Westminster North
2010 Results:
Conservative: 15251 (38.51%)
Labour: 17377 (43.88%)
Liberal Democrat: 5513 (13.92%)
BNP: 334 (0.84%)
UKIP: 315 (0.8%)
Green: 478 (1.21%)
English Democrat: 99 (0.25%)
Christian: 98 (0.25%)
Independent: 133 (0.34%)
Majority: 2126 (5.37%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 13925 (41.8%)
Conservative: 10904 (32.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 6248 (18.7%)
Other: 2276 (6.8%)
Majority: 3021 (9.1%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 12065 (29.7%)
Labour: 18196 (44.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 7569 (18.6%)
Green: 1985 (4.9%)
UKIP: 456 (1.1%)
Other: 409 (1%)
Majority: 6131 (15.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 9981 (26.9%)
Labour: 20247 (54.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4669 (12.6%)
UKIP: 354 (1%)
Green: 1268 (3.4%)
Other: 533 (1.4%)
Majority: 10266 (27.7%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 13710 (29%)
Labour: 28367 (59.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 4041 (8.5%)
Referendum: 867 (1.8%)
Other: 359 (0.8%)
Majority: 14657 (31%)
Boundary changes: Major. The old Regent`s Park and Kensington North seat loses all of its Kensington wards as part of the re-organisation of seats in west central London, instead gaining Lancaster Gate and Bayswater from Cities of London and Westminster.
Profile: A recreation of the Westminster North seat that existed between 1983 and 1997, replacing the old Regent`s Park and Kensington North seat. While Westminster is popularly associated with highly expensive residential areas like Mayfair, Knightsbridge and Belgravia, this seat contains the far more deprived areas from the north of the Borough, as well as some more desirable and deeply Conservative areas that between them make it a key marginal. While the Westminster wards that make up Cities of London and Westminster to the south all return full slates of Tory coucillors, all four Labour wards on Westminster borough council are found in this seat.
The Conservative parts of Westminster North include Regent`s Park in the east, which contains London Zoo and the London Central Mosque, the wealthy spacious properties in St John`s Wood near Lord`s cricket ground and in Little Venice, the expensive flats and apartments of Bayswater, with its Arab, Brazilian and Greek communities. Labour strength is in the council estates and social housing projects, for as well as the elegant terraces and squares, there are also tower blocks and deprivation, homelessness and sub-standard private rental housing. Labour`s strength lies in the Lisson Grove estate and and in the more cosmopolitan areas towards the north-west of the sea like West Kilburn, Paddington and Westbourne Green.
Current MP: Karen Buck(Labour) born 1958, Castlederg, County Tyrone. Educated at Chelmsford High School and the LSE. Former charity, local government and Labour party officer. Westminster councillor from 1990-1997. First elected as MP for Regent`s Park and Kensington North in 1997. Rejected an appointment as a government whip in 2001, but joined the government as a junior transport minister between 2005-2007 (more information at They work for you)
Joanne Cash (Conservative) Educated at Oxford University. Barrister, specialising in defamation, employment, contempt, copyright and privacy. Karen Buck(Labour) born 1958, Castlederg, County Tyrone. Educated at Chelmsford High School and the LSE. Former charity, local government and Labour party officer. Westminster councillor from 1990-1997. First elected as MP for Regent`s Park and Kensington North in 1997. Rejected an appointment as a government whip in 2001, but joined the government as a junior transport minister between 2005-2007 (more information at They work for you)
Mark Blackburn (Liberal Democrat) Educated at the LSE. Small businessman who sold his show retail business in 2007.
Tristan James Law Smith (Green) born 1975. Educated at Dulwich College and the School of Oriental and African Studies. Contested the Cities of London and Westminster in 2005. 
