Enfield Southgate
2010 Results:
Conservative: 21928 (49.44%)
Labour: 14302 (32.25%)
Liberal Democrat: 6124 (13.81%)
UKIP: 505 (1.14%)
Green: 632 (1.42%)
English Democrat: 173 (0.39%)
Independent: 391 (0.88%)
Others: 297 (0.67%)
Majority: 7626 (17.19%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 18471 (43.7%)
Labour: 17298 (40.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 4915 (11.6%)
Other: 1595 (3.8%)
Majority: 1173 (2.8%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 18830 (44.6%)
Labour: 17083 (40.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 4724 (11.2%)
Green: 1083 (2.6%)
UKIP: 490 (1.2%)
Majority: 1747 (4.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 16181 (38.6%)
Labour: 21727 (51.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 2935 (7%)
UKIP: 298 (0.7%)
Green: 662 (1.6%)
Other: 105 (0.3%)
Majority: 5546 (13.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 19137 (41.1%)
Labour: 20570 (44.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 4966 (10.7%)
Referendum: 1342 (2.9%)
Other: 518 (1.1%)
Majority: 1433 (3.1%)
Boundary changes: Gains the majority of Highlands from Enfield North, a large part of Grange ward which is currently split between the three Enfield seats, and a substantial part of Palmers Green from Edmonton. There are also smaller changes due to new ward boundaries, which involve losing a tiny part of Bush Hill Park and gaining a few hundred voters in Bowes.
Profile: Stephen Twigg`s victory over Michael Portillo in Enfield Southgate symbolised the Labour victory in 1997 in the same way that David Amess`s defence of Basildon characterised the Conservative win in 1992. A book about election night 1997 by the journalist Brian Cathcart was later published with the title “Were you still up for Portillo?”.
Twigg`s victory was a surprise and his 8 years as MP for Enfield Southgate seem to have been an aberration in Enfield Southgate otherwise constant representation by the Conservative party. This the the prosperous, leafy western part of the Borough of Enfield and natural Conservative territory. It is more cosmopolitan than the Conservative suburbs of south-east London, there are sizeable Muslim, Jewish and Cypriot populations here, and the Bowes Park area to the south of the constituency is solidly Labour, but overall Southgate tends towards a middle-class Conservative area. To the north the seat becomes semi-rural as it takes in Trent Park and the Middlesex University campus and stretches into the hugely expensive Hadley Wood area.
Current MP: David Burrowes(Conservative) born 1969, Cockfosters. Educated at Highgate School and University of Exeter. Solicitor. Former Enfield councillor. Founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship along with Tim Montgomerie. Contested Edmonton 2001. MP for Enfield Southgate since 2005 (more information at They work for you)
David Burrowes(Conservative) born 1969, Cockfosters. Educated at Highgate School and University of Exeter. Solicitor. Former Enfield councillor. Founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship along with Tim Montgomerie. Contested Edmonton 2001. MP for Enfield Southgate since 2005 (more information at They work for you) 
Bambos Charalambous (Labour) Enfield councillor. Contested Epping Forest 2005 
Johar Khan (Liberal Democrat)
Peter Krakowiak (Green) Works for a housing charity.Bob Brock (UKIP)Ben Weald (English Democrat)Samad Billoo (Respect) Jeremy Sturgess (A Better Britain)Mal the Warrior Malakounides (Independent)Doctor Asit Mukhopadhyay (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 86241
Male: 47.9%
Female: 52.1%
Under 18: 20.2%
Over 60: 20.6%
Born outside UK: 27.4%
White: 80.3%
Black: 5.4%
Asian: 9.6%
Mixed: 2.6%
Other: 2.1%
Christian: 59.8%
Hindu: 4.6%
Jewish: 4.7%
Muslim: 8.1%
Full time students: 6.5%
Graduates 16-74: 31.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 21.7%
Owner-Occupied: 75.7%
Social Housing: 9.8% (Council: 7.3%, Housing Ass.: 2.6%)
Privately Rented: 12%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 6.3%
‘The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, received racist hate mail following his comments that marriage is between one man and one woman.’
