Next UK General Election thread

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Would Hillingdon count? That's Boris Johnson's seat and, from what I understand, pretty lockstep Tory.

I think he only won by a little over 10 points and his is also actually in London not the commuter belt although on the edge of the city.  I think if Labour won 350 seats, they would likely pick his up, but certainly at the moment where the polls are I think his seat is pretty safe.

Yea he lost a lot of support in his race this year. If i was advising the Labour party i'd be going after that seat the most.

[mileslunn]

Would Hillingdon count? That's Boris Johnson's seat and, from what I understand, pretty lockstep Tory.

I think he only won by a little over 10 points and his is also actually in London not the commuter belt although on the edge of the city.  I think if Labour won 350 seats, they would likely pick his up, but certainly at the moment where the polls are I think his seat is pretty safe.

Yea he lost a lot of support in his race this year. If i was advising the Labour party i'd be going after that seat the most.

 

No more so than other London seats.  Nationally it was +5.5 for the Tories and +9.6 for Labour while in London it was +10.9 for Labour while -1.7 for Tories so the swing was +4.4 swing to Labour nationally but in London it was +12.6 to Labour so three times as big a swing as nationally.  However whether you will get as big a swing again is questionable.  I think of Tory cabinet ministers, Amber Rudd is considered the top target and most vulnerable.

[cp]

Good points. Defeating Johnson would also resonate more than the typical outer-borough London Tory going down to defeat, especially in the event of an overall Labour victory. It would be a 'Portillo moment', as the commentators over here often say.

[parochial boy]

Well the swings in London had a lot to do with young people and remain voters, and Hillingdon has substantially less of those than the rest of the city. Also, the minority population there tend to be middle class Hindus, who tend to be friendly to the Tories. So it isn't the most obvious Labour target.

I would also be very hesitant to predict how London as a whole will swing before Brexit gets settled -especially as swings in London quite often contrast quite markedly to the rest of the country

[mileslunn]

Well the swings in London had a lot to do with young people and remain voters, and Hillingdon has substantially less of those than the rest of the city. Also, the minority population there tend to be middle class Hindus, who tend to be friendly to the Tories. So it isn't the most obvious Labour target.

I would also be very hesitant to predict how London as a whole will swing before Brexit gets settled -especially as swings in London quite often contrast quite markedly to the rest of the country

If I am not mistaken I believe the Tories won the Hindu vote whereas the Sikhs and Muslims went overwhelmingly Labour and I believe Blacks also went heavily Labour.  I think Conservatives won the Jewish and Chinese vote but both are probably too small to know.  I know in Canada, the Tories won the Hindu vote in 2011, although lost it to the Liberals in 2015 while amongst Sikhs and Muslims they've always languished in third place.

True London swings differently, but I've always found except for the Eastern edge ridings like Orpington, the Tories in London tend to be more centrist than elsewhere, otherwise more pro-European, more socially liberal (I believe most London Tories voted for Gay Marriage).  That being said also being wealthier than most of the country I've found Labour tends to do better there when more centrist but maybe that is changing as Corbyn is no moderate and he did very well in London unlike say Michael Foot who did quite poorly there.

[vileplume]

Well the swings in London had a lot to do with young people and remain voters, and Hillingdon has substantially less of those than the rest of the city. Also, the minority population there tend to be middle class Hindus, who tend to be friendly to the Tories. So it isn't the most obvious Labour target.

I would also be very hesitant to predict how London as a whole will swing before Brexit gets settled -especially as swings in London quite often contrast quite markedly to the rest of the country

If I am not mistaken I believe the Tories won the Hindu vote whereas the Sikhs and Muslims went overwhelmingly Labour and I believe Blacks also went heavily Labour.  I think Conservatives won the Jewish and Chinese vote but both are probably too small to know.  I know in Canada, the Tories won the Hindu vote in 2011, although lost it to the Liberals in 2015 while amongst Sikhs and Muslims they've always languished in third place.

True London swings differently, but I've always found except for the Eastern edge ridings like Orpington, the Tories in London tend to be more centrist than elsewhere, otherwise more pro-European, more socially liberal (I believe most London Tories voted for Gay Marriage).  That being said also being wealthier than most of the country I've found Labour tends to do better there when more centrist but maybe that is changing as Corbyn is no moderate and he did very well in London unlike say Michael Foot who did quite poorly there.

