about the 47%) and was pretty unlikeable they came 2% short and were very close in crucial swing states. The republicans are no more dead than the democrats were under Bush. Hilary Clinton may well win the 2016 election, but when 72% of the population back you by 59 to 39 you are always going to have a fighting chance. As the white percentage drops I think it is most likely that they will split more and more conservative evening out things.
One interesting thing I did notice from the exit polls was that while young (18-29) Whites and Hispanics were significantly more likley to vote for Obama than the older age groups, for African Americans this position was reversed. Amongst 18-29 year old blacks the figures were 91/8 for Obama against 94/5 in the next age group up. This may be something and nothing but could point to a slight breaking down of monolitic voting patterns amongst this demographic which can only increase when there is not one of their number on the Democrat ticket (or indeed if there is one of their number on the GOP ticket).
There was also a significant gender gap amongst African Americans – much more so than there was between white men and white women. While black women were truly monolithic at 96/3 black men were much less so at 88/11. This may have some socio-economic explanations. Turnout amongst black women was very much higher than amongst black men and one possible explanation for this is that underclass black women came out to vote in large numbers and almost all voted for Obama while underclass black males more likely didn’t vote at all leaving a far greater proportion of those black males who did vote being the better educated and higher earners. Perhaps one shouldn’t over-analyse some fairly small statistical markers from an exit poll, but there could be some indications in there that there is a way forward for them amongst this demographic. It is at least more likley that in the future they can increase their support here than that they will have the American equivalents of Barnaby Marder or Robin Hood voting for them, or even Tim Jones for that matter
Yes they are all good points.
On the flip side however is the fact that hispanics and Asians are becoming more rather than less of a monolithic Democrat voting block.
Up until the 1990s, many if not most hispanic and Asian voters supported the Republicans for cold war reasons, related to the political situation in their homelands (eg Cuba and Vietnam).
Since then this tradition has died out fast, even amongst the older generation of Latinos like my mother-in-law, who escaped Castro’s regime as a child in the 1950s but who happily supports Obama today, something she would never have done 30 years ago.
Funnily enough I just (about an hour ago) heard a report on Radio 4 which described an elderly Cuban American foollowing exactlky the same trajectory as bascially the Bay of Pigs is ancient history and he was now more concerned with getting his welfare cheque from a Democrat government.
Certainly Hispanics are the more crucial demographic here both because they are more swingable and they are the demographic that is growing so rapidly such that in another generation the GOP will be in troiuble in Arizona and Texas if they don’t make serious inroads.
A key factor is that hispanics largely agree with Republicans on social issues but do not allow this to affect their vote.
My mother-in-law is a devoted Catholic with a predictable hatred of abortion and homosexuality, but does not mind voting for a Democrat who embraces both. My wife is a much watered down version of the same but does not see the contradiction when I point it out to her.
Its funny that we both have mothers in law who voted for Obama
Well I sympathise with Les Dawson’s views on mothers-in-law
I don’t mean it to sound like I’m castigating my family’s support for Obama.
If I had a vote myself I would have found it very hard to decide who to vote for.
I dislike Romney as a person, dislike the GOP’s position on many social issues, and dislike their eagerness to re-embrace a Bush attitude to foreign policy. I admire Obama’s courage in trying to establish universal health coverage. Nevertheless, economically he is going to a be a disaster, and for me that probably outweighs all the other factors.
The fact is if Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush had taken a slightly tougher attitude towards Hispanic immigration into the US Romney probably would have won this election. It might be a very un-nuanced point to make but it’s still likely to be true.
‘Nevertheless, economically he is going to a be a disaster’
People said the same about Bill Clinton – Ross Perot for examnple in his famous chicken adbverts prior to the ’92 election – and yet not only did his stewardship of the ecomomy lead to 5-6 years of prosperity, but he also wiped out the defecit he inheritted from the Republicans
Besides, there’s been a bigger recovery in America, whose government have taken a distinctly Keynsian approach to fixing their ecomomy, than in the UK, whose government have done everything what Romney said he would do if elected – cutting public spending and giving tax cuts to the richest in society
There’s been a bigger recovery in the US because Obama had an election to win.
2013 will be an awful year economically in US, starting on January 1st when they jump off the “fiscal cliff”.
Osborne and Cameron have been trying to store up their sweeties for 2014-15 in the run up to their own re-election. Obama has given out all of his and now the bill is coming up for payment.
Cameron and Osborne will give out sweeties regardless of whether or not they have managed to save any up.
Two can play at labours game of bribing the electorate with non-existant cash!
“whose government have taken a distinctly Keynsian approach to fixing their ecomomy, than in the UK, whose government have done everything what Romney said he would do if elected – cutting public spending and giving tax cuts to the richest in society”
Obama hasn’t employed a Keynesian approach – that requires saving money first to spend later. Obama has just continued the spendathon.
And there’s been no cutting of public spending in the UK nor tax cuts for the richest.
A signifcant difference though has been in energy policy. The US is exploting shale gas while the UK has decided to go for a energy policy based on shit, straw and wind. Something which has more in common with the 11th century than the 21st.