But whether one is a Christian or not, the legal definition of marriage is a union between man and woman
To receive racist hate mail for stating the obvious is outrageous
I’ve got nothing against partnerships betweem same-sex couples – and the law legislates fort that – but it’s not marriage
It seems the Archbishop and David Burrowes are the victims of intolerance in this case – and how ironic that Andrew Pierce should stick his nose in – given that he’s right wing about every single issue under the sun, apart from homosexuality of course because he happens to be one
Complete baloney from Tim Jones
Care to explain why? I think there are some valid points raised.
Being against gay marraige is homophobic. End of. No ifs no buts. In the same way that being anti civil rights would make you a racist.
But he is right – the legal definition of marriage is as a “legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman”.
This has nothing to do with homophobia, more a statement of legal facts.
I think most survivors of the civil rights movement would certainly disagree with that.
Martin Luther King Jr himself was extremely hostile to homosexuality, as were most of his followers and indeed most African-Americans remain so to this day.
Was replying to Joe
As usual, the anti-Christians are allowed to be intolerant and hateful of Christians who dare to believe in their bible – however peaceloving and otherwise pleasant a person they may be. But of course Christians are intolerant and homophobic for doing so!
Homophobia implies hatred, a possible equivalence with the likes of Hitler. Genuine Christians who therefore believe that homosexuality is wicked DO NOT, by implication, hate persons who practice it any more than they hate or love anyone else however saddened they are by it. To imply that they are hateful is inaccurate, hurtful, intolerant (!) and IMO says more about the character of person who seeks – often quite angrily/viciously – who tries to tarnish them otherwise.
Likewise David Burrowes is in no way diminished in his ability to serve his constituents by his strong Christian beliefs. Indeed, many would say rather the opposite (and so does his majority imply this, take note Phillip Dawson).
“Being against gay marraige is homophobic. End of. No ifs no buts.”
I’ve no time for people who sign off their views with ‘end of’ as if nmo further discussion can be had on the subject – I don’t think thats your call. Rather unusually I can see nothing wrong with what Tim Jones said on this occasion.
Self evidently if David Burrows is being threatened with deselection and if Dr Sentamu is receiving hate mail for their views on this, then this is intolerance on the part of some of those who support ‘gay marriage’. Joe is exhibitihng the same intolerance – see things the way you do or one is denounced as a ‘homophobe’ and in turn being a ‘homphobe’ renders your opinons invalid. Its particularly sad that this kind of intolerance of different views which one had usually associated with the Labour left, now finds a home in the Conservatie party in the form of this ridiculous Phillip Dawson character
Gay marriage is merely the latest pushing of the boundaries by the militant gay lobby in their attemtps to tip the balance of equality in their favour.
And to think that a mere 10 years ago, most people would have opposed civil partnerships!
The militant gay lobby (a minority of the gay community, thankfully) have done very very well in getting their crackpot ideas accepted as basic human rights. But the time has come to say that enough is enough. If people like Tatchell and his ilk think they live in a homophobic state, perhaps they’d like to move somewhere else and start preaching their ideas there. I believe quite a lot of the Arab world would like to hear what they’ve got to say on the matter
Unfortunately, as Joe has so rightly pointed out-anyone who opposes this groups ideas are immediately branded as a homophobe and forced out of public life. So they will most probably get their way.
And if they do not, then no doubt the European Court for Criminal Rights will move the goal posts again and rule that gay marriage is a basic right that we MUST comply with. They’re good at doing that aren’t they.
And that-if Pete will indulge me-is “end of”.
Well yes no doubt it will be. It will be a ‘hate crime’ even to question the orthodoxy established by Joe and his ilk I should imagine
“The militant gay lobby (a minority of the gay community, thankfully) have done very very well in getting their crackpot ideas accepted as basic human rights.”
Personally I am happy with the concept of civil partnerships, which are a pragmatic means of solving injustices such as gay partners being unable to be treated as a next of kin in instances of bereavement or hospitalisation.
Marriage though is something different; we have to be very careful not to debase this unique institution even further than it already has been, which would risk even more family breakdown and neglected, unhappy children.
