Leyton and Wanstead
2010 Results:
Conservative: 8928 (22.23%)
Labour: 17511 (43.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 11095 (27.63%)
BNP: 561 (1.4%)
UKIP: 1080 (2.69%)
Green: 562 (1.4%)
Christian: 342 (0.85%)
Others: 80 (0.2%)
Majority: 6416 (15.97%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 15660 (45.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 8538 (24.9%)
Conservative: 7795 (22.7%)
Other: 2294 (6.7%)
Majority: 7121 (20.8%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 7393 (22.2%)
Labour: 15234 (45.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 8377 (25.2%)
Green: 1523 (4.6%)
UKIP: 591 (1.8%)
Other: 155 (0.5%)
Majority: 6857 (20.6%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 6654 (19.7%)
Labour: 19558 (58%)
Liberal Democrat: 5389 (16%)
Green: 1030 (3.1%)
Other: 1087 (3.2%)
Majority: 12904 (38.3%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 8736 (22.2%)
Labour: 23922 (60.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 5920 (15.1%)
Other: 744 (1.9%)
Majority: 15186 (38.6%)
Boundary changes: Minor changes to bring into line with ward boundaries. Gains parts of Snaresbrook and Wanstead wards from Ilford North.
Profile: This was created as a cross-borough seat in 1997, shoving together somewhat ill-matched wards from Waltham Forest and Redbridge. It covers Leyton, Leytonstone, Snaresbrook, Aldersbrook and Wanstead and includes Whipps Cross hospital and New Spitalfields Market.
Leyton – the Waltham Forest part of the seat – is an inner-city, multicultural working class area. Recent redevelopement has seen the demolition of the old tower blocks in estates like Oliver Close and their replacement with modern low rise developments, but this remains an area with problems of crime and deprivation. In contrast Wanstead is more suburban and middle-class, with attractive Edwardian housing set amongst open green spaces like Wanstead Flats. The two normally safe Conservative wards though are easily outvoted by safely Labour Leyton rendering this a safe Labour seat, though Harry Cohen saw his share of the vote drop by 12% at the last election, mostly to the benefit of the Liberal Democrats who took second place. No doubt the fall was partly due to oppositon to the war in Iraq from the 16% of the population who identified themselves as Muslim in the last census, despite the fact that Cohen himself was a staunch opponent of the war.
Current MP: John Cryer (Labour)
Edwin Northover (Conservative) Born Liverpool. Lawyer specialising in corporate law, mergers and aquisitions. Waltham Forest councillor.John Cryer (Labour)
Farooq Qureshi (Liberal Democrat) born Tahlian-Wala, Pakistan. Businessman, radio presenter and poet. Waltham Forest councillor since 2003, Mayor of Waltham Forest 2006-7. Ashley Gunstock (Green)Graham Wood (UKIP)Jim Clift (BNP)Sonika Bhatti (Christian Party) Martin Levin (Independents Federation UK)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89340
Male: 48.9%
Female: 51.1%
Under 18: 23.2%
Over 60: 14.9%
Born outside UK: 29.7%
White: 59.1%
Black: 17.3%
Asian: 17.9%
Mixed: 3.8%
Other: 2%
Christian: 52.7%
Hindu: 2.5%
Jewish: 1.6%
Muslim: 16.6%
Sikh: 1.2%
Full time students: 7.3%
Graduates 16-74: 30%
No Qualifications 16-74: 25.1%
Owner-Occupied: 56.7%
Social Housing: 22.4% (Council: 14%, Housing Ass.: 8.4%)
Privately Rented: 18.1%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 11.5%
This was the 2006 result in Clayhall.
Obviously, Labour voters tend not to turn out in poor sets of local elections when their party is in office,
but I never had any cause for concern about this ward.
Clayhall
Turnout 43.2%
Candidate Name
Party
No. of votes
Barden, Ronald Ian
The Conservative Party
2055 Elected
Bhamra, Gurdial Singh
The Labour Party
1093
Cole, Robert Alexander
The Conservative Party
2055 Elected
Gable, Sonia Kathleen Emma
Liberal Democrat
526
House, Gary
Liberal Democrat
431
Jeyaranjan, Thavathuray
The Labour Party
1205
Joshi, Kumud
The Labour Party
994
Robertson, Barbara Jean
Liberal Democrat
455
Weinberg, Alan Edward
The Conservative Party
2133 Elected
I’ve solved this mystery about Clayhall, I’m pretty sure.