“the US isn’t the only country with an angry white male voting bloc”
A couple of differences though:
In the USA the Republicans have got that demographic sown up. In Britain that demographic has voting options. The Conservatives have to earn those votes and at the moment the demographic seems angrier with Cameron and his chums than anyone else.
In the USA parties need over 50% of the vote to win an election. In Britain getting over 40% of the vote wins you an election.
HH
You seem to have come closer to my way of thinking economically.
Have you shifted your views or have our roads joined?
This story in the Mail is an example of the welfare consumerism entitlement society we have become:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2229461/Were-middle-class-successful–poor-church-mice.html
“HH
You seem to have come closer to my way of thinking economically.
Have you shifted your views or have our roads joined?”
I think our roads have joined.
It’s pretty hard to disagree that the debts which are ballooning all around us will never be paid back and that the eventual default will be the most painful time any of us have ever been through.
Having spent a lot of time in the US this year I agree with you 100% on the shale gas. It’s a real game changer which is bringing all kinds of energy-intensive industry back to the US, some of it from UK.
On Europe it’s become very obvious that we’re out in all but name. I don’t see any point in continuing to pay a membership fee for nothing, as long as we can try to keep most of the single market.
“If I had a vote myself I would have found it very hard to decide who to vote for.
I dislike Romney as a person, dislike the GOP’s position on many social issues, and dislike their eagerness to re-embrace a Bush attitude to foreign policy. I admire Obama’s courage in trying to establish universal health coverage. Nevertheless, economically he is going to a be a disaster, and for me that probably outweighs all the other factors.”
That rather mirrors my views.
Another aspect which has not been mentioned much here is what will be the effect on US public opinion and politics of China’s increasing power.
Americans have been used to being world leaders for so long that the likelihood of being overtaken might be hard to bear.
I wonder if they might try to engineer a limited conflict before China gets too strong and use it as an excuse to default on all the money they owe China.
There has been some talk about black voters in the US unthinkingly voting for Barack Obama. What we far more rarely hear is about poor whites in the South unthinkingly voting GOP. Some of you may find it annoying that such a huge majority of black voters vote Democrat – but if you look at the results in some states, such as Mississippi, you will find just a monolithic white vote against them and for the Republicans. There is no point either side of the Atlantic in complaining about this, or that Hispanic voters have also voted overwhelmingly (even more so than in 2004, it seems) for the President. It is up to the Republicans to make themselves more attractive to these communities. That needn’t necessarily mean becoming touchy-feely liberals; George W. Bush as Governor of Texas understood the importance of making his party attractive to Hispanic voters, and was rewarded with a distinctly better vote amongst them than other Republicans, some of which continues to endure in his own state (though it seems not in neighbouring New Mexico). He was one of the most conservative US Presidents, with some even more conservative figures in high positions in his administration, but he emphasized the importance in resisting racism more than some previous Republican (and even in some cases Democrat) presidents
That got posted before I’d completely finished, by accident. I meant to summarise, communal voting is not confined to ethnic minorities; but in the US, it’s clear that white voters in some areas, and not just urban ones, are much more susceptible to voting Democrat than in others – indeed, the second most solid Democrat state, Vermont, has the very highest proportion of white voters in the land. Nevertheless, in the South in particular, but also in some other parts of the union, we have polarised voting on both sides of the divide; no-one should point the finger at black voters as if they are the only ones who instinctively vote overwhelmingly for a particular party. Similarly in Britain, I don’t think that you could seriously argue that an average white British stockbroker in Weybridge will seriously consider alternatives to voting Conservative any more than an Afro-Caribbean railway worker in Wolverhampton will seriously consider alternatives to voting Labour.
Doubtless true, but the above examples are more specific and less numerous and less one sided than the African American black vote. Although this will deteriate with time.
Richard,
we will all come round to your way of thinking.
Seriously.
”
‘Nevertheless, economically he is going to a be a disaster’
People said the same about Bill Clinton – Ross Perot for examnple in his famous chicken adbverts prior to the ’92 election – and yet not only did his stewardship of the ecomomy lead to 5-6 years of prosperity, but he also wiped out the defecit he inheritted from the Republicans”
The USA economy was actually growing, and reasonably fast when people didn’t re-elected George Bush Senior, and elected Bill Clinton in 1992.
Bill Clinton did seem to understand how to move on to the Conservative agenda in a few areas (I think he promised a tax cut for all),
but I strongly suspect he just inherited the upturn on the economy and the deficit shrank from that.
The Labour Government in 1997 also inherited an upturn and although some very damaging poicies were enacted in 1997, their effects were not clear, even to some in the Conservative Party, for many years.
” We are seeing on both sides of the Atlantic that those who benefit from excessive state spending have an increasing ability to outvote those who pay for it. ”
I hope you’re wrong on this, but it is an obvious danger.
In Britain we’ve become used to discussing elections as
“who is seen as more competent at managing the economy” (even when times are tough and the incumbent Government’s record doesn’t on the surface look good).