“And if they do not, then no doubt the European Court for Criminal Rights will move the goal posts again and rule that gay marriage is a basic right that we MUST comply with. They’re good at doing that aren’t they.”
Actually Shaun I think this is one issue that Europe will tread very carefully around. Gay rights issues in general are extremely controversial in deeply Catholic countries such as Italy, Spain and Ireland, and for this reason Europe would be quite wary of making such a bold judgement. More likely it would be down to our own establishment and/or judiciary.
“Personally I am happy with the concept of civil partnerships, which are a pragmatic means of solving injustices such as gay partners being unable to be treated as a next of kin in instances of bereavement or hospitalisation”
I never was of course. But I can see the benefits in a way, and if in return, the militant gay lobby would just shut up, go away and get on with their business privately, I for one would be very happy.
The oproblem is that they don’t. Its just another encouragement to push on to the next big ‘battle’. They are so obsessed with pushing the boundaries that I wonder if they can ever stop, and where that ill leave us in decades to come?
With regards the European Court of Criminal Rights, H.Hemmlig is of course quite right. As this is a sensitive issue in their own countries, they probably will try to keep out of it. Needless to say, however, if it was only a problem here in the UK, they’d pounce on it and impose a judgement. That tells us SO much about the nature of the European Court and how it is inherently against the interests of the UK. I’m very grateful to you
“Marriage though is something different; we have to be very careful not to debase this unique institution even further than it already has been, which would risk even more family breakdown and neglected, unhappy children.”
Is it? So if a man and a women are married in a registry office, or some place other than church in a civil ceremony, would you consider them to be a married couple or civil partners? To all intents and purposes it is the same thing.
The only issue is with the church, and whether they would wish to marry same sex couples. This is an issue for them as individual establishments. Nothing to do with government at all. After all, if I as an atheist went to a church and asked to be married there, there is a good chance they would turn me down as well.
Be careful not to fall in the trap between “wedding” and “marriage” – the latter of which concerns the legally binding aspect, the former the ceremony itself.
So no, a couple married in a Registry Office would not be a “civil partnership”, they would be married.
My use of end of does not mean it is wrong to discuss the matter or you cant say anything in rebuttal – I meant it to use the fact there is no reasonable argument (imo) against gay marriage.
Id never be against people having a say whatever their opinion. I stand by mine, but i stand by your right to say yours!
Sorry – probably wasn’t the right language to use.
And pete -> what is my “ilk”? :p
So ‘end of’ means you can try to argue against it all you like but you’re going to put your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen to any opposing argument?
You might have well not bothered to clarify your position, to be honest. The meaning is much the same really.
HH
“Personally I am happy with the concept of civil partnerships, which are a pragmatic means of solving injustices such as gay partners being unable to be treated as a next of kin in instances of bereavement or hospitalisation.
Marriage though is something different; we have to be very careful not to debase this unique institution even further than it already has been, which would risk even more family breakdown and neglected, unhappy children.”
I’m actually quite heartened by your comments as I see you as quite a socially liberal ‘rightie’. The huge mistake people – possibly on both sides of the argument – are making is to conflate this into an ‘equality’ issue when it really is not. As Shaun says, the militant and very active gay rights lobby seem to push further and further without really caring or stopping to think about this.
Jim Dobbin, a Labour MP, has said: “This is not an equality issue, but a redefinition, a change of the understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman. It will have all sorts of ramifications.”
In other words, why pull away the cornerstone from the foundation of society and watch it collapse? You won’t be able to just put it ‘back again’.
Society exists and is sustained by marriage as it currently exists including the natural reproductive process that keeps the human race going as well as the family unit that serves children best (as has been shown by countless studies).
Marriage existed before government and it is not their place to change nature. Why do intelligent people like Cameron not yet realise this?
Very quick point – I’m at work and should be getting on with other things.
I think BT makes a very, very good point. I think the problem is that, in instances where an individual defends marriage, or doesn’t fall over themselves to endorse gay couples adopting etc. they are automatically labelled as being “anti-gay”.
