Hampstead and Kilburn
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 15659 (36.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 14525 (34.1%)
Conservative: 10125 (23.8%)
Other: 2289 (5.4%)
Majority: 1134 (2.7%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 10886 (28.5%)
Labour: 14615 (38.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 10293 (27%)
Green: 2013 (5.3%)
UKIP: 275 (0.7%)
Other: 91 (0.2%)
Majority: 3729 (9.8%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 8725 (24.6%)
Labour: 16601 (46.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 7273 (20.5%)
UKIP: 316 (0.9%)
Green: 1654 (4.7%)
Other: 838 (2.4%)
Majority: 7876 (22.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 11991 (27.2%)
Labour: 25275 (57.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 5481 (12.4%)
Referendum: 667 (1.5%)
Other: 617 (1.4%)
Majority: 13284 (30.2%)
Boundary changes: major changes resulting from the reduction in the number of seats allocated to Brent. Hampstead and Kilburn takes in the majority of the old Hampstead and Highgate constituency along with a large proportion of Brent East and part of Queen`s Park, currently in Brent South.
Profile: A cross borough seat, taking in three wards from Sarah Teather`s abolished Brent East seat, won by the Liberal Democrats on a huge swing in in high-profile 2003 by-election (Teather herself follows the rest of her seat into Brent Central) and seven Camden wards.
Hampstead itself is stereotypically, but not entirely inaccurately, portrayed as the home of the chattering classes and the liberal intelligensia – although the extreme house prices mean it is increasingly the home to city financiers, celebrities and business entrepreneurs. The desirable location, Hampstead Heath and direct transport links into central London and to Canary Wharf mean the rest of the seat is rapidly gentrifying and house prices rocketing as young professionals move into the area.
Kilburn is a more socially deprived area with a large proportion of social housing and large Irish and Caribbean communities. However, gentrification is having its effect even here and the large South Kilburn council estate is in the process of being redeveloped.
Current MP: Glenda Jackson(Labour) born 1936, Birkenhead. Educated at RADA, Glenda Jackson is an acclaimed actress who won two Best Actress oscars, for Women in Love in 1970 and A Touch of Class in 1973. She received the CBE in 1978. She retired from acting to enter politics, and was first elected as MP for Hampstead & Highgate in 1992. She served as a junior minister under Tony Blair, but stepped down to contest the nomination for Labour candidate for London mayor. She is identifed as a figure on the left of the party and has openly criticised the conduct of Tony Blair (more information at They work for you)
Candidates: 
Chris Philp (Conservative) born London. Educated at Oxford University. Currently running a business re-developing parts of the former Yugoslavia, he previously founded Clearstone (a haulage training company) and Blueheath (a distribution company that was floated in 2004). Was chosen as Ernst & Young`s “Entrepreneur of the Future” in 2003. Elected as a Camden councillor in 2006, defeating the Labour group leader. Former Chairman of the Bow Group.
Ed Fordham (Liberal Democrat) born 1971, Surrey. Educated at Spalding Grammar School and the University of Nottingham. Previously Liberal Democrat campaigns officer in the South West, currently a senior officer in the LGA. Contested Hampstead and Highgate 2005, Stoke on Trent Central 1997. 
Beatrix Campbell (Green)
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 114792
Male: 47.8%
Female: 52.2%
Under 18: 16.9%
Over 60: 14.9%
Born outside UK: 40.2%
White: 72.6%
Black: 11.3%
Asian: 8%
Mixed: 3.9%
Other: 4.2%
Christian: 48.6%
Hindu: 2.8%
Jewish: 8.1%
Muslim: 8.3%
Full time students: 7.7%
Graduates 16-74: 50.3%
No Qualifications 16-74: 15%
Owner-Occupied: 43.3%
Social Housing: 25.7% (Council: 15.7%, Housing Ass.: 10%)
Privately Rented: 27.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 10.6%
I hold even less brief for the Liberal Democrats than most. But I don’t see how taking a holiday in Israel makes one unfit to be a parliamentary candidate.
If said holiday includes a visit to Knesset and meeting with Israeli politicians but does not meet any palestinian organisations or address Israels recent behaviour.
That can be seen as taking sides.
Oh for goodness sake….
Quite.
If we’re talking about the prime minister or the foreign secretary, then maybe Tom Rushmore would have a point.
But with the best will in the world, no Israeli or Palestinian politicians of any importance are going to be remotely interested in a tuppence ha’ppeny parliamentary candidate who is not even an MP yet. Any neither will the voters give a toss.
In any case, Hampstead is strongly Jewish in parts, a section of the community which leans to the Tories. If it makes any difference at all, which I doubt, it might be to peel away some Tory voters.
Forgive me for caring who represents me in the next parliament – that person will be voting on a range of issues and if it does become a hung parliament then this man who I know little of and trust even less will be voting in my name.
I want to know is is unbiased on issues I consider important.
What is important is that a candidate should stand on policies that represent the political beliefs that would best promote the interests of the voters, and that once elected he or she should look after equally the individual interests of all constituents regardless of whether they actually voted for the MP or other factors such as their ethnic background or religious beliefs.
A candidate, like any other citizen, should have the right to travel anywhere abroad in countries with which the United Kingdom is at peace and recognises. Which includes Israel, but not areas it is occupying without international recognition (such as the West Bank, both areas under Israeli control and those controlled by the Palestinians). It also excludes some other places like Northern Cyprus. Exceptionally, a politician might visit such places if it is very clear that (s)he is doing so in a fact finding capacity, strictly in UK interests, and keeping the Foreign Office informed.
We do not want the UK to get into the state of communist countries which blocked travel for political reasons, or indeed the difficulties from which the USA is having to disentangle itself over travel to Cuba.
In the case of candidates with foreign family links, clearly a foreign visit for personal reasons could be quite extensive.
Where matters change is where a candidate or MP makes contacts that leave him or her open to political influence to act in the interests of a foreign state, any foreign state. In the past, people would have had plenty to say about such contacts if a politician travelled to Eastern Europe. And the same considerations apply equally to any country, including Israel or, say, Pakistan. I have even sailed close to the wind on this site by saying that insofar as the Pope is a Head of State this even applies to activites within the Roman Catholic Church (Rome, not Catholic or Church, is the issue).
If a candidate in this seat has personal links abroad, which is quite likely in this multiethnic seat, he or she has every right to go there; but it is justifiable for voters to ask whether that candidates’ activites, and particularly contacts, there have compromised his or her paramount duty to promote the interests of the consituency.
I don’t agree with H.Hemmelig that foreign countries, particularly ones in conflict with neighbours, do not care about backbench MPs or candidates. On the contrary, they are concerned with setting up agents of influence, even if unwitting ones, and even a promise on a leaflet can be a little bit of influence for their cause, and every little helps.
In a seat like this, with a number of different ethnic communties in different geographical areas, candidates do need to show that they are understanding of the needs, views and interests of people across their seat. And the competence of different candidates in doing so is reasonable grounds for choosing between them.
This seat now includes parts of Brent, which had a bad reputation for divisions and for politicians who appeared to promote the interests of a faction or community group rather than the whole consituency. And I think quite a few of us are very concerned at the way some other inner city seats in England are behaving.
I would be appalled if an elector here voted for or against a candidate just because he or she was Jewish, Pakistani, Irish, Roman Catholic or whatever. But if Tom Rushmore is concerned to ensure that he votes for a candidate who will identify primarily with the consitituency and will look after equally and fairly everybody who lives here, given what has happened recently elsewhere I think he is only being sensible.
UKIP candidate = Magnus Neilsen