Jasna Badzak (UKIP) 
Stephen Curry (BNP)Edward Roseman (English Democrat) Gabriela Fajardo (Christian Party) Abby Dharamsey (Independent)Ali Bahaijoub (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 92863
Male: 47.7%
Female: 52.3%
Under 18: 17.8%
Over 60: 15.5%
Born outside UK: 45.3%
White: 68.6%
Black: 10.1%
Asian: 9.9%
Mixed: 4.8%
Other: 6.7%
Christian: 52.3%
Hindu: 2%
Jewish: 5.2%
Muslim: 14.1%
Full time students: 8.3%
Graduates 16-74: 46.3%
No Qualifications 16-74: 18.2%
Owner-Occupied: 37.1%
Social Housing: 30.4% (Council: 15.6%, Housing Ass.: 14.8%)
Privately Rented: 27.7%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 10.4%
Yes you are right. It would be less interesting if the various eccentric characters stopped posting. Tim and Dalek please stay on here.
‘Even regarding Tim Jones who sometimes talks such utter rubbish, in particular his ridiculous caricaturing of Tory politicans,’
Although to be fair Pete I’m the first to acknowledge that the majority of the new intake of Tory MPs haven’t been anywhere near as ‘dangerous’ or ‘extreme’ as we were led to believe – or as I was led to believe – and regret falling for it
I’d certainly be more likely to vote Tory than Labour as things currently stand – and I couldn’t have envisaged that 18 months ago
“I’d certainly be more likely to vote Tory than Labour as things currently stand – and I couldn’t have envisaged that 18 months ago”
Yes I think there’s a lot in what you say. Despite a small poll lead, Labour has moved to the left and alienated many voters in the centre who have hopped between Blair, Cameron and the Lib Dems. Despite economic gloom, this is the Conservatives’ trump card.
I would have been most unlikely to vote Labour in a general election, but I am enough of a centrist to have voted Labour occasionally in other elections such as the London Mayoral election in 2008. I wouldn’t dream of doing so now.
HH, have you ever voted Labour in any GE? I would have guessed that you would have at least been tempted to do so back in 1997.
Do you anticipate Labour doing as badly as Michael Foot did in the next election or do you think a result more like what Neil Kinnock managed in 1992 is more likely?
Hi AKMD
“HH, have you ever voted Labour in any GE? I would have guessed that you would have at least been tempted to do so back in 1997.”
No. Though I abstained from voting in 2005 through feeling unable to vote Tory. I liked John Major personally and thought it a good idea to limit the size of the Blair landslide in 1997. So my answer is that I would have been most tempted in 2005 and 2001. If it were a vote solely on the personality of the Prime Minister I’m sure I would have voted for Blair.
“Do you anticipate Labour doing as badly as Michael Foot did in the next election or do you think a result more like what Neil Kinnock managed in 1992 is more likely?”
Not at all. I think the credibility of the coalition and its record on turning round the economy will be the crucial point. Even with a lightweight leader, there’s a chance of Labour winning the election by default if the coalition is not perceived to have improved things from the state they were in in May 2010.
There’s an increasing chance of that happening, but I still believe most likely is Con largest party but short of a majority. Both major parties have hardened their core votes, plus a substantial swing has occurred from Lib Dem to Lab in Guardianista areas and the Lib Dems aren’t getting those votes back.
So I would say Labour are on course to get at least 35% in 2015, regardless of who is the leader, possibly more if the coalition don’t deliver on the economy. The Tories somewhere in the range of 34-40%. My best guess – absurd though it is this far out – something like Con 38 Lab 35 LD 17
I agree that the economy will be the crucial factor. I can see the Conservative vote share not rising much and may even stand still while Labour moves well into the 30s and the Lib Dems falling below 20%.
Regarding this seat and the assumption that the proposed Paddington seat becomes a reality, a decent pro-Labour swing will be helpful to whoever stands as the Labour candidate (probably still will be Karen Buck) but as you have alluded to before, the housing benefit changes may erode much of the advantage Labour have in the new seat and make the Tories’ hopes of gaining it much more easier. It will be a key seat regardless of what happens in the next few years.
“as you have alluded to before, the housing benefit changes may erode much of the advantage Labour have in the new seat and make the Tories’ hopes of gaining it much more easier.”