I don’t think this is true – instance, I don’t have a problem with the idea of a gay/lesbian couple adopting a child, and certainly wouldn’t see the child as automatically being disadvantaged (I think it’s better to be in a loving home than a non-loving one). But, I think that having two parents of different gender is a more balanced, natural and ideal solution – it doesn’t mean I’m “anti” to different solutions, it just means that I think that the most natural solution is generally the best.
I’d observe that labelling beliefs as “traditional” and “outdated”, whilst sometimes it can be true, is more often than not a convenient way for someone with very fixed and intransigent beliefs to belittle someone who disagrees with them. And the individuals who commit such labelling are, ironically, just as judgmental, bigotted and discriminatory as those they decry……..the irony staggers me every time.
BT says-
Even with today’s high divorce rates, around 50% of married couples stay together “till death us do part”.
Undoubtedly this is because the impact of divorce financially and on children can be devastating.
Gay people are on average much richer than heterosexuals, partly because they don’t have children. The barriers to divorce will therefore not be nearly so high.
I therefore have a very hard time believing that 50% of gay marriages would stay together “till death us do part”. I would even have a hard time believing that 25% would stay together forever. The likely consequence is an increase in the overall divorce rate for all marriages, which will drip drip away at the idea that marriage vows are for life and that people should work at their marriages rather than throw them away.
We all know what a dreadful impact divorce has upon childrens’ life chances and that should come before any considerations of equality.
It seems though that they are going to press ahead with this proposal so I do hope that I am wrong.
Chris K expresses my own views on this far better than I could myself
So H.Hemmelig (first 2 paragraphs) and others,
Your argument is that gay couples dont/wouldnt stay married because they dont have children (which in itself is a massive assumption that you have provided no evidence for). So gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry because they would affect children?????
How on earth does that work. Your statement that it would increase heterosexual divorce rates is totally plucked out the air, again no evidence whatsoever, the first statement is logical despite a lack of evidence. This one is not. Why would straight people get divorced more because gay people split up????
Furthermore, Chris K, why is a heterosexual couple an “ideal” situation, – what is “unideal” about a homosexual couple in raising children. Sure it is not normal in the sense it is not the most common arrangement. But why would it be disadvantageous?
Jim Dobbins and others stating that it would pull the cornerstone from society. -> It is not changing or undermining heterosexual marriage whatsoever. My wife and I’s (I am a straight, married conservative-voting male) marriage would not be at all affected by another gay couples marriage. Why would it? Would all your marriages suffer because you know of a gay couple who should be married?
I understand that certain religions will not want to marry gay couples, and that is up to them, and they should not be forced to do so. It is a conservative principle that people should be left alone, the state should get off our backs. I wouldn’t want the state to tell me I couldn’t marry anyone I chose to. Neither would you. The clergy should be free to do their job as they see fit. Likewise if a gay couple want to use the word married, and find a religious or non-religious body happy to do so, why not let them. I would understand if it infringed on your liberty if they got married, but it doesn’t, so why not let them???
Joe
“Your argument is that gay couples dont/wouldnt stay married because they dont have children (which in itself is a massive assumption that you have provided no evidence for). So gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry because they would affect children?????
How on earth does that work. Your statement that it would increase heterosexual divorce rates is totally plucked out the air, again no evidence whatsoever, the first statement is logical despite a lack of evidence. This one is not. Why would straight people get divorced more because gay people split up????”
Of course there’s no evidence as yet; such evidence can only be assessed once gay marriage is legalised. As I said, I hope I am wrong. Personally I just do not think that this is worth the potential risk, given that gay couples can in any case have a civil partnership which gives them the full legal rights that they would get from marriage.
Although dwarfed on this count by the NHS bill, for sure this is a vote loser for the Conservatives.
‘Although dwarfed on this count by the NHS bill, for sure this is a vote loser for the Conservatives.’
Totally agree – it’s another case where Cameron’s own liberal instincts clash with those of the country as a whole – particularly Conservative voters
He should go back to the drawing board on both (this issue and his NHS bill, which I felt Tim Montgomeries criticism of was spot on)
I dunno, even on the daily mail the more thumbs uped comments seem to be for it. I cant see it upsetting conservative voters enough for them to do anything, I believe (correct me if im wrong) that UKIP are also pro gay marriage.