The road I was thinking of was of course not the A12,
but the other big road which splits off above it (north westerly from Gants Hill).
The area north of it is part of Clayhall, and that is bigger houses, more spacious.
But the ward covers I think most of the area south of this main road (Woodford Avenue) down to the border of the A12.
This bottom section (a triangle shape) is more densely populated, smaller houses, and definitely more urban and tatty.
Clayhall is trending towards Labour mainly due to changing demographics in Ilford North. While Clayhall, Redbridge and the part of Gants Hill still looks like fairly attractive Metropolitan Essex, the type of residents moving in, mainly from Ilford South, tends to be Asian (and some black families) who tend to vote Labour. As is happening elsewhere in outer East London, the original residents of places like Clayhall are moving further out, the large Jewish population are also moving elsewhere and many of the Conservative voting Asian families who have lived in the area for years are also moving to Havering, Essex and beyond.
It will be interesting to see the census results for London to see how years of imigration has finally affected outer London.
There is talk of the old Wanstead and Woodford seat being remade therefore ending the partnership with Waltham Forest.
I thought there was the likely prospect of a selection battle between Cryer and Creasy after boundary changes. However if provisional proposals are confirmed, Cryer would have a safe heaven in the form of new Stratford constituency.
I think you mean “haven” Andrea, but I guess a seat as safe as one based largely on Stratford would be heaven to a Labour candidate!
Barnaby, I really meant a paradise given how safe it should be
The new Wanstead and Woodford is now a marginal (just over 5000 or 9% notional Conservative majority) compaired to 16885 (nearly 40%) in 1992.
I assume that Wanstead has moved more strongly to Labour than Woodford.
Thats true, but the area which has moved most is Clayhall which back in the 80s was one of the safest Tory wards in the borough but where Labour gaine a seat in May 2010. The two additional wards from Ilford South have also moved substantially over to Labour in the last 20 years or so as well, as we have discussed on one of the other relevant threads
So does the new Wanstead and Woodford seat have roughly the same boundaries as the Wanstead and Woodford that existed prior to 1997?
Or has it gained wards from Illford North and Illord South?
It has evidently gained wards because the electorate in 1992 was only 55,821 and the proposed seat has an electorate of 78,562.
I think the wards that were not in the seat before 1997 were:
Cranbrook: (9,015 voters in Dec 2010)
Valentines: (9,203 voters in Dec 2010)
Total: 18,218
I think both wards were in Ilford South before 1997. In the Almanc of British Politics 1983, it says on the Ilford South page: “the Conservatives’ best ward is Cranbrook near Wanstead Park and the River Roding”.
Yes those wards have always been in Ilford South since it was created in 1945
Given the way the Tory position has got shakier in much of Redbridge, it is something of an achievement that Wanstead and Snaresbrook return Tories with clear majorities and don’t appear to have been subsumed into the rather hopeless seat that they’ve been included.
Despite being rather near the A12 and junctions off it,
this remains a rather pleasant suburban area with older Victorian houses.
Snaresbrook ward also contains the very wealthy Firs Estate (really a part of South Woodford) which helps shore up the Tory vote while Wanstead itself covers many affluent estates south and west of the town centre.Clayhall gaining a Labour councillor was a big suprise and although Clayhall remains a respectable suburb. We will hae to wait until the 2014 locals to see if the Tories can win it back. If they don’t then I would not expect them to do well in neighbouring Ilford North.
Your point isn’t a bad one Joe, but the majority of the lowest Tory over the top Labour candidate in the 2010 elections wasn’t big at all in Wanstead, and Snaresbrook while it is a little safer would still fall (at least in part) to Labour with a modest swing. The 2 wards will certainly be on Labour’s hit list in the 2014 local elections unless the Tories are in a large national lead at the time.
I’d have thought it would be difficult for the Tories to gain Labour seats in 2014, unless some of these surprisingly good Labour results in 2010 were a reflection of the General Election turnout, certainly in some areas.
But it’ll be only one year from the next General Election so the Conservatives will hope not to be too far behind, so they can cross over.
The impression that I got at the 2010 London Borough Council elections was that many wards voted more in line with the way they vote in General Elections.
This in clear in Stamford Hill (Springfield, New River and Lordship) where Labour won 5 seats to the Conservatives 4 in an area normally dominated by the Tories in local government.
