Bermondsey and Old Southwark
2010 Results:
Conservative: 7638 (17.11%)
Labour: 13060 (29.25%)
Liberal Democrat: 21590 (48.35%)
BNP: 1370 (3.07%)
Green: 718 (1.61%)
Independent: 155 (0.35%)
Others: 120 (0.27%)
Majority: 8530 (19.1%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Liberal Democrat: 17422 (47.8%)
Labour: 11621 (31.9%)
Conservative: 4632 (12.7%)
Other: 2746 (7.5%)
Majority: 5801 (15.9%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 4752 (12.5%)
Labour: 12468 (32.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 17874 (47.1%)
Green: 1137 (3%)
UKIP: 791 (2.1%)
Other: 937 (2.5%)
Majority: 5406 (14.2%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 2800 (7.6%)
Labour: 11359 (30.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 20991 (56.9%)
UKIP: 271 (0.7%)
Green: 752 (2%)
Other: 689 (1.9%)
Majority: 9632 (26.1%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 2835 (6.9%)
Labour: 16444 (40.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 19831 (48.6%)
Referendum: 545 (1.3%)
Other: 1140 (2.8%)
Majority: 3387 (8.3%)
Boundary changes: Loses part of Livesey and Faraday wards to Camberwell and Peckham. Despite the seat being largely unchanged, the name was changed from North Southwark and Bermondsey at the suggestion of Simon Hughes, so as to make clear the constituency did not include the whole of the North of the borough of Southwark, and didn`t include only the northern part of Bermondsey.
Profile: This covers central London south of the river, facing the City of London across the Thames. It includes Elephant & Castle, Walworth, Bankside, borough, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays. The riverfront has undergone massive redevelopment and gentrification, and is now backed with offices, luxury apartments, the cultural quarter of Tate Modern and the Globe theatre and skyscrapers popping up around City Hall, whose crash helmet style home sits on the riverfront here. The seat also includes Guys Hospital and the fashionable Borough market.
Alway from the trendy apartments to the north though, the rest of the area is still poor, racially mixed and struggling with problems of crime and deprivation. Over half the housing is social housing and there are huge and troubled council estates here like the Heygate estate and planned regeneration has been delayed by tenants voting against being transferred to housing associations. In future years massive regeneration is still planned, but for the moment much of the seat is a testament to the grim concrete social housing of the last century.
Demographically you would expect this seat to return a Labour MP: a poverty striken inner city seat, over 20% afro-carribean, over 40% of properties council owned. In fact it has been held by the Liberals and Liberal Democrats for almost a quarter of a century. Simon Hughes continued tenure is probably due to his own performance as MP, but he probably only became the MP for Bermondsey in the first place because of the unusual circumstances of his election. The Bermondsey by-election must be one of the most infamous in recent political history. The local Labour party had selected as their PPC the left-winger Peter Tatchell (see Oxford East), who was disowned by the then Labour leader Michael Foot. He was opposed by a Labour right-winger, John O`Grady, who stood as a “Real Labour” candidate and was backed by the former MP Bob Mellish. The by-election was notoriously dirty, Tatchell was consistently attacked for his sexuality, received hate mail and a bullet in the post. The Liberal party took the seat on an overwhelming swing and have remained here ever since.
Current MP: Simon Hughes(Liberal Democrat) born 1951, Cheshire. Educated at Llandaff Cathedral School and Cambridge University. Barrister. The second longest serving Liberal Democrat MP, Hughes was first elected to Parliament in the notorious 1983 Bermondsey by-election. Environment spokesman 1983-1988, education spokesman 1988-1992, environment spokesman 1992-1994, health spokesman 1994-1997, home affairs spokesman 1997-2003. He contested the London Mayoral election in 2004. President of the Liberal Democrats since 2004. Contested the Liberal Democrat leadership elections of 1999 and 2006, during which he was outed by the Sun newspaper (more information at They work for you)
Loanna Morrison (Conservative) Journalist and businesswoman.