I fear that may no longer apply.
If the Tories lose in Britain, they may do so not because they’ve lost the argument.
It could simply be that those who have a narrow interest in voting for the State to be expanded and know deep down that what the Tories/right say makes sense,
would never vote for them in a million years
and always back welfarism
and divisive victim based politics that the metropolitan left are very skilfull at playing.
All is not lost though.
For example,
Despite everything that was thrown at Boris in London this May,
he kept it Conservative.
“Despite everything that was thrown at Boris in London this May,
he kept it Conservative.”
London mayoral elections are becoming like those in New York – ethnic headcounts.
” People said the same about Bill Clinton – Ross Perot for examnple in his famous chicken adbverts prior to the ’92 election – and yet not only did his stewardship of the ecomomy lead to 5-6 years of prosperity, but he also wiped out the defecit he inheritted from the Republicans ”
Different times, the 1990s were almost a golden/lucky decade economically – strong productivity growth, ‘peace dividends’, low energy costs.
And most importantly of all it was before China and much of the third world arose in competition.
Look at this data of the UK’s trade balance and compare the 1990s to now:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=KTMY&dataset=pnbp&table-id=A
Now the West is facing competition from peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are, and who work harder at lower cost and with less regulation.
Richard
All of that is of course true.
Additionally, what Tim Jones might also not like to hear is the fact that much of the improvement in the US fiscal position in the 1990s was down to the Republicans winning the house and the senate in 1994, and Clinton’s decision to accept a lot of their radical ideas to trim spending (“workfare” and welfare reform being one area).
By contrast, Obama and the Republican congress are currently at loggerheads and much less likely to compromise in this way to the benefit of the country.
‘Additionally, what Tim Jones might also not like to hear is the fact that much of the improvement in the US fiscal position in the 1990s was down to the Republicans winning the house and the senate in 1994, and Clinton’s decision to accept a lot of their radical ideas to trim spending (“workfare” and welfare reform being one area).’
the only contribution the ‘contract with america’ Republicans who swept into congress in 1994 made to american politics was getting bill clinton re-elected in 96
up until then, clinton looked like he was going to be a one-term president
much like today’s motely crew in the house of representatives they woke people up to the fact that there was a far worst alternative to what was currently on offer
clinton did indeed reach some compromises with them – but he was far more of a hate-figure fot the Repubican Right (much the same way the Democratic Left hated W Bush) than Obama
richard is right in that the emergrence of new economies – particularly china – is a game-changer – but talks of the US being in perpetual downfall because of obama’s election is wromng anmd just underlines how right wing some of the commentators on this site really are – especially so given that the majority of Tory voters and supporters backed Obama by a not insignificant majority
In the USA, there are, just in Britain, high-swing areas (Indiana looks like one at the moment, for example) and low-swing ones (Florida has not usually swung either way by as much as the national average since 1996). But there are certain states which actually swung to Obama. Most of these were in the path of the storm (both New Jersey & NY swung to Obama), but I noticed that the Republicans held Mississippi with a reduced majority, in stark contrast to most other solid red states which mostly swung heavily to Romney (Oklahoma is an exception, but Obama had done spectacularly badly there in 2008). Perhaps someone could explain – is it just improved turnout by black voters, in a state with the largest black population in the country (unless you count Washington DC) ?
Nate Silver:
“Had the popular vote been a tie – assuming that the margin in each state shifted uniformly – he would still have won re-election with 285 electoral votes, carrying Colorado and Virginia, although losing Florida and Ohio.
In fact, had Mr. Romney won the popular vote by two percentage points, Mr. Obama would still have won the Electoral College, losing Virginia but holding onto Colorado.”
ht tp://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/#more-37366
To be honest, I cant imagine many swing voters in Mississippi, id imagine it is a turnout issue. Either way, the democrats are never going to win there.
‘Either way, the democrats are never going to win there.’
They certainly aren’t
Mississippi has the highest proportion of African-Americans of any American state (not including DC obviously)
The high turn out amongst the black electorate would have been the main reason why Romney’s margin of victory there was lower than McCain’s
I find the results in the likes of Kentucky, Tennesse,Louisiana, West Virginia and Arkansas more interesting because they were all won by the Democrats in 92 and 96, swung further away from them in 2008 when nearly all of the other states were doing the opposite, and now look completely unwinnable from a Democratic pont of view
And there’s little to suggest a white Democrat candidate would have done any better
I couldn’t find an easy-to-read page featuring the US election total votes by state so I’ve done one myself on GoogleSpreadsheets:
ht tp://bitly.com/ZcG3EF
Nice one Andy – I was interested in that very factor
Looks like Romney is heading for about 47% if you look at the latest figures on the link I gave above…
47.9 I think, obama just over 50. Sounds like the democrats had a superior GOTV where it mattered, and that Romney was knocking up weak Ps in Whitton or berrylands
Those are the current percentages but there are probably still about 7-8 million votes to be counted and most of them are in strongly Democratic areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, etc.