Labour also gained a seat in Roehamton & Putney Heath due to the general election.
Brent North is perhaps the most obvious example Conservative councillors are normally elected in opposition to Brents Labour Council.
West Norwood is another good example.
For this reason I think that while the Tories may not regain ground of 2006 that they lost in 2010 they may not do worse in 2014 than in 2010.
It was definitely a lot more uniform.
I saw a map of it compared to 2006 when it was much more nuanced with relative turnout and the way the parties fight different wards.
But the Tories would actually have to do well in a set of local elections whilst in office not to have losses in 2014 I’d have thought,
although they should pick up some from the Liberal Democrats.
Tories seem to have lost seats in areas traditionally stronger in local government (Stamford Hill, Rowhampton, Wembley and West Norwood).
While the Tories could lose many seats in 2014 they may actually reclaim seats in the above areas. 2014 will be an end of term local election as opposed to an end of term election.
Presumably “West Norwood” means Gipsy Hill and Thurlow Park wards?
In Gipsy Hill there’s no chance whatsoever of the Conservatives winning back their seats.
In Thurlow Park the Tories still hold 2 out of 3 seats, helped by the personal votes of both councillors – a husband and wife. There’s a chance of the Tories getting the third seat back on a local election turnout, but also a good chance of Labour getting all 3 seats if the husband and wife retire.
In the nicer parts of West Norwood and Dulwich the strong Lib Dem vote will likely collapse to Labour’s benefit, which threatens the Tories hold even on the few seats they have left.
Stamford Hill is down to the orthodox Jews and their high turnout in local elections. Your theory might be right there.
Wembley and Roehampton I don’t know well enough to predict.
There was a by-election in New River ward in September 2010. Although the Conservatives were defending that seat they had only won one of the three seats with Labour easily topping the poll in May 2010. The Conservatives held the seat easily on a technical swing of about 12%. I say technical because there was obviously not a largescale switch of Labour voters to the Conservatives, but rather Labour voters who had come out in May i areas like Woodberry Down stayed at home for the by-election.
From that example there is clearly a lot to what Dalek says in the Hackney example at least. I would say that this differential turnout effect did benefit Labour in Roehampton and certainly in Brent, probably to a considerable extent in Ealing as well. I think HH may also be too dismissive of its effect in the Dulwich and West Norwood wards. In particular College ward in Dulwich includes a large area of social housing in the far south towards Crystal palace which usually has low turnout in local elections enabling the Tories to win the ward fairly easily. In may 2010 the estates came out to vote and Labour gained two of the seats. That is just the kind of area where the Tories could make gains thanks to a lower turnout. I would have thought that Thurlow Park has some similarities, but in Gypsy HIll they are way too far behind now and their long run of victories their was always a bit anomalous.
John Cryer will simply move to the new Stratford seat.
There is little interesting in the proposals here. However Wanstead and Woodford will not be the safe seat it was in the 1960s.
You’re right John.
I would think Cryer will move into the Stratford seat which is a reasonable move considering some of his constituency goes into that seat while W&W will probably be a tory hold but not by the large majorities that we saw in the 90’s.
I do wonder how the Lib Dems will fare in this seat bearing in mind they hold a couple council wards here.
Leyton declaration from ITN’s 1983 election programme, (at 1 hour 12 mins):
htttp://bit.ly/q8VXey
Census results, white British 2001 / 2011:
{Redbridge wards}:
Snaresbrook: 73.8% / 57.0%
Wanstead: 73.6% / 59.2%
{Waltham Forest wards}:
Cann Hall: 43.3% / 22.2%
Cathall: 37.5% / 20.3%
Forest: 42.2% / 24.8%
Grove Green: 39.9% / 22.6%
Leyton: 35.7% /18.8%
Leytonstone: 49.3% / 33.9%
TOTAL: 49.3% / 31.4%
White overall, Leyton & Wanstead:
2001: 59.1%
2011: 49.2%
That’s a very distinct ethnic divide.
The non-white population in Leyton ward must be one of the largest in any London ward which isn’t Labour-held. I wonder how many of the LDs in Waltham Forest can survive next year – it wouldn’t be that surprising if the answer were “none”.
Most of the Waltham Forest wards in this seat are probably Asian dominated now.
There is a sizable Afro-Caribbean population in some of them though.