London Maps

[Ben.]

You get the impression that the areas most likely to vote LibDem are those where the residents are most likely to be well insulated against any economic unpleasantness... looking at you Twickenham and Richmond!

[Verily]

You get the impression that the areas most likely to vote LibDem are those where the residents are most likely to be well insulated against any economic unpleasantness... looking at you Twickenham and Richmond!

Then surely the Lib Dems should be winning Kensington and Chelsea?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(above posts edited to avoid map-quoting; trying to make the thread easier to read through really).

For what it's worth, the LibDem vote in SW London isn't nearly as well-heeled as is often assumed; the richest wards tend to vote Tory these days (an interesting change from the 1980's, when the Liberals were strongest in the most middle upper class wards, while the Tories did best in the more hum-drum areas). Demographically Sutton is very like Romford (ie; overwhelmingly lower-middle class (with a few working class pockets here and there) and with a strong white-flight element).

Btw, some ward maps of the above might well be made soon.

[Ben.]

Then surely the Lib Dems should be winning Kensington and Chelsea?

Fair point, although Kensington and Chelsea would probably be significantly different (though no less affluent) than places like Richmond Park and Twickenham that are both very affluent and also pretty liberal in their politics (potentially fertile ground for a Cameron led Conservative Party)... however it's worth making the distinction (as Al does) that Sutton and Chelms is less affluent, and also a good deal more marginal politically (in fact the Sutton seats are both very marginal and IMHO very vulnerable). 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Large version (plus important notes) here

Maps above show a model-based income estimate produced by the ONS (edit: after the cost of housing is accounted for). If some wards look "odd" it's probably because something went wrong with the model in that ward.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Results (pop. vote) by first constituency (c.2005) and borough for the 2006 elections.

[Harry Hayfield]

Results (pop. vote) by first constituency (c.2005) and borough for the 2006 elections.

If I am reading that map right, it suggests that we should hold all our South Western London seats as well as Bermondsey, leaving Horney and Brent East to be a scrap between Lab and LibDem.

[Serenity Now]

If I am reading that map right, it suggests that we should hold all our South Western London seats as well as Bermondsey, leaving Horney and Brent East to be a scrap between Lab and LibDem.

Perhaps, but I've seen the document I think Al might be getting the constituency projections, and the Lib Dems have their highest vote share in Hornsey and Wood Green. Also, the Tories topped the poll in Richmond Park and in Sutton and Cheam.. (Then again I think they did in 2002 of course).

I make Hornsey a likely Lib Dem hold, and don't forget that Brent East is being abolished (which makes a promising Lib Dem target in Hampstead and Kilburn).

I wish the document included nationals for the Greens and other minor parties.. I remember reading somewhere that the Greens notionally won more than 25 per cent in their best seat (Lewisham Deptford).

[Verily]

Hampstead and Kilburn is indeed very marginal on the new boundaries, but much of the old Brent East vote was enthusiastic support for Sarah Teather. I'm not sure another candidate can garner that many votes in the area. (Teather should win Brent Central, though, despite it being fairly Labour notionally. She's a phenomenal campaigner.)

As for Lewisham Deptford, the Greens really don't have a chance unless the Lib Dems decide not to run a candidate as much of their vote locally goes Lib Dem nationally and has for a while.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hampstead and Kilburn is indeed very marginal on the new boundaries, but much of the old Brent East vote was enthusiastic support for Sarah Teather.

There's been a large LibDem vote in Hampstead (especially West Hampstead) for quite a while and the best (ie; the most middle class) LibDem wards from Brent East. I'm quite sure that an existing strong LibDem organisation in Hampstead is why Teather went for what looks like a suicide-run in the new Central seat. They want a candidate of their own (and I don't blame them).

Interestingly enough, the parts of Brent East in which the LibDems are strongest used to be where the Tories were strongest in the '80's and '90's (though boundary changes confuse things somewhat)...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doubt it. Partly because Dawn Butler is no slouch, but also because Brent Central is about a quarter Black and they all (around 80% of them anyway) vote Labour and do not have any interest in voting for other parties (and that's a fact, not an opinion or even an assumption).

Teather got some bad news last week, btw. There was a by-election in the Stonebridge ward on Thursday and the LibDems put a lot of effort into it. Turnout was very low and the LibDems squeezed the Tory and Green votes away into hardly anything. There was also a strong Respect candidate. But the Labour vote hardly fell from 2006.
While there was never a realistic chance that Labour would lose Stonebridge the failure of the LibDems to eat into the Labour vote there is, erm, "cause for concern" because if the Labour vote in Stonebridge, Harlesden and so on stays solid, there's no way that Labour can lose Brent Central.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They wouldn't have a chance anyway. Deptford is a safe Labour seat, period. South Deptford has Green and Trot councillers now, but the north Deptford wards are some of Labour's strongest in London.

[Serenity Now]

They wouldn't have a chance anyway. Deptford is a safe Labour seat, period. South Deptford has Green and Trot councillers now, but the north Deptford wards are some of Labour's strongest in London.

I personally think that the Greens could come second with 20%+ of the vote in Deptford the next time round, but it would still be a safe Labour seat.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doubt it. Partly because Dawn Butler is no slouch, but also because Brent Central is about a quarter Black and they all (around 80% of them anyway) vote Labour and do not have any interest in voting for other parties (and that's a fact, not an opinion or even an assumption).

