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%
I meant to write also that Ron Pauls defence of states’ rights is also very un-characteriscally un-libertarian.
Tim
“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”
It depends on how you define libertarianism.
In terms of belief in low taxation and minimal government interference in economics, New Hampshire is widely regarded as the most libertarian state in the USA. In some ways this is an adverse reaction to being next door to arguably the most liberal, socialist state – Massachusetts.
If you extend the definition of “libertarian” to include loony survivalists who do not agree with the state in any form, then I agree with you that the centre of this school of thought is out west. Not so much Wyoming, but the upper west states like Montana, and the Dakotas.
Actually Maine is a bit of a mix of both strains of libertarianism – some New Hampshire fiscal conservatism and a less cranky version of survivalism. Remember most of Maine is out in the wilds, despite being part of New England. Maine was also Ross Perot’s best state in 1992. By the way Ron Paul almost won the caucus in Maine last week.
I believe that Susan Collins is a member of a moderate pressure group within the Republican Party called “It’s My Party Too!”
I have seen the ACU’s ratings of all American congressmen & -women. Collins & Snowe have a lower conservative rating than certain Democrats e.g. Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Having lived in Wyoming for a year (albeit in the early 90s as a 16/17 year old) I’d say it wasn’t particularly libertarian – I remember our English teacher being a Texan lady and saying “Y’all in Wyoming are the most chauvanistic people I’ve ever met….I love it!”
Intolerance tended to bubble under the surface – someone in class once gave a perfectly reasonable answer to a reasonable question, only for the guy behind him to mutter, apropos of nothing, “****ing Atheist!”
Hence the RINO label.
Snowe is regarded as more liberal than Collins.
I have come across this thread very late in the day and it has been interesting to read. The comments were sparked off by a post that someone lifted from the Christian Institute website on 13th February. Following a number of complaints to them they have since amended their news story but as yet have not apologised to me for printing unfounded and untrue allegations. At no time have I told the Christian Institute or anyone else that I am actively trying to call for David’s deselection or to discuss his future candidature. Such statements are untrue.
As is made clear in its purpose, the facebook group I set up was to challenge one specific comment that David made in the Independent Newspaper on 17th January;
“Gay marriage is a debate we don’t need to have at this stage. It is not an issue people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about,”
Many people probably haven’t given the issue of gay marriage a passing thought and to be honest, I had not spent much time thinking about it until David’s comments on the front page of the Independent. My own view is that I am in favour of equality of choice in this matter – both in terms of same sex and mixed sex couples – and I know from speaking with my friends and acquaintances that many share this view; that is not to say I expect everyone to do so.
The purpose of the social media campaign was to allow people of a similar mind to show David that – even though they may not have contacted their MP about this issue – equality of choice is something they do feel strongly about. I have read polls which show that the majority of people in the country support equal rights for gay people.
David’s view is that the legal definition of marriage should not be changed. The implication of that is that gay couples are denied the choice that mixed sex couples have. I tolerate David’s view but do not respect it because I do not share it. I believe in equality of choice in this matter. He is of course perfectly entitled to express his opinion just as you and I are.
As someone who is at the same time gay, Christian and a member of the Conservative Association which supports David, I have found the issues he has raised in the Independent very interesting and personally very relevant.
There are many other issues in the world today worthy of this level of debate and I wish I had time to bang on David’s door about all of them!
Many thanks,
Phillip
“An MP has revealed he received a death threat and hate mail after speaking out in support of traditional marriage.
David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, made the remarks at the launch of Coalition for Marriage (C4M) in London.
A number of politicians, lawyers and religious leaders have signed C4M’s petition, supporting the current definition of marriage and opposing any plans to redefine it. The petition can be signed online here: http://www.c4m.org.uk
Threats
Mr Burrowes was targeted after he spoke out in support of traditional marriage last month.
At the C4M press conference, the Tory MP said: “I myself have been subjected to hate mail, to accusations of homophobia, and to a death threat as well, which is just extraordinary when one is affirming what the law is as it stands and has done historically for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.” ”
C.I. 21/02/2012
This is unfortunate news. David Burrowes has every right to defend traditional marriage without fearing for his safety.
I agree, it is a very very sad state of affairs.