On the old boundaries the Tories would have had a chance but I think Labour will be fine under the new boundaries. They have enough cushion with the North Kensington wards moved in even if housing benefit changes work against them.
“I would have been most unlikely to vote Labour in a general election, but I am enough of a centrist to have voted Labour occasionally in other elections such as the London Mayoral election in 2008.”
Admitting that you supported the loony left Ken Livingstone in 2008 doesn’t exactly give you much credibility as a centrist though does it?
“I wouldn’t dream of doing so now.”
I don’t understand the logic. Its a repeat of Boris versus Loony Ken. Same candidates, same choice surely?
On that evidence, Red Ed should be right up your street!
“On the old boundaries the Tories would have had a chance but I think Labour will be fine under the new boundaries. They have enough cushion with the North Kensington wards moved in even if housing benefit changes work against them.”
Yes, I’ve just looked at the proposed boundaries for the seat. You have 7 solid wards for Labour plus 3 others which have a decent Labour vote and this arrangement should be enough to keep it in the Labour column for now.
“Admitting that you supported the loony left Ken Livingstone in 2008 doesn’t exactly give you much credibility as a centrist though does it?”
Well what would you call me then…a loony lefty who has only ever voted Tory in General Elections?
And I’m not going to take lessons in credibility and consistency from Mr Shaun Bennett, the Health and Safety Officer who rails against Labour’s loony health and safety culture LOL.
I can’t be sure but I have always had the suspicion, especially since he started for some reason calling himself Dalek, that Peter does at time make tongue-in-cheek predictions. The trouble is that they tend to be next to clearly serious predictions, and he doesn’t indicate which are serious and which are meant to be jokes. If they’re all serious, then yes some are very wild at times. But he would scarcely be alone. There were some extremely over-optimistic predictions of LD gains last year for example in many constituencies.
Shaun tends to get a bit over-excited at times too. Calling H.Hemmelig a lefty is quite funny………
“Calling H.Hemmelig a lefty is quite funny……”
Re-read what I said. I didn’t call him a lefty. I said he supported the loony left candidate Ken Livingstone in 2008. Thats something you’d want to keep quiet surely!
I was being a bit naughty and trying to tease you Hemmelig. Sorry about that.
Oh but on the point that Hemmelig raised, I see no contradiction in being a H&S officer that rails against Labour’s loony H&S culture. It seems to me the BEST people to have as H&S officers are people who have some commonsense when it somes to H&S rather than the sort of little Hitlers that go on to become traffic wardens.
If the right people don’t go on to do these jobs what happens? The WRONG people do them!
Come on Shaun you must be in a minority of almost one as Tory-voting Health & Safety officer – although I find your justification extremely refreshing
With regards to Ken Livingston, a lot of people who would not consider themselves lefties of leftists voted for Ken, especially in 2004, where he won a host of prosperous boroughs like Richmond, Kingston, Wandsworth and Ealing
Livingston as mayor of London was very different to Red Ken of ther GLC – and whilst not a Londoner I don’t see any radical differences between his adsminisration and that of Borris Johnson’s
With regards to Labour in general, it’s inconceivable that they could do as badly as they did under Michael Foot but without a plausible ecomomic policy in dealing with the defecit, which through their opposition to all cuts shows they are still in denial, I can’t see them winning – and would be stunned if they hung on to their poll lead as things currently stand
On the plus side they do have quite a few credible young MPs amongst their 2010 intake – and the sonner these replace the likes of Harriet Harmann, Tessa Howell and other reminders of the Blairitre/Brownite era, the better
“Surely his overall performance as Tory candidate for Hammersmith underlined that he was anything BUT an excellent candidate”
Well I don’t know him and have no knowledge of Hammersmith or the local issues there so I can’t really comment too much.
But yes, the result would have been disappointing, and as I said, this would go against him if he were to go for selection in another seat, especially if there is a lot of competition.
There have been other people who have failed first time out in seats that on paper appear to be very winnable, but have gone on to be good and successful candidates elsewhere, so I wouldn’t totally write him off, but it will be difficult in the near future.
