Comments on: Westminster North

By: H.Hemmelig

H.Hemmelig — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 13:02:20 +0000

Dalek it is St Helier not St Hillier.

It will be a pretty good prospect for Labour even as soon as 2015.

By: Dalek

Dalek — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:02:59 +0000

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.

By: Barnaby Marder

Barnaby Marder — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:16:42 +0000

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.

By: akmd

akmd — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:20:46 +0000

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.

By: Dalek

Dalek — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:00:56 +0000

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.

By: LBernard

LBernard — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:07:30 +0000

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.

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:35:23 +0000

Con share of the vote +5.8%.

By: Barnaby Marder

Barnaby Marder — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:27:43 +0000

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.

By: John Chanin

John Chanin — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:58:58 +0000

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.

By: LBernard

LBernard — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:07:48 +0000

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.