Val Shawcross (Labour) Former Croydon councillor (1994-2000) and leader of Croydon council. London Assembly member for Lambeth and Southwark since 2000. Awarded the CBE in 2002.Simon Hughes(Liberal Democrat) born 1951, Cheshire. Educated at Llandaff Cathedral School and Cambridge University. Barrister. The second longest serving Liberal Democrat MP, Hughes was first elected to Parliament in the notorious 1983 Bermondsey by-election. Environment spokesman 1983-1988, education spokesman 1988-1992, environment spokesman 1992-1994, health spokesman 1994-1997, home affairs spokesman 1997-2003. He contested the London Mayoral election in 2004. President of the Liberal Democrats since 2004. Contested the Liberal Democrat leadership elections of 1999 and 2006, during which he was outed by the Sun newspaper (more information at They work for you)
Tom Chance (Green)
Stephen Tyler (BNP) Steve Freeman (Independent)Alan Kirkby (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 108379
Male: 50.1%
Female: 49.9%
Under 18: 20.2%
Over 60: 13.1%
Born outside UK: 30.2%
White: 67.5%
Black: 20.5%
Asian: 4.8%
Mixed: 3.5%
Other: 3.7%
Christian: 61.6%
Hindu: 1.2%
Muslim: 7.2%
Full time students: 12.3%
Graduates 16-74: 34.9%
No Qualifications 16-74: 24.3%
Owner-Occupied: 26.9%
Social Housing: 56.3% (Council: 44.1%, Housing Ass.: 12.2%)
Privately Rented: 13.8%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.2%
At the moment I could think of a few better contenders for largest Lib – Lab swing at the next election. How about Cardiff Central (student vote will really hurt there), Manchester Withington, Birmingham Yardley, Burnley possibly. Redcar must also be a strong contender.
and Cambridge and Norwich South too, I’d say.
I personally would put Bermondsey between Sutton and Carshalton. Hughes’ voters are basically Labour people, very many of them on grim housing estates, who vote for him for his hard work and profile. It could easily rewind like a kind of reverse Manchester Withington due to the Lib Dem participation in implementing cuts.
Other than that your list looks absolutely right.
@ Barnaby
Possibly – although the fact Labour are third in Cambridge might hamper that. Also, especially in Norwich and to a much lesser degree in Cambridge, there is enough of a Green presence to pick up at least some of the LD vote and thereby dilute the swing to some extent.
All the LDs’ seats in London would be at risk if they had new candidates at the next election.
Bristol West will have a very big swing from Lib Dem to Labour even if Stephen Williams clings on by the skin of his teeth.
‘Bristol West will have a very big swing from Lib Dem to Labour even if Stephen Williams clings on by the skin of his teeth.’
Stephen Williams strikes me as slightly two faced and not a proper rebel, I would agree with that prediction.
Local election results, May 2010:
LD – 18,462 (39.7%)
Lab – 13,935 (30.0%)
C – 8,123 (17.5%)
Green – 4,506 (9.7%)
Ind – 1,057 (2.3%)
BNP – 442 (1.0%)
The Green vote was about 8% lower in the general election and it looks like most of that went to Hughes rather than Labour as elsewhere in London. I suspect that might not be repeated next time. That 8% could prove decisive next time.
I looked at this constituency after a friend of mine said that Labour could take Simon Hughes’ seat at the next general. Looking at the raw majority I was sceptical but looking in more detail at the demographics and other contributing factors I reckon if Labour can pin the cuts on Hughes enough to not allow him to run a local ‘independent’ MP campaign then they could take a very major scalp!
I think Hughes has lost a lot of credibility since the coalition was formed. If he stands again, I guess he’d hold on by about 1000-2000. Otherwise I think labour might have a real chance of gaining the seat.
That is a wonderful thought, Carl.
Hughes has come closer to losing the seat han you might have expected in the past when Labour have been strong.
In 1997 he only won by a few thousand. He had a well above average result in 2001 and then a swing AGAINST him in 2005 to even things out. In 2010 the Lib Dems didn’t build much on the majority.
I think it might just be one to look out for.
Of course Simon Hughes may retire at the next election, thus handing this seat on a plate to Labour.
He’s only 59 so it’s conceivable he might stand again. Certainly I could see it being tight (around 1000 either way) even if he did stand.
I can see most commentators assuming Labour would win this seat if Hughes retires but then the LDs holding it after a recount by a tiny majority. Or perhaps not.
‘Certainly I could see it being tight (around 1000 either way) even if he did stand.’
You really think so?
I would have thought Hughes popularity will keep this seat safe for him
being the most prominent Lib Dem to vocally oppose certain coalition policies won’t do him much harm
Simon Hughes has defied the odds time and time again and whilst he’s certainly a leftie I imagine to someone with his keen interest in civil liberties defecting to the Labour Party would be unthinkable
Well I could see his majority reduced to 2000 anyway if he is seen to be too close to Nick Clegg. Ultimately this constituency will depend on the housing benefit changes and if the demographics get changed or not.
It’s hard to imagine Simon Hughes actually losing, having won eight times. The polls could change in four years. But the outside chance is always there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of LibDems on the left of the party retire at the next election, if they feel their influence has declined.
Am I right in thinking Bermondsey was the safest Labour seat in London in 1979? If not it must have been close.
No disrespect to him, but one thing I can never understand about Simon Hughes is his tendency to look as though he’s being burned at the stake when he speaks.
“Am I right in thinking Bermondsey was the safest Labour seat in London in 1979? If not it must have been close”
It was close, but Stepney & Poplar and Newham South were safer
I’d be quite surprised if Hughes were to retire at the next election. He strikes me as one of those people for whom his job is his life, and who remains enthusiastic about it even if his influence wanes (which it did rather dramatically albeit he has had a recent renaissance).