But then, that is what you find with a lot of these militant minority groups isn’t it, only they are allowed to speak or to put a view. Anyone who wants to oppose that view must be silenced.
They’re probably the same people that would chain themselves to his railings and shout ‘hate crime’ at him everytime he walked out his front door. We all know what sort of people we’re dealing with.
Spot on Shaun.
The irony, as you rightly say, is that individuals who do that sort of thing are as bigoted as anyone else out there – yet doubtless see themselves as esoteric, progressive defenders of civil rights…….
Phillip Dawson
“I have read polls which show that the majority of people in the country support equal rights for gay people.”
Without sources one can only assume these are voodoo polls that YouGov is often warning us about but, even if not, they are irrelevant to the question in hand as they are confusing two things.
The same old chestnut. Trying to make redefining marriage an equality issue which it manifestly is not. Gays already have equal rights; now can they stop coercing government into matters relating to the foundations of our society. existence and the sustaining of humanity in general? – matters that don’t belong to government, just as marriage existed long before Parliament/government in this country. It’s just not their remit, and nor does it have anything to do with equality which is already firmly enshrined in the law.
Its completely within the governments remit. Furthermore, equality in terms of protection and financial status is not the same as giving an equality in terms of relationship status.
they arent voodoo polls, they are reputable polls by reputable polling companies.
Joe
I don’t agree. Civil partnerships give them that relationship status that they craved (as well as the financial), that’s what they all said. If it was just about financial, they wouldn’t have been so definite about excluding other relationships such as natural sisters living together, from the bill. It was to make a clear statement about the equality of relationship for gays.
However, there are no boundaries that the militant gay lobby will not push it seems. sadly with more success than is warranted – which makes you think it won’t ever end, and in the end the balance will be firmly tipped IN FAVOUR OFgay relationships in society.
Unless those that do have some power to make statements and influence the thing in a sensible direction (eg by saying clearly what is not for them to change for a start), such as the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, take a firm stand now.
Hopefully he’ll double his majority
It’s interesting that Burrowes defeated Twigg (who defeated Portillo). I imagine Burrowes’ social conservatism to be rather more popular in the seat, his Party and the Country. Even Portillo admits his libertarianism isn’t popular. It’s also a mistake to assume all gay people support ‘gay marriage’
“Gay celebrity Christopher Biggins says he is happy with civil partnerships but doesn’t want to redefine marriage because “we can’t just get rid of everything.”
He was speaking on ITV’s daytime show, Loose Women. He said: “I’m very anti-marriages, because I think that is for heterosexual couples.”
Mr Biggins, who entered into a civil partnership in 2006, said: “We can’t just get rid of everything, we have to hold on to something.”
It echoes his comments made in 2005 when civil partnerships were introduced. He said: “Marriage, in my view, should always be reserved for the union between a man and a woman — primarily for the purpose of bringing up a family.
“To go one step further and elevate partnerships into the status of marriage would make a mockery of an institution which, for all its faults, has served society well for many centuries.”
His comments come as tens of thousands of people across the UK continue to sign the Coalition for Marriage petition opposing any plans to redefine marriage.”
C.I. 24/02/2012
For BT says
Yougov September 2011 Sample Size 2601
Which of the following best reflects your view?
I would support same-sex marriage 46%
I support civil partnerships, but would oppose same-sex marriage 28%
I oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage 17%
Just Conservative Voters (Weighted sample 715)-
Which of the following best reflects your view?
I would support same-sex marriage 37%
I support civil partnerships, but would oppose same-sex marriage 36%
I oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage 23%
‘Just Conservative Voters (Weighted sample 715)-
Which of the following best reflects your view?
I would support same-sex marriage 37%
I support civil partnerships, but would oppose same-sex marriage 36%
I oppose both civil partnerships and same-sex marriage 23%’
Which confirms my earlier view that the Tories are essentially a homeskeptic party – and in being so are more representative of public opinion on this specific issue – sas they are on certain other issues .like crime, immigration and welfare to work
Meh, in general Support is greater than opposition (albeit only by a point), the gap between conservatives and the public as a whole isn’t particularly large.