The reason why Labour did extremely well in London was more because of:
a) Brexit
b) The Tories playing the 'culture war card'
c) The extreme polarisation of the electorate by age (London having a much younger age profile than average).

Only the age factor can really be attributed to Corbyn (though it was probably more caused by a combination of points a) and b) along with the Tories not doing anything much to help the young over their 7 years in power).

I think it's likely that if a left wing Labour government wins power next time London will be the place that swings against Labour first and most sharply, particularly if the Tories move away from 'Mayism'. This is because whilst London may be very socially liberal it is most certainly capitalist through and through (especially places where Labour did well this time like Battersea). The rich yuppies who voted Labour 'because it's cool' this time would turn on a Corbyn government very quickly. In contrast under a left wing Labour government Labour will probably do relatively better in working class nationalist places e.g. Mansfield.

Oh and as a side note the electoral districts aren't called ridings over here they're called constituencies .

[King of Kensington]

If you're to use the Canada comparison, the explanation's quite simple, really--the Canadian Liberals are much more of a viable force than their UK counterparts.

If a seat like Oakville were in Greater London, it'd be eternally landslide Tory.  (Though municipally, it'd be more of a mixed bag with LibDem wards and a touch of Labour in Kerr St-type areas)

A lot of the Liberal holdouts of 2011 kinda looked like the Lib Dem "base" in the UK - the Celtic fringe (i.e. Atlantic Canada) and university towns like Kingston and Guelph.

[King of Kensington]

There are people who are far more knowlegeable than me, but

Stroud is on an old coal field, which tends to lead to strong Labour support. It also has a large population of bohemian types, and countercultural and hippy type people - all of which come together to give Labour a chance. Stroud also voted remain in the Brexit referedum, and those types of areas swung heavily to Labour across the board.

Interesting although they did also have a former incumbent.  I noticed in the Southwest the Liberal Democrats tended to make rural Conservative ridings competitive where they had a past incumbent such as in St Ives and North Devon but in others like Yeovil and Thornbury & Yate where they lacked an incumbent they did poorly.  I could see how Stroud would be less conservative than other rural ridings but the size of the difference seems large.  In the North you see some rural ridings going Labour, but it seems once you get south of Birmingham and Nottingham it's largely Tory and only LibDems when they do well can win in rural areas.  Labour might win a few mixed ones like Peterborough, Canterbury or Milton Keynes North (which they narrowly missed) but those types are probably over 90% urban and I suspect the rural parts went heavily Tory in those ridings.

The London commuter belt is Tory because, fundamentally, Britain, like most of Europe, has a different political structure to the US. Middle class Brits are still a strong Tory demographic, and working class voters still vote heavily Labour. So Surrey and the like are Tory as a result of being hugely wealthy. The UK does not really have the American culture style influence behind voting patterns (plenty of pundits assured us that the culture war gap would emerge this time round, but it didnt, working class areas stayed solidly Labour). As in, Centrists and liberals are still perfectly comfortable in voting Tory in line with their class interests - there are plenty of liberal tories (Ken Clarke, Gidiot Osborne) and "conservative" Labourites (Frank Fields).

I guess I was comparing it to the 905 belt in Ontario and Lower Mainland suburbs in BC and in both areas Conservative support tends to usually be not far off national numbers whereas in the London Commuter Belt, the Tories won by much bigger margins than they did nationally meaning even if they lose next time, they should still hold most.  Yes you have a few marginal ones like Thurrock and Watford while you have Slough which is solidly Labour (It's also under 50% white so I suspect amongst white British voters the Tories probably got similar numbers) but most of the others are pretty solidly Tory.  Likewise in the US I see the Commuter Belt as comparable to the Collar Counties of Chicago, Long Island and Hudson Valley in New York, and Surrounding counties of Los Angeles County (San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Orange and note Orange did vote for Clinton despite its traditional GOP strength) and those areas tend to be bellwethers although in the 80s they were staunchly GOP so perhaps maybe the fact the British Conservatives aren't as extreme or as reactionary as the GOP is part of the reason, but then in Canada the Canadian Conservatives are that much further to the right than the British Conservatives and certainly in BC, I don't think the BC Liberals are any further to the right than the British Tories if anything they are slightly more centrist.  While you are right about the GOP and to a lesser extent Canadian Conservatives playing the cultural wars, the Ontario PCs and especially the BC Liberals have stayed away from that yet don't have the lock on the suburbs the way the Tories do for the London commuter belt.  Mind you income might make sense as the Liverpool suburbs for the most part with few exceptions tend to go massively Labour as do the working class Manchester suburbs and in North America the only suburbs you see blowouts on the left are minority majority ones and that is more in the US than Canada (Essex County, New Jersey would be an example of this).