Furthermore, it would be a great voter winner for 2010 LD voters who we should be getting to vote tory, the type we need to score 40%+ at the next GE.
We need to be the party of liberty, personal freedom, minimal state interference and economic competence and thats where we are going with this.
If you really want to just look at it in crass political terms, what’s the point anyway of winning over a small % of, to use your example, Lib Dems – to in the process turn off a large chunk of your core vote, and other potential floating voters?
“We need to be the party of liberty, personal freedom, minimal state interference and economic competence and thats where we are going with this.”
Economic competence – yes of course.
For what happens when politicians obsess about the other 3 issues above all else – take a look at Ron Paul’s electability. In fact his ideas are probably even less popular in the UK than they are in the US.
Unrestrained, abstract pointy-headed libertarianism is a one way ticket to a landslide defeat, which Thatcher understood all too well. She knew how to mix populist, authoritarian and libertarian to keep in touch with the public mood.
If the Tory party moves too far in your direction I’m sorry to say Labour will be back in charge soon….which I hope doesn’t happen.
I wasnt backing the polibcy for that reason: just responding to Tim Jones’ point.
I just dont think social conservatives have anywhere to go except the tory party. Like I said earlier, UKIP back the idea. You are working on the premise it is a net vote loser. I simply dont think it is. It would be good for polling to give us some results.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521 Shows americans are pro gay marriage. And id bet on us being more socially liberal in this than them.
Polls are very sensitive to wording and sampling.
The great liberal bastion that is California voted 52-48 against allowing gay marriage a few years ago.
The average American state being far more conservative and religious than California, I have a hard time believing that gay marriage is favoured nationwide if it cannot even get a majority in California.
It is also unclear in the article you linked to whether peoples’ views are on civil partnerships or the right to full religious marriage in church. There’s no chance of the latter ever happening nationwide in the USA. No politician would dare impose it on the likes of Alabama and Utah by federal constitutional amendment.
But opinions have swung fairly heavily towards equalisation, since 2008 and thats to full marriage, at least in the ones ive listed below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Gallup 5/8-5/11/2008 (Y:N:?) 40 56 4
5/5-5/8/2011 53 45 3
I think its only going to get more popular given the trends observed so far.
Possibly.
Although it is plausible that the gay-friendly tide could easily go into reverse, due to the steep increase in the muslim and black population (hispanic in the US).
Look at what is happening in Tower Hamlets, where the mayor is openly in favour of sharia law and is going around trying to force the closure of long-established gay pubs in the borough, trying to argue that they are “sex establishments”. The White Swan in Limehouse being the most famous of these – that’s the place where Michael Barrymore famously threw his wedding ring off and got up on the stage and announced he was gay.
Someday militant gays and militant islam are going to bump into each other in London in ugly confrontation.
That still wouldn’t make it right to do such a disservice to current and, especially, future generations.
However, not a single American state has voted for it yet when put to them in a referendum right up until much more recently than 2008 – which is why some politicians in states like Maine are trying to impose it without popular consent/vote despite the fundamental change in society it represents.
So decades of liberal elite brainwashing telling the majority of people they are evil, homophobes and racists are having an effect then are they, Joe.
But I wonder what the REAL majority of people think on the matter-i.e. what they really believe but feel unable to tell the pollsters that they believe. What would the result be then I wonder?
Never mind, Joe’s brigade seem to be getting their way. This is truely a foreign land now isn’t it.
Sorry, that was a response to Joe not HH.
“which is why some politicians in states like Maine are trying to impose it without popular consent/vote”
Again, if politicians in Maine are not confident they could win a vote on gay marriage there, there is no hope of winning it in middle America.
Maine and neighbouring New Hampshire are arguably the most libertarian states in the US.
Joe made this point above:
“Furthermore, Chris K, why is a heterosexual couple an “ideal” situation, – what is “unideal” about a homosexual couple in raising children. Sure it is not normal in the sense it is not the most common arrangement. But why would it be disadvantageous?”
Surely the answer to the question of what is “unideal” about a homosexual couple raising children is that in that type of situation the child in question will be separated from one or both of its biological parents.