Opinion is still quickly trending to support. 2 years after it is brought in it will be a non-issue like the minimum wage (which I still have reservations about personally)
If 37% of Tory voters support gay marriage, the flip side, to coin a phrase, is that 63% don’t
The minimum wage was brought in to give the poorest workers some basic income proyection so they had some kind of living wage
In contrast, this seems to be motivated by bowing over to pressure to certain l.ovbbying groups some Mrt Cameron can appease the growing number of gay Cpnservatives and back up his claim that he’s a ‘liberal’ at heart
Type more slowly & carefully Tim, I sometimes find it hard to understand some of your sentences
Tim – 59% (you didnt include the dont knows)
I think a lot of the opposition to marriage equality (notice the US politically correct framing) derives from unfamiliarity with the concept.
As time passes and the issue is debated, more people will realise that there is no rational reason to deny the right to marry to same sex couples.
Religious objections seem to be based upon a category mistake, which regards the religious concept of marriage as being identical to the secular law concept. The two ideas are distinct and have no necessary connection. It is perfectly possible to have a civil marriage, which is not accepted by a particular faith (such as a divorced catholic who has remarried) or a religious marriage which is not accepted by the state (such as polygamous marriages).
Tim – thats fine as long as you accept the resulting unemployment. (Yes I know it didnt cause much at the time but thats because their were sufficent jobs to go around at that price, the unemployed at the time were only unemployed because they were unemployable. Wheras now, obviously, there isnt sufficent jobs.)
‘Tim – thats fine as long as you accept the resulting unemployment’
That was what the free marketeers always used to say – but I always found it strange that people who always put controlling the amount of money in circulation paramount to the amount of people in work should suddenly care so much about the unemployment rate and suspect it was an argument they used to divert attention from them and their friends getting away with paying people as low as they possibly could – which you always get without a minimum wage
Its quite true that some people would have voted agaisnt the minimum wage for that reason it doesnt stop the basic economic truth that it causes unemployment when put above the market rate.
I do favour a minimum wage in principle – so I agree with a Labour policy.
If you don’t have one, you have to pay benefits to people – therefore in effect the state is subsidising employers that don’t pay people properly (and possibly under – cutting others).
However, it is not an easy question.
The amount of top up benefit people need varies according to circumstances, and it would be impossible to set it so high that it covered every basic requirement someone might need.
Also, if it is too high, it will cause unemployment.
We do need a program of tax cuts at the top and the bottom – but it’s difficult at the moment.
I read the comments of Gary J and I never cease to be amazed that there are still people out there that can get away with such biggotted remarks on the grounds of their personal prejudices.
There is nothing inevitably rational about what you say, Gary! You’re just always trying to push the boundaries beyond what is acceptable to most people.
‘There is nothing inevitably rational about what you say, Gary! You’re just always trying to push the boundaries beyond what is acceptable to most people.’
Gary’s argument seems perfectly rational – I just happen to disagree with it
What’s not is when Cameron gets up and says he supports gay marriage “because he’s a Conserartive”
Joe would disagree but there’s nothing remotely conservative about supporting gay marriage – and it seems more of a recognition that gay people are more likely to vote and be a Conservative than at any time in history, which is electioneering pure and simple
I wouldnt actually disagree Tim, there isnt anything conservative about supporting gay marriage. The question (which id assume Shaun Bennet would say the former to) is that is the Conservative party a party of conservatives or a coalition of different right leaning views (neo-libs, neo-cons, high tories etc.) of which some would naturally support gay marriage. In my view a FPTP system kind of means that a Conservative party isnt just conservative.
The post from Joe is correct. It appears that many of the newly elected MP’s , whilst right wing on, say, immigration, are relatively relaxed about gay marriage – which probably reflects an age differentiation.
I think George Osborne has been of influence here. Whilst I am Labour, and pretty left-wing Labour at that, its well known that Osborne is socially liberal – he supports abortion and is opposed to further restriction of the law, for example. he has a constantly supportive record on gay issues.
Also, Samantha Cameron is personally supportive of gay marriage and this may well have influenced David’s perspective. Given where they live its inconceivable that they don’t have gay friends and neighbours.