For one thing, the Home Counties of London are very "white English" - much less multicultural than North American suburbs - and "bourgeois" in outlook (i.e. overwhelmingly Tory).



British T

[mileslunn]

There are people who are far more knowlegeable than me, but

Stroud is on an old coal field, which tends to lead to strong Labour support. It also has a large population of bohemian types, and countercultural and hippy type people - all of which come together to give Labour a chance. Stroud also voted remain in the Brexit referedum, and those types of areas swung heavily to Labour across the board.

Interesting although they did also have a former incumbent.  I noticed in the Southwest the Liberal Democrats tended to make rural Conservative ridings competitive where they had a past incumbent such as in St Ives and North Devon but in others like Yeovil and Thornbury & Yate where they lacked an incumbent they did poorly.  I could see how Stroud would be less conservative than other rural ridings but the size of the difference seems large.  In the North you see some rural ridings going Labour, but it seems once you get south of Birmingham and Nottingham it's largely Tory and only LibDems when they do well can win in rural areas.  Labour might win a few mixed ones like Peterborough, Canterbury or Milton Keynes North (which they narrowly missed) but those types are probably over 90% urban and I suspect the rural parts went heavily Tory in those ridings.

The London commuter belt is Tory because, fundamentally, Britain, like most of Europe, has a different political structure to the US. Middle class Brits are still a strong Tory demographic, and working class voters still vote heavily Labour. So Surrey and the like are Tory as a result of being hugely wealthy. The UK does not really have the American culture style influence behind voting patterns (plenty of pundits assured us that the culture war gap would emerge this time round, but it didnt, working class areas stayed solidly Labour). As in, Centrists and liberals are still perfectly comfortable in voting Tory in line with their class interests - there are plenty of liberal tories (Ken Clarke, Gidiot Osborne) and "conservative" Labourites (Frank Fields).

I guess I was comparing it to the 905 belt in Ontario and Lower Mainland suburbs in BC and in both areas Conservative support tends to usually be not far off national numbers whereas in the London Commuter Belt, the Tories won by much bigger margins than they did nationally meaning even if they lose next time, they should still hold most.  Yes you have a few marginal ones like Thurrock and Watford while you have Slough which is solidly Labour (It's also under 50% white so I suspect amongst white British voters the Tories probably got similar numbers) but most of the others are pretty solidly Tory.  Likewise in the US I see the Commuter Belt as comparable to the Collar Counties of Chicago, Long Island and Hudson Valley in New York, and Surrounding counties of Los Angeles County (San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Orange and note Orange did vote for Clinton despite its traditional GOP strength) and those areas tend to be bellwethers although in the 80s they were staunchly GOP so perhaps maybe the fact the British Conservatives aren't as extreme or as reactionary as the GOP is part of the reason, but then in Canada the Canadian Conservatives are that much further to the right than the British Conservatives and certainly in BC, I don't think the BC Liberals are any further to the right than the British Tories if anything they are slightly more centrist.  While you are right about the GOP and to a lesser extent Canadian Conservatives playing the cultural wars, the Ontario PCs and especially the BC Liberals have stayed away from that yet don't have the lock on the suburbs the way the Tories do for the London commuter belt.  Mind you income might make sense as the Liverpool suburbs for the most part with few exceptions tend to go massively Labour as do the working class Manchester suburbs and in North America the only suburbs you see blowouts on the left are minority majority ones and that is more in the US than Canada (Essex County, New Jersey would be an example of this).