Hughes could lose his seat but the question is would he, as this seat is a traditional lefty seat. Though not being strictly a member of the government may help him but also how many Lib Dems will vote for him as well as the people of the constituency seen as Hughes is regarded as more pro civil liberties and a bit more left than Labour. However, the question is how Liberal is the Miliband Labour party and how left what will be the deciding factors
If the next GE gave an outcome as per current VI showing Lab 33%points ahead of Libs then it is more likely than not that Hughes would lose his seat on these boundaries.
But I suspect Labour will be a little lower in the polls by then, not sure about Lib Dems. So I expect he still has a fighting chance as it stands, much as I would be glad to see the back of him.
What would be the effect if Lambeth and Southwark were joined in the north of the boroughs and not the south.
ie with these constituencies:
Vauxhall & Bermondsey
Brixton & Clapham
Streatham & Norwood
Southwark & Camberwell
Peckham & Dulwich
You could not have a Vauxhall a& Bermondsey and a Southwark & Camberwell as Southwakr lies between Vauxhall and Bermondsey. Allowing that you could have some kind of seat that links the nortern most wards of Lambeth with some of the north Southwark wards, it would not be an unmitigated disaster as the former (Bishops, Princes and Oval) have tended to be the strongest LD wards. But Labour would clearly have remained ahead in general elections and adding these on and removing a few LD Southwark wards would be pretty likely to make it a Labour seat
In fact given that Lambeth has a larger electorate than Southwark and assuming you were only going to cross the borough boundary in one place (as is the norm, though Redbridge/Waltham Forest crosses twice) the cross borough seat here would include more wards from Vauxhall and would also include the better Labour areas of Southwark & Bermondsey so is likely to have been a Labour seat at all recent elections (as of course would all the others since 1992)
This seat still likely to be a straight choice between LD and Lab,
can’t see Hughes falling to parity with the Cons,
even if their vote creeps up.
“You could not have a Vauxhall a& Bermondsey and a Southwark & Camberwell as Southwakr lies between Vauxhall and Bermondsey.”
I was oringinally going to call it ‘South Bank’ but as all the other names were X&Y unwisely changed it.
I was unsure of whether Camberwell or Peckham would best fit with Dulwich as they seem to be on a west-east axis not north-south.
I think you would have Vauxhall & (Old?) Southwark, Camberwell & Dulwich and Bermondsey & Peckham. I think the latter would actually be the better LD seat because it has both more of the existing Southwark & Bermondsey seat (6 of the 9 wards) and those wards which are strongest for the LDs. And only three wards from Camberwell & Peckham.
I think Hughes would be safe if AV is introduced since he’ll get a lot of second preferences from Conservative supporters.
Doesn’t seem logical to me, but that may be the case.
I guess Hughes will hold on for the reasons he has done before,
and that any charge that he is close to the Tories won’t really stick, although it will surely drive some people to Labour.
Even if Labour were to win in 2015 with a 197 style ladslide (which I think is unlikley), I still think Hughes would hold this seat becaus of his personal vote and his position to the left of the Lib Dems. With the exception of Bob Russell, and possibly Charles Kennerdy and Mike Hancock, he’s certainly the most left wing MP on the government benches.
Although Hughes is on the left of the LDs a lot of Tories might still prefer him to most Labour candidates.
I notice that before the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority in 1990, the boundary commission had proposed creating a seat in this part of the world which was to be called ‘Elephant and Castle’.
Does anyone know the origins of this strange idea for a name? Is it a pub? And when can the boundary commission for England follow that example and give us that constituency name for Westminster?
I’d love to see the honourable member for the Elephant and Castle stand up to speak in the commons
The Elephant and Castle is a major roundabout at the top of the A2. The adjacent shopping centre and tube/railway stations are named after it. Like Crystal Palace, the nearby area with its many grim estates tends to refer to itself Elephant & Castle.
The name for the roundabout and area does originate from a former inn.
There is another Elephant & Castle pub which is still standing, near Vauxhall station, though I don’t know if it’s still a pub or still uses that name.
The name itself is said to be a corruption of “The Infanta of Castile”.
Elephant & Castle was one of the most extensively rebuilt parts of London in the 60s.
This, combined with it being one of the poorest areas, makes it one of the most ugly places in urban Britain.
The last government started a massive redevelopment of the area, no doubt under the influence of Harriet Harman, and some of the massive housing blocks are now empty awaiting demolition.
Not sure whether the change in government and funding cuts mean that the programme will still go ahead.
There’s an interesting account of the area over the years in Michael Collins’ book “The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class”.