Also, the church Cameron occasionally attends is liberal and would take a gay affirming line, so he wopuld be exposed to a more sympathetic Christian outlook and would recognise that the Christian institute and the extreme evangelicals are only part of the church in the UK, not its sole voice
I think equal marriage will pass the Comons on a free vote with ease, with about 100 or so opponents – and like civil partnerships, and the experience of other countries who have marriage equality, it will soon become entirely uncontroversial
I agree with all of the above
‘I think George Osborne has been of influence here. ‘
Osbourne has certainly been consistent on such issues – he has long supported abortion on demand, is a proud atheist and has always taken a liberal line of gay issues
Quite when he got Cameron on board is unclear and I would have thought the likes of Nick Bowles and Greg Barker, both of whom are members of Cameron’s inner circle, to have been an influence too
‘I think equal marriage will pass the Comons on a free vote with ease, with about 100 or so opponents – and like civil partnerships, and the experience of other countries who have marriage equality, it will soon become entirely uncontroversial’
I think it will pass, but given that its opponents will include old-school Labour MPs, nationalist and loyalist MPs alike, and conservative Conservative MPs I’d expect them to number more than 100
Civil partnerships were presented to us as the great holy grail of the militant gay community when they were trying to obtain their ‘right’ several years ago.
And yet today they set their eyes on full ‘marriage’ rights-which regardless of what some people here would like to believe, is an impossibility because ‘marriage’ is an arrangement between a man and a woman.
And once they have achieved their sham ‘marriage’ they will begin to push for something else. I wonder what it will be next? I suspect the next battle is to force churches to ‘marry’ them.
Those of us who have reluctantly accepted their civil partnerships as as close to marriage as they can get will not agree to the lie that they can be properly ‘married’.
They’ll get their way, becuase they always do. Those of us who oppose it will continue to be dismissed by the liberal elite controlled state as holding evil views and the process of brainwashing the next generation will continue to ensure the policy is never able to be reversed.
And as with the deeply unpopular abolition of the entirely justified Section 28, and as with the unpopular reduction in the age of consent, as usual the majority will not be allowed to vote on the issue because we all know what they would say…
Shaun Bennett
I fail to see anything bigoted in my earlier post. As you did, it may be that our respective assumptions about what bigotry is, in this context, are irreconcilable.
Religious groups and others who do not agree with marriage equality are perfectly free to assert that view. I do not think that viewpoint will prevail in the general population for much longer.
We will just have to wait and see how the political disagreement is resolved by Parliament.
“Religious groups and others who do not agree with marriage equality are perfectly free to assert that view”
Hmmm. Your earlier statement that anyone who disagrees with you on the issue is down to their lack of rationality and education on the issue-making them inevitably wrong-is I think a bigotted viewpoint.
“I do not think that viewpoint will prevail in the general population for much longer.”
Well the genral population have got no say in the issue, as I mentioned above. Just as we had no say in the deeply unpopular repeal of section 28 or the unpopular reduction in the age of consent under Mr Blair.
You people never allow the PEOPLE to express a view on the matter unless it agrees with your previously stated view. As always, the chattering class liberal elite must always have their way on such matters regardless of what the PEOPLE want.
“We will just have to wait and see how the political disagreement is resolved by Parliament.”
Will this be like when the Lords rejected previous measures that I have mentioned-settling the issue-only for them to be brought back again and again under the party whip to force their passage?
If the liberal elite are so confident that this is what the people want, then bring forward a referendum on the matter. You won’t though will you.
Sad to see this argument still going on. I come here for discussions on polling and details about the constituencies, and I understand that to be the purpose of this website – particularly this section. There are many other outlets for debate on specific policies and their merits.
Shaun
“I wonder what it will be next? I suspect the next battle is to force churches to ‘marry’ them.
Those of us who have reluctantly accepted their civil partnerships as as close to marriage as they can get will not agree to the lie that they can be properly ‘married’.
They’ll get their way, becuase they always do.”
In that case, I look forward to the day when mosques are forced to marry gay muslim couples.
Pretty unlikely, to say the least.
I have said it on here before and will say it again – the militant gay lobby’s constant pushing of society’s boundaries will soon come to a screeching halt when it crashes into the equally influential Islamic lobby.
Cameron is positioning the Tories to be the party of gays against Labour which will be increasingly hemmed in by its muslim voter base.
‘Cameron is positioning the Tories to be the party of gays’
Which is some shift from the party of families – which is how he was trying to portray the Tories prior to the election
I’m more than sympathetic to Cameron’s general attempt to modernise the Conservative Party, but with the increasing influence of inter-party groupings like the Cornerstone Group, the Tories will never be the ‘party of gays’ as it were, and have very little to gain electorally by trying to pretend that they are
“but with the increasing influence of inter-party groupings like the Cornerstone Group”
Cornerstone has no more influence on this government than Donald Duck. Just ask Shaun or Pete Whitehead.