For one thing, the Home Counties of London are very "white English" - much less multicultural than North American suburbs - and "bourgeois" in outlook (i.e. overwhelmingly Tory).



British T

True although I would argue Burlington, Whitby-Oshawa, and Newmarket-Aurora are fairly white too and those all went Liberal last federal election although it's true in 2011 when Tories federally got a similar vote share to what the British Tories did in 2017 the Tories got over 50% in those ridings nonetheless its probably true if it were NDP vs. Tories which is a more apt comparison, the Tories probably would have easily held those.  In the US its true the suburbs are more racially diverse today although back in the 80s during the Reagan era places like Long Island suburbs, Collar counties of Chicago were similarly overwhelmingly white and did vote heavily Republican then.  Also the GOP is a lot more extreme than the British Tories so I expect most American suburbs if you had a battle between John Kasich as GOP and Bernie Sanders as Democrat would go heavily GOP which is probably the best comparison.  Trump vs. Clinton would be more akin to Nigel Farage vs. Vince Cable and I suspect most of the London Commuter belt would back Vince Cable in that case, but could be wrong.

[parochial boy]

Yeah, the commuter belt is very Bourgeois in attitude, I mean - the "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" trope exists for a reason, so the kind of person living in the Commuter belt is not always comparable to those living in the North American equivalents (although that is changing as increasing numbers of people are more or less forced to move to commuter towns in order to have any hope of ever owning a home).

As far as ethnicity goes as a factor, I think it is harder to know for sure. As mentioned earlier, towns in the London periphery, like Slough or Luton, that do give Labour better scores, as they are much more diverse, but also much poorer than their neighbours - which is probably a greater factor in the way that those places vote. Of course, Stevenage and Crawley are also poorer than the surrounding areas and are friendlier to the Tories - but I don't know whether that is down to them being relatively "whiter" or more down to the fact that they are smaller and that the constituencies include more traditional Tory "shire" country/suburban areas.

In the UK, you down get polling data on ethnicity like you do in the US, (aside from very infrequent polls of "how Jewish people vote" or whatever, which have huge inherent inbuilt problems stemming from the question of self-identification).

So looking at the "ethnic" vote relies on looking at vote breakdowns for specific areas with minority populations - this is made all the harder based on the fact that at General Elections, you only get constituency-wide data - so a large degree you have to extrapolate from the ward-by-ward data you get at local elections.

Anyway, point being, it's harder to say for sure to what extent how white a place is factors into its voting habits, as it's harder to get a good picture of the way that ethnic minorities vote. Certainly, among Hindus, there seems to be a big class divide (compare Brent with Harrow, for instance), which may be reflected among other minority groups; and if I remember correctly, Muslim voters being hugely Labour is not a cast-iron guarantee either.

[King of Kensington]

Luton is to London what Brampton is to Toronto?

[vileplume]

Luton is to London what Brampton is to Toronto?

Depends what Brampton is like (I don't know a lot about specific areas of Canada). Luton is an extremely grotty town with high rates of crime, unemployment and poverty, though there are a few more middle class bits in the east. The kind of place where you wouldn't feel safe walking alone down the street at night time. It is probably the worst town in the south of England, the worst bits being on par with some of London's most run down suburbs.

To address Pariochial Boy's point Luton and Slough vote Labour because they are nothing like most of the rest of the home counties and instead have much more in common with rundown London suburbs.

Towns like Stevenage and Crawley are swing constituencies primarily because they are much less deprived and have larger middle class elements and in Stevenage's case it contains very Tory areas outside the borough boundary like Knebworth.

The culture of the home counties isn't really changing though save for becoming a bit more ethnically diverse. People buying homes who have been priced out of London aren't changing the makeup of the home counties as these people are a primarily bourgeois, Tory demographic anyway. Plus the phenomenon of middle class Londoners upping sticks for the home counties has been going on for decades. In fact these people being priced out of London is why the Tories are having such trouble in many London suburbs where they used to be strong a generation ago because the only people left are the ethnically diverse poor living in social housing or rented properties (a monolithically Labour demographic) and the super rich (many are foreign nationals so can't vote).


I would note that the home counties are and never have been uniformly affluent or middle class. Many of the medium sized towns e.g. St Albans, Aylesbury, Guildford, Wycombe etc. have fairly grotty parts to them.