Shaun makes a good point which has wider application to all sorts of other public sector roles. If these jobs are all left to those from a narrow ideological mindset (which they largely are) then the dominance of that segment of the population becomes self-perpetuating. For all the talk of under-represented groups in the public sector, the most under-represented group is probably Conservative voters or more generally those who do not subscribe to a fairly narrow leftist orthodoxy. As a consequence those tasked with delivering public policy are the most out of touch with the public theys erve, amongst whom only a relatively small minority are signed up to this orthodoxy. The more Shaun Bennetts we can get into the system the better I would have thought. This would be especially desirable in fields such as education.
And while indeed Health & Safety is an area where many policies seem to defy common sense, I don’t think many people would argue that there should be an absence of Health & safety altogether. Perhaps some fields which serve no such useful purpose but merely serve as a means of trying to indoctrine the wider population in the narrow ideology of the left-elite would indeed be no-go areas for any right-thinking person as a field of employment. One thinks particularly of Equality & Diversity officers. Now if Shaunw as an Equality & Diversity officer my reaction would be the same as HH’s. Even so a girl who works for my organisation recently changed jobs to become an Equaklity & Diversity officer in which role she sends out various pointless emails about Black history month and other such irrelevences. She certainly never struck me as the type of leftie Guardian reading type of which there are many in the organisation where I work. And while I don’t know her politics, I do note that her husband was elected as a Coservative councillor this May and she had signed his nomination papers. The stereoptypes are never watertight.
‘But yes, the result would have been disappointing, and as I said, this would go against him if he were to go for selection in another seat, especially if there is a lot of competition.’
His result was no more disappointing than a host of others in London.
In fact, Tory failures in places like Eltham, Harrow West and this seat here (Westminister North) are probably worst, as Hammersmith stayed Labour throughout their nadir years of the 1980s, whereas these other seatrs were Tory as late as 1992
I think it was a tough ask in the first place but unlike candidates like Joanna Cash (who were just dislikeable) Bailey did seem all over the place on many issues
He was certainly an interesting candidate though – and one I’m sure David Cameron would want to carry on fighting
I don’t agree with Harrow West in that list. Even though on the new (much more favourable for Labour) boundaries, Harrow West would never have been won by Labour before 1997 its clear that the demographic trends for about the last 30 years have been in Labour’s favour there and I don’t think anyone thought it was a likely Tory gain. In Hammersmith it has been reckoned that the demographic trends are in favour of the Conservatives (though as Barnaby says the extent of this is limited and not really rpesent north of the Goldhawk Road.) Therefore expectations for 2010 should not really be based on results as far back as 1992 – otherwise you would have said that Mictham & Morden, Edmonton and Hayes & Harlington were viable targets in 2010. I do agree that Eltham was a worse result, as was this seat
I think there was a great deal of naivety in Conservative corners over the amount of seats that we were likely to win in 2010. By 2015 I would imagine Labour to be making more advances into outer London while holding firm in much of inner London with the Tories only really competitive in a few seats, this one being a potential target).
As many have mentioned above, I do not see Ed becoming PM but all rides on the coalitions success with the economy.
I find it curious that this seat stayed comfortably Labour in 2010, when it stayed Conservative in 1992 on almost identical boundaries. This isn’t one of those outer London seats undergoing demographic change, and I don’t think the ethnic mix has changed much. The enormous house prices (and rents) suggest that there ought if anything to be a move the other way, even before any Housing Benefit cap. I doubt the candidates made much difference either way.
While the comments on this thread are as usual interesting they aren’t particularly relevant either to the existing Westminster North or the proposed Paddington seat. Unless the fact that Ken Livingstone represented Paddington on the GLC is considered relevant. Livingstone did a good job as London mayor, making strong arguments for the city, and building alliances in some surprising places. Even when pilloried by the press as “red Ken” he always had a real interest in actually running things and doing so efficiently, unlike 95% of the Left.
