Comments on: Leyton and Wanstead

By: Andy JS

Andy JS — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 01:58:30 +0000

Leyton declaration from ITN’s 1983 election programme, (at 1 hour 12 mins):

htttp://bit.ly/q8VXey

By: LBernard

LBernard — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:59:15 +0000

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.

By: John Chanin

John Chanin — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:45:06 +0000

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.

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:35:34 +0000

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.

By: H.Hemmelig

H.Hemmelig — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:16:48 +0000

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.

By: Dalek

Dalek — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:19:46 +0000

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.

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 00:47:19 +0000

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.

By: Dalek

Dalek — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:48:22 +0000

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.

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:36:46 +0000

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.

By: Barnaby Marder

Barnaby Marder — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:02:41 +0000

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.