[parochial boy]

Luton is to London what Brampton is to Toronto?

Depends what Brampton is like (I don't know a lot about specific areas of Canada). Luton is an extremely grotty town with high rates of crime, unemployment and poverty, though there are a few more middle class bits in the east. The kind of place where you wouldn't feel safe walking alone down the street at night time. It is probably the worst town in the south of England, the worst bits being on par with some of London's most run down suburbs.

To address Pariochial Boy's point Luton and Slough vote Labour because they are nothing like most of the rest of the home counties and instead have much more in common with rundown London suburbs.

Towns like Stevenage and Crawley are swing constituencies primarily because they are much less deprived and have larger middle class elements and in Stevenage's case it contains very Tory areas outside the borough boundary like Knebworth.

The culture of the home counties isn't really changing though save for becoming a bit more ethnically diverse. People buying homes who have been priced out of London aren't changing the makeup of the home counties as these people are a primarily bourgeois, Tory demographic anyway. Plus the phenomenon of middle class Londoners upping sticks for the home counties has been going on for decades. In fact these people being priced out of London is why the Tories are having such trouble in many London suburbs where they used to be strong a generation ago because the only people left are the ethnically diverse poor living in social housing or rented properties (a monolithically Labour demographic) and the super rich (many are foreign nationals so can't vote).


I would note that the home counties are and never have been uniformly affluent or middle class. Many of the medium sized towns e.g. St Albans, Aylesbury, Guildford, Wycombe etc. have fairly grotty parts to them.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at re the difference between Slough/Luton and Stevenage/Crawley (although both of those towns are mega grotty in the centre )

As for the trends in London, another thing is that people living in private rented properties (especially younger, and often highly educated voters) have swung heavily towards Labour in recent elections (thank you housing crisis...). IIRC, this was a demographic that was evenly split, even voted Tory in the not too distant past, but went Labour in 2015 and heavily Labour this year. The swing in Battersea is probably a good indicator of this, as Clapham is more or less the heartland of post-uni professionals in private rented housing; Tooting as well, which has gentrified in recent years but stayed in the Labour camp.

[King of Kensington]

I think of the Home Counties as being to London what Westchester and Connecticut are to NYC.  A lot of it is "stockbroker belt" territory dating back a century but neither are uniformly affluent. 

[vileplume]

True although I would argue Burlington, Whitby-Oshawa, and Newmarket-Aurora are fairly white too and those all went Liberal last federal election although it's true in 2011 when Tories federally got a similar vote share to what the British Tories did in 2017 the Tories got over 50% in those ridings nonetheless its probably true if it were NDP vs. Tories which is a more apt comparison, the Tories probably would have easily held those.  In the US its true the suburbs are more racially diverse today although back in the 80s during the Reagan era places like Long Island suburbs, Collar counties of Chicago were similarly overwhelmingly white and did vote heavily Republican then.  Also the GOP is a lot more extreme than the British Tories so I expect most American suburbs if you had a battle between John Kasich as GOP and Bernie Sanders as Democrat would go heavily GOP which is probably the best comparison.  Trump vs. Clinton would be more akin to Nigel Farage vs. Vince Cable and I suspect most of the London Commuter belt would back Vince Cable in that case, but could be wrong.

The main difference is the Canadian Liberal Party is actually a massive force at the national level whilst their British equivalent the Liberal Democrats have a measly 12 seats and are a political non-entity in vast swathes of the country. If hypothetically the Lib Dems were going to win a majority (as ludicrous as that sounds) with the Tories and Labour occupying the same positions as the Canadian Tories and the NDP respectively the British political map would more clearly resemble the Canadian one as the Lib Dems would have to win many seats in the home counties (they wouldn't win all of them but they'd win a substantial number) as well as metropolitan lefty seats in order to achieve this. They used to able to compete in working class seats like Ashfield but given the direction they've gone in the last few years I doubt they'd win there even if they somehow got a majority.