The reasons for the Labour retention clearly include the deficiencies of the Tory candidate, but that can’t be the only explanation. Superior Labour organization could have been a factor, but I think Karen Buck’s incumbency would have been one too. That being said, as I’ve said before she wasn’t a sitting MP for some of the Bayswater area at all. When I spoke to her she reckoned she didn’t get many votes in that area anyway though. I think a mixture of a good get-out-the-vote organization with well-focused literature and Buck’s generally well-received constituency record are part of the explanation. But John’s point is good as so often; logically perhaps the Tories could & should have done better.
Con share of the vote +5.8%.
I just dont think the Tories told people what they wanted to hear e.g being tougher on crime for example (which naturally effects Londoners more than the rest of the country) and that must have also been a contributing factor to not taking a number of seats which should have been gains for the Tories.
Barnaby is spot on…clearly the candidate did not come across well enough and while she did a good job in raising the Tory vote share she clearly didnt go down to well in the Maida Hill area of the seat and the other areas along the Harrow Road. Labour were clearly organised in their campaign and the best woman won.
The following new London constituencies are likely to become more Tory during their lifetime. Brentford & Isleworth (could become safer), Camden Town & Regents Park (could become very marginal – not down to Camden Town but around Regents Park), Clapham Common (becoming safer), Hammersmith & Acton (possible future Conservative gain), Paddington (possible future Conservative gain due to further gentrification in North Kensington) and The City of London & Islington South (could become very marginal).
On the other hand, I could see Labour advancing in -
Croydon Central & St Hillier (particuarly if the Lib Dem vote in St Hillier goes to Labour), Croydon East, Chingford & Edmonton, Eltham, Enfield North, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green (could become a bellweather seat) and Hendon.
I agree with most of that. I’m less certain about Camden Town and Regent’s Park. The Camden side of Regent’s Park is a fairly strong Labour ward with significant amounts of social housing. I think that plus Labour’s strength in Camden proper should be enough to see them through. Brentford & Isleworth is a hard one to call. The Chiswick part and perhaps Brentford are trending Tory but the rest of it is trending Labour. I think it’s going to remain marginal. I’d say Hammersmith and Paddington are the most likely long-term inner London Tory seats in your list. I also think all those outer London seats with the possible exceptions of Chingford and Finchley are heading towards the trajectories that you are proposing.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Hampstead & Kilburn. Do you think the Tories have missed their chance now? Admittedly, the proposed boundary changes here are a huge advantage for Labour. Gospel Oak and Highgate alone help keep it in Labour’s gasp but the real coup de grace is the addition of Kentish Town; one of the weakest wards for the Tories in London. As with all these seats, it will all depend on whether these changes are accepted.
I don’t think that Acton as an area is trending towards the Conservatives, though parts of Hammersmith clearly have done so. If anything I’d say that the non-white population in Acton is continuing to grow and that the Tories are weakening in the area as time goes on, though there are some pockets of prosperity here and there. The Tories could win the proposed Hammersmith & Acton in certain circumstances but I reckon the Tories would need to be in a very handy national lead over Labour for it to happen, in general.
That why I said that Camden & Regents Park could become more marginal (than the current 5500- not a Conservative gain).
The boundary changes now favour Labour so much in Hampstead & Kilburn that it is almost a lesser prospect than Camden & Regents Park . The removal of Belsize Park (once a mixed are but now more Conservative) will also help Labour in H & K.
I did not see Finchley becoming a natural Labour seat over the next 15 years or so, only a bellweather marginal.
My point about Croydon Central & St Hillier was that although it is notionally Conservative the Tory vote is 17500 and the Lib Dem/ Lab vote is 29000.
There may have been massive tacticle voting for Lib Dems in Carshalton & Wallington by Labour votes (and the seat had been Labour on the GLC).
When you also consider the advance of Labour in Croydon North West/ Croydon North between 1983 – 2001 due to demographic change (people moving out into Surrey and poorer communities being established) then Croydon Central & St Hillier would seen a greater prospect for Labour than Croydon East.
Dalek it is St Helier not St Hillier.
It will be a pretty good prospect for Labour even as soon as 2015.