And I think you are missing my point. If we arrive at a kind of serious culture conflict between tolerance of gays and tolerance of Islam (and that’s what we already see in Tower Hamlets), I would expect Cornerstone and most Tories to side with the gays.
Labour would have no choice but to appease Islam.
Tim Jones 15.26
Exactly. It’s not only wrong and ill-thought out (to put it mildly), it’s a political loser too.
So the country and the Conservative party are the poorer for it.
Is DC just listening to a narrow representation of people on this or what?
A shame if such a good and energetic leader is undone by such a fundamental and disastrous mistake.
This curious dynamic is playing out in the London Mayoral election where indeed there may be electoral gain given the large numbers of homosexual voters in the capital. Mr Livingstone had always courted this demographic in the 80s but he seems to have upset them a bit lately, both with some specific comments he has made and more generally with his cosying up to dodgy Islamic clerics who think homosexuals should be stoned to death. This could be quite crucial and its quite ironic that Livingstone who has always personified the kind of identity/client group type of politics is by embracing too closely one such group (muslims) alienating large numbers of voters from other groups (Jews, homesexuals)
I would add though that this demonstrates what a mugs game playing this kind of politics is and its particularly inapt for a Conservative party which has always sought to view people as individuals rather than pandering to certain identity groups and their self appointed ‘community leaders’
Irrespective of your position pro or anti on gay rights and muslim friendly policies, surely they arent a huge battle. In battleground seats they make up about 5% on average of voters and they are very labour inclined so not the swing group in these constituencies
Especially since if you are sufficiently small c conservative to disagree with gay rights theres really no alternative (BNP perhaps but that isnt an option for sane people) as UKIP are pro civil partnership at least.
The loony left has a hierarchy of course.
Race is at the top of it.
So if you are from an ethnic group that believes gay people should be stoned,
or women who have sex under age should be hanged
from cranes
they will tolerate that.
But if you are a white working class man fired unfairly by “Human Resources”, they won’t lift a finger to help you.
On foreign policy,
of course, any regime with human rights abuses must all be the fault of the Americans or the British
because we’ve made them like that.
More the urban loony left and the liberals.
I don’t normally have much time for Nick Cohen.
However he has written numerous good books and articles on this subject, lampooning the gullibility of urban middle class ultra lefties who stand up for hideous authoritarian regimes.
In particular he discusses the right-on middle class lefties who helped the Iranian revolutionaries to depose the shah in 1979, only to find themselves soon afterwards being imprisoned en-mass, tortured in the most hideous ways, and executed.
Lenin described these kind of people perfectly…”useful idiots”.
‘If we arrive at a kind of serious culture conflict between tolerance of gays and tolerance of Islam (and that’s what we already see in Tower Hamlets), I would expect Cornerstone and most Tories to side with the gays.’
As far as I’m aware Cornerstone has little time for either gays or radical muslims
It’s a so-called Christian pressure group – a kind of British version of the religious right in the US whose influence whilst on the rise is currently confined to the backbenches. However they number about 50 and have a habbit of voting en bloc and have strong connections with grassroot Tories so aren’t the kind of group mr cameron can easily ignore
I’d imagine mainstream traditional muslims who are culturally very conservative and would identify with the moral code groups like Cornerstone advocate, to be far more receptive to this type of Conservatism than militant gays
Joe’s right though in that collectively radical muslims and militant gays represent such a small proportion of the electorate such things shouldn’t be issues in the first place
Despite his human rights credentuals, Ken Livingston doesn’t strike me as the type of candidate to get that many gay or jewish votes anyway – up against the likes of Brian Paddick and Borris Johnson
I’ve always liked Paddick. He would surely have been better to have stood as an independent rather than saddle himself with the party label of no-hoper Lib Dem candidate.
Joe James B – But if you are a white working class man fired unfairly by “Human Resources”, they won’t lift a finger to help you.
This is a total caricature of what the Labour Party believes and does. How can you complain one moment that we are trade-union-dominated one moment and say that the next?