Your comparison of Trump vs. Clinton to a hypothetical Farage vs. Cable are broadly correct though I would note that parts of the London commuter belt are right wing reactionary leaning such as Essex and Kent and consequently would back Farage though more liberal-conservative areas like Surrey would indeed vote for Cable. In a David Cameron vs. Jeremy Corbyn style presidential election Surrey would probably be the most Tory county in the country as it contains a lot of cameroonite conservatives and very few areas that would be open to socialism. Whereas Corbyn would do better in Kent and Essex due to them having more working class, anti-establishment areas (not that he'd get anywhere close to winning either).

[King of Kensington]

Essex and Kent = Jersey Shore

Surrey = Westchester/Fairfield

[vileplume]

Luton is to London what Brampton is to Toronto?

Depends what Brampton is like (I don't know a lot about specific areas of Canada). Luton is an extremely grotty town with high rates of crime, unemployment and poverty, though there are a few more middle class bits in the east. The kind of place where you wouldn't feel safe walking alone down the street at night time. It is probably the worst town in the south of England, the worst bits being on par with some of London's most run down suburbs.

To address Pariochial Boy's point Luton and Slough vote Labour because they are nothing like most of the rest of the home counties and instead have much more in common with rundown London suburbs.

Towns like Stevenage and Crawley are swing constituencies primarily because they are much less deprived and have larger middle class elements and in Stevenage's case it contains very Tory areas outside the borough boundary like Knebworth.

The culture of the home counties isn't really changing though save for becoming a bit more ethnically diverse. People buying homes who have been priced out of London aren't changing the makeup of the home counties as these people are a primarily bourgeois, Tory demographic anyway. Plus the phenomenon of middle class Londoners upping sticks for the home counties has been going on for decades. In fact these people being priced out of London is why the Tories are having such trouble in many London suburbs where they used to be strong a generation ago because the only people left are the ethnically diverse poor living in social housing or rented properties (a monolithically Labour demographic) and the super rich (many are foreign nationals so can't vote).


I would note that the home counties are and never have been uniformly affluent or middle class. Many of the medium sized towns e.g. St Albans, Aylesbury, Guildford, Wycombe etc. have fairly grotty parts to them.

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at re the difference between Slough/Luton and Stevenage/Crawley (although both of those towns are mega grotty in the centre )

As for the trends in London, another thing is that people living in private rented properties (especially younger, and often highly educated voters) have swung heavily towards Labour in recent elections (thank you housing crisis...). IIRC, this was a demographic that was evenly split, even voted Tory in the not too distant past, but went Labour in 2015 and heavily Labour this year. The swing in Battersea is probably a good indicator of this, as Clapham is more or less the heartland of post-uni professionals in private rented housing; Tooting as well, which has gentrified in recent years but stayed in the Labour camp.

Indeed they are but Luton is on a whole other level.

Rented housing is a big cause of the Tories woes in outer London (the likes of Battersea are different which I'll mention in the next paragraph). The Tories have collapsed in places like Enfield primarily because a lot of previously owner occupied properties have been sold off to private landlords who then let them out as houses of multiple occupancy (i.e. let out each room individually) whilst their former residents move to the home counties/retire to the south coast. In a relatively short space of time a socially mixed but nevertheless 'respectable' area has become much more working class, housing primarily poorer young people who can't afford central London rents. I can't see the likes of Enfield coming back any time soon for the Tories, ironically perhaps the only thing that could would be the policy sometimes floated on the left of letting people buy their homes in installments off their landlord (effectively 'right to buy' of private property).

As for places like Battersea the people who rent in places like this are young middle class metropolitan yuppy types who have good jobs in the city, big business. These people were put off the Tories this election for very specific reasons e.g. Brexit, culture war etc. Thus as these issues eventually get supplanted by other ones and if the Tories move away from Mayism the Tories will likely recover in places like Battersea whereas demographic change has probably permanently sunk them in Enfield. Plus a Corbyn government is likely to become very unpopular in Battersea (wheras it might be surprisingly popular in places like Thanet in Kent) due to Battersea being a wealthy capitalist kind of place and many of these rich yuppies aren't going to like Corbyn's Labour's economic policies in practice.