Shaun, I am not a “brigade” and I bet you we would agree on 9 out of 10 matters.
There probably is a bias caused in the sampling agreed if its telephone or in person, but surely most internet polls would give the right result. It would certainly be intresting to see a new referendum.
You must accept that many conservatives believe in this issue on their own ground. Not matter whether left wingers do or dont like it.
Such a child will also be bullied relentlessly
Kieran – thats a fair point, but given the child will obviously be adopted its more of a matter of wheter adoptive straight parents will be any better than adoptive gay parents/
Hi Joe
I did make a point of saying that they wouldn’t be automatically disadvantaged….
I’m no expert, but I think there are obvious reasons why nature tends to create a mum and dad. For instance, when I grew up and experienced physical/emotional changes, I instinctively went to my Dad as he’d been through it. Didn’t mean I a) didn’t trust my Mum b) didn’t feel I could go to her, c) that she wouldn’t have done a fantastic job or d) that another male child in an identical family might not have instinctively gone to their mum…….etc. etc……….or any other caveat that you may wish to mention!.
But, in general, I think nature provides a Mum and a Dad for a reason – and given that nature seems to get most things right, I’m inclined not to argue with it. Therefore, I think that most children would benefit most from a Mum and Dad.
I think the fundamental point is that we can promote equality without effectively demeaning the ways in which most (and let’s be clear, it is ‘most’) people live their lives. I think there’s real danger that, by going out of our way to remove ‘discrimination’ , even when I suspect it is merely perceived, we risk actively discriminating against the majority .
Kieran – thats a fair point, but given the child will obviously be adopted its more of a matter of whether adoptive straight parents will be any better than adoptive gay parents.
Hemmelig – why would they want to put it to a referendum. I wouldnt if I was elected, we dont have an Athenian democracy. That doesnt mean necessarily that doesnt mean I think I would lose.
Joe, re adoption you are right. By definition if a child is up for adoption something has gone wrong with their biological family.
But I took your remarks to include cases of surrogacy, where the aim is to quite intentionally to bring a child into the world and raise it separately from one or both of its biological parents. A profoundly selfish act in my view.
I wouldnt go that far. If there is 2 loving parents who are emotionally equipped for looking after children in a stable permanent relationship thats a good environment to bring up a child in my books. Then again ive never have children (only 23!) so theres only so much I can comment on this issue.
‘Maine and neighbouring New Hampshire are arguably the most libertarian states in the US.’
I find that hard to believe
Libertarianism is ‘survival of the fittest’ which is what the Nazis believed in
I find it difficult to envisage two liberal states in New England, both of which are reliably Democrat in Presidential elections – at least nowadays – being the most receptive to this political creed
Surely places like Idaho and Wyoming fit the libertarian bill far better, although having lived there I accepot that your knowledge of the US is far greater than mine
“I took your remarks to include cases of surrogacy, where the aim is to quite intentionally to bring a child into the world and raise it separately from one or both of its biological parents. A profoundly selfish act in my view.”
Mine too….especially in the case of two men.
The bond between mother and child is the strongest thing in the world.
Maine: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins electoral record speaks pretty loudly. Id definatley class both as libertarians.
Olympia Snow is known as a RINO – Republican in Name Only
Maine senetorial election 2006
Republican Olympia Snowe (incumbent) 405,596 74.41%
Democratic Jean Hay Bright 113,131 20.75%
For reference.
“Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins electoral record speaks pretty loudly. Id definatley class both as libertarians.”
They are moderate Rockefeller Republicans, which is not always the same thing.
For example moderate Republicans are generally in favour of Medicare and state-funded education, whilst conservative Republicans who don’t can plausibly claim that they have the most “libertarian” position.
Ron Paul is the ultimate libertarian, believing that car crash victims with no health insurance should be left at the side of the road to die. Neither Olympia Snowe nor Susan Collins are of that ilk.
Ron Paul on most issues is a purist-libertarian true. However, he has several very un-liberarian views, e.g. gay marriage as we have just been discussing, dont-ask-dont-tell likewise.
OS and SC are both moderatley fiscally conservative and socially liberal, so definitely are on the libertarian end of the spectrum.