Teather got some bad news last week, btw. There was a by-election in the Stonebridge ward on Thursday and the LibDems put a lot of effort into it. Turnout was very low and the LibDems squeezed the Tory and Green votes away into hardly anything. There was also a strong Respect candidate. But the Labour vote hardly fell from 2006.
While there was never a realistic chance that Labour would lose Stonebridge the failure of the LibDems to eat into the Labour vote there is, erm, "cause for concern" because if the Labour vote in Stonebridge, Harlesden and so on stays solid, there's no way that Labour can lose Brent Central.

That's got to be some of the most extreme spin I've ever heard. The Lib Dems came within 10% of knocking off Labour in one their safest wards in the seat, and it's bad news for the Lib Dems? Tuh. Labour doesn't even come close to a notional majority, so coalescing the "opposition-to-Labour" vote plus a few transfers are all Teather needs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's got to be some of the most extreme spin I've ever heard. The Lib Dems came within 10% of knocking off Labour in one their safest wards in the seat, and it's bad news for the Lib Dems? Tuh.

I'm not spinning; I just know a little bit about voting patterns in that area (I'm trying to stay as unbiased as I can with this; which isn't easy as (mainly due to the fact that she was sniffing around Brent East as soon as she heard that Paul Daisley was dying. That, and here role in the political murder of Charles Kennedy; who I like even though I'd never actually vote for him) I view Teather as being lower than vermin).

The actual result isn't bad for the LibDems (and it would be crazy to say otherwise), but it's bad news in terms of the parliamentary seat. The LibDems need to break into the Labour vote in this seat in order to have any hope of winning it, and, if the by-election is anything to go by (and it might not be), they clearly aren't doing that at the moment.

By-election results:

Labour 1432
LDem     864
Respect 247
Con       177
Green      51

2006 results (average vote)

Labour 1559
Con       572
LDem     381
Green    216
Ind        143

Turnout fell a little bit; 27% in the by-election, 28% in 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Notional results for Brent Central:

Labour 50.1%, LDem 32.1%, Con 13.4%, Oth. 4.5%

(these are Wells figures as I don't have access to the Rallings & Thrasher ones. I'd be surprised if they were very different though).

I repeat; if the Labour vote in Stonebridge, Harlesden and so on stays solid, there's no way that Labour can lose Brent Central.

But this is getting a little off-topic

[Serenity Now]

Here's another social liberalism map like that in the demographics maps thread, but this time for the wards within the old LCC:

[Serenity Now]

[Hash]

Quite interesting how those 14-18% areas are those that have quite a lot of immigrants, quite like our 9-3 in France, where the FN has (had) high vote shares. Where those areas also high-immigrant areas in 77?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would say "great map", but bearing in mind the subject... let's just say "very interesting map". Seems that NF support was a good deal more working class than BNP support is (this even with the latter being more working class inside London than outside it).

Quite interesting how those 14-18% areas are those that have quite a lot of immigrants, quite like our 9-3 in France, where the FN has (had) high vote shares. Where those areas also high-immigrant areas in 77?

Some data from the '81 census for the '83-'97 constituencies (number of households with a head born in "New Commonwealth or Pakistan).

The following had more than 8,000: Brent South, Southall, Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Tottenham

Generally the NF seems to have done well in areas that were near areas with large immigrant populations, but which were still largely white themselves.

It is also interesting to note that the areas in which the NF did well saw various non-Labour parties doing very well in local elections during the 1980's and early 1990's; Tower Hamlets (the LibDems were strongest where the NF was strongest; I checked this years ago), Shoreditch, the southern part of Newham etc.

[Hash]

What is the difference between the NF and the BNP? Is the BNP more racist than the NF or vice-versa? And why are they split?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is the difference between the NF and the BNP?

The NF was active in the '70's, the BNP these days. More or less. Of course, there is still a NF, but it isn't far off being a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The NF was more openly racist (as well as more violent) than the BNP is, but this may just be a reflection of changes in society. The remains of the NF are also more openly racist than the BNP. Most of the BNP anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because that's what fringe groups do; split (interestingly enough, a split within another London-orientated fringe party, Respect, seems increasingly possible). Don't know much about the details, don't really want to either.

[minionofmidas]

Generally the NF seems to have done well in areas that were near areas with large immigrant populations, but which were still largely white themselves.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. Isn't that true of all Nazi parties in Western Europe?*

*East Germany is not in Western Europe. West Germany is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Generally the NF seems to have done well in areas that were near areas with large immigrant populations, but which were still largely white themselves.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. Isn't that true of all Nazi parties in Western Europe?*

I think so; certainly is the case with the BNP.

One thing that might have boosted NF support is the unpopularity of the Labour-led administration on the GLC that year (which o/c lost power in a massive landslide; some of the seats lost didn't even fall in the 1987 General Election!).
Another thing to note is the fairly low share the NF polled in Hackney North; that area had (and has) a large Hasidic Jewish population.

[Serenity Now]

[Serenity Now]

Now for some party maps, these are for the 5 parties that qualified to win list seats (through passing the 5% threshold).



 

[Verily]

There's some residual blue on the Labour map... negative percentages?

[Serenity Now]

There's some residual blue on the Labour map... negative percentages?

That'd be because I made it from the all-party map, but I can see what seems like one or two pixels, unless I've gone colorblind from looking at all these maps!