As for the point about Tooting remaining Labour despite gentrification I would point out it had been moving towards the Conservatives prior to Brexit and Tories playing the culture war card. I think like Battersea it will likely eventually go back to where it was pre-Brexit (i.e. Labour seat that can be close in a good Tory year) assuming Labour stays on the left and the Tories ditch Mayism. Though the reason why the Tories will find it difficult to ever take it is because parts of the south of the seat (Graveney, Furzedown wards) are similar to Mitcham in character which like Enfield has gone massively downhill in recent decades. Other parts are more like Streatham which is lower-middle class, arty, left-liberal, 'muesli belt' in nature which is obviously bad demographically for the Tories.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

An important thing to bear in mind - and to anchor this discussion perhaps a little more - when discussing London is the not exactly small issue of housing...



In particular you should never forget that great ring of council estates in the inner city; one of the largest concentrations of public housing in Europe and something that immediately makes it very hard to draw hasty parallels with Canadian cities with their total lack of any serious tradition of municipal socialism. Battersea has been mentioned in this discussion and is a good example, as whatever the ups and downs of local swings there, Labour would not be competitive without the council estates in the north of the former borough. The increasingly low status of private renting - a return to what had historically been the norm after a few decades - is also now very important.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And that brings us to the main point really: British voting patterns are anchored firmly in the material. Class, money, status, property; exactly how they all interact and impact varies and many of them have becoming increasingly complex as we've moved to a service-dominated economy, but that's the core of it all. Sure there are other factors - in particular people tend to forget odd results have a curious tendency to correlate with notably strong and/or weak candidates! - but the overall picture is what it is.* This is really only something you see reliably in Canada in provincial elections in the West.

*And many of these other factors link in anyway; anyone pretending that there's no link between ethnicity and social status has got their head stuck very firmly in the sand...

[adma]

If you applied Canadian 2015 parties and dynamics to the UK, Tunbridge-ian seats might well be Liberal steals or at least ultramarginals; ditto with the more "urban" or immediate-Greater-London orbit seats in Surrey (Spelthorne, Guildford, Woking, E&E, E&W, etc).  And the NDP would be lost-deposit or close to it *everywhere* in Surrey.

[parochial boy]

An important thing to bear in mind - and to anchor this discussion perhaps a little more - when discussing London is the not exactly small issue of housing...



In particular you should never forget that great ring of council estates in the inner city; one of the largest concentrations of public housing in Europe and something that immediately makes it very hard to draw hasty parallels with Canadian cities with their total lack of any serious tradition of municipal socialism. Battersea has been mentioned in this discussion and is a good example, as whatever the ups and downs of local swings there, Labour would not be competitive without the council estates in the north of the former borough. The increasingly low status of private renting - a return to what had historically been the norm after a few decades - is also now very important.

I'm actually surprised at how much social housing there still is in Fulham (as compared to Putney excluding Roehampton). I'd always assumed it had completely and utterly gentrified - are they less solidly Tory than I would have assumed?

Also, it's interesting how outright owned and owned with mortgage don't really match up in Central London. Owned with mortgage us more evenly spread, but outright is concentrated on very rich arenas

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm actually surprised at how much social housing there still is in Fulham (as compared to Putney excluding Roehampton). I'd always assumed it had completely and utterly gentrified - are they less solidly Tory than I would have assumed?

Labour won the three northern wards - Fulham Broadway, Fulham Reach and North End - in 2014 and fell just 53 votes short of picking up a seat in Sands End (the southern ward with the higher rate of social housing). These are o/c the four wards with the most social housing. Long way behind in Munster and Town, light years behind in Palace Riverside and Parsons Green & Walham. Khan didn't do as well there in the Mayoral election, but still won Fulham Reach and North End.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes - a very distinctive pattern.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

One of my first reactions to that map was "In the long run, it doesn't look great for Mark Field, does it?"

On Mortgaged v Owned Outright - how much of the latter is inherited?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On Mortgaged v Owned Outright - how much of the latter is inherited?

Depends where in London; in the suburban areas - and areas developed as suburban to an extent still - a lot of the time they're houses on which the mortgage has been paid off, but as you get further in... "guess".

[parochial boy]

On Mortgaged v Owned Outright - how much of the latter is inherited?

Depends where in London; in the suburban areas - and areas developed as suburban to an extent still - a lot of the time they're houses on which the mortgage has been paid off, but as you get further in... "guess".

I'm assuming that many of those outright owners don't actually have the right to vote?