Peckham By-election Result:
Lab 1754
LD 554
Con 86
TUSC 63
Green 46
Lab +7.8%
LD +3.2%
Con -5.1%
Green -4.3%
TUSC +2.5%
Thanks Lancs Observer. Of course that was not in this constituency, it’s in Camberwell & Peckham. The LD rise is surprising in the current circumstances though of course the overall result isn’t in terms of Labour’s winning margin, in general.
The violence on the streets of London and other cities this week is deplorable.
But does anybody in the real world believe anything other than that the cause of the riots is the gross social inequality in the United Kingdom. together with appalling lack of social conscience? And how can the rioters be condemned when immorality and even criminality seems from the media to be rife in the financial world, in sections of the press, in the largest police force and, yes, amongst politicians?.
And the response of the Government appears to pander to the right in terrms of punitive criminal sentences combined with further vindictive action such as withdrawing benefits, throwing people out of council houses and preventing them from getting jobs. This is totally against the findings of sensible criminological research. It simply isn’t possible to punish thousands of rioters with jail sentences. And kicking people in the teeth for emotional self gratification simply means that those unlucky enough to be caught and made an example of have nothing to lose.
All the research is that most rioters are ordinary people caught up in emotive crowd situations where they act without thinking. Of course, there may be calculating agitators behind the scenes – who may well not be caught anyway.That is a different matter. But “ordinary” rioters are not going to think of the long-term official consequences, which therefore lack deterrent value.
So the bottom line is that the reaction to recent events in Britain should be democratic political action to change the economic policy that encourages inequality and exaccerbates it through right-wing “Cuts”. These are policies that have repeatedly failed before, for instance in the 1920s, 1930s and 1980s. Further, because the government is a Coalition it has no manifesto mandate for these policies. Indeed, the naive Camoeron/Osborne line was rejected in that the Tories failed to win an overall majority.
Not least, it is blatantly obviously that Clegg and Alexander economic liberalism is incompatible with social liberalism. This is shown by the illiberal reaction of Coalition ministers to combat unrest through knee-jerk authoritarianism.
Now, if we are to condemn violence, there must be democratic ways of making these points. And, whilst few people seem to be noticing it, the key group are the Liberal Democrat backbenchers, notably including the MP for this seat. LibDem backbenchers, and some of their ministers, could force the Government to take notice. They need to recognise that Clegg, with his public school background and excessive links to the international establishment, along with Danny Alexander who seems to have no real ideological roots, are a liability to the Liberal Democrat future.
If LIbDem backbenchers sit on their backsides instead of voting against a failed Government, oridnary people will even more than they are doing now wonder what is the point of our politician, particularly given their other recent failings. The result is that they may either turn directly to violence or to parties on the fringe of democracy, such as those that appear to see opportunity in backing vigilante groups supposedly restoring law and order when police numbers are inadequate (but vigilantism is no way the rule of law).
The psephological implication is that the Liberal Democrats can either regain their position by taking independent action now to distance themselves from an already failed government or find themsleves overtaken as the United Kingdom (particularly England) degenerates into Weimar style politics – which following this week is all too likely.
My feeling is that this week is a critical moment for the Liberal Democrats and in particular that part of the Liberal Democrat party of which Simon Hughes is seen as a leading representative. But my suspicion is that the Liberal Democrats last opportunity may now go without them even noticing it.
If LIberal Democrats do not have the ability and indeed guts to react to current events, many, most, people will not care much if it leads to further decline in their party; but they will care deeply if it means the erosion of British democracy, which is already in a more parlous state than most people care to notice.
The Boundary Commission have been kind to Simon Hughes and the speculation upstream is therefore unwarranted. This is one of the few South London seats that is virtually unaltered, just losing Newington and gaining Bishops from Lambeth.
In any case Labour have tried everything for the best part of 30 years to unseat Hughes without success. This seat will be interesting however when he eventually retires (sometime in the 2020s).
There is no way that Simon Hughes will hold onto his seat. The Liberal Democrats are in a massive decline, with less than 11% in the polls. In local by-elections, the swing required will destroy the Liberal Democrats across Southwark. Also, Bermondsey is a traditionally Labour area and if it was not for the local popularity of the Lib Dems, Labour would have taken the seat even if 1992, now the Liberal Democrats are extremely unpopular across the country, especially in Southwark – Hughes needs a miracle to hold his seat. Also, BOS Labour is very active. There are new protests against Hughes in his seat because of the fact he has betrayed his constituents. The polls show that Labour could even get a majority of almost 4,000. Hughes will NOT hold his seat.
The seats Labour will take from the Liberal Democrats are: Argyll and Bute, Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East, Brent Central, Bristol West, Burnley, Caithness Sunderland and Easter Ross, Cambridge, Cardiff Central, Dunbartonshire East, Gordon, Hornsey and Wood Green, Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey, Manchester Withington, Norwich South and Redcar.