Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2019 9:26:35 GMT
This is one of the most upmarket wards in Luton and it's clear that the rapid increase in the Asian population is the reason for the drift to Labour. Barnfield ward (which was carved out of the original Icknield ward and is if anything even more upmarket on most indicators) had already completed the transformation and this is why Luton North (which would have still been quite comfortably Conservative on current boundaries in 1992) is now a very safe Labour seat even when they are losing nationally. It's hardly controversial to note this. Being from an ethnic minority is the surest predictor of Labour voting now. That's broadly true, with the qualifiers noted below. It's also true, again broadly, regardless of economic circumstances. To take an example local to me, an affluent housing estate on the edge of Derby has a very large (but not majority) primarily Sikh population, almost all second or third generation British residents. It's full of professionals and small business people. They are aspirational for themselves and their children. The estate votes overwhelmingly Labour (with one local Sikh and one white British councillor who doesn't live in the ward but is active) . They get similar votes.
Without wishing to be argumentative there is an alternative way of looking at this. Why are such voters not attracted to a party with a programme that would appear to be aligned with their economic interests? Why are the Conservatives so signally failing to reach such people? I attended meetings led by Dominic Grieve with Sikhs presumably aimed at rectifying that.
Ashkenazi Jews started coming to Britain in large numbers in the 1880s, but it took many, many years for most of them to look twice at the Conservatives. This was a problem arising from their history and self-perception more than anything the Conservatives did or did not do (Yes, I know there was some right-wing antisemitism, but the Conservatives have always been replete with Jewish members and donors, and had a Jewish leader as early as the 1860s). |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Sept 27, 2019 9:38:23 GMT
That's broadly true, with the qualifiers noted below. It's also true, again broadly, regardless of economic circumstances. To take an example local to me, an affluent housing estate on the edge of Derby has a very large (but not majority) primarily Sikh population, almost all second or third generation British residents. It's full of professionals and small business people. They are aspirational for themselves and their children. The estate votes overwhelmingly Labour (with one local Sikh and one white British councillor who doesn't live in the ward but is active) . They get similar votes.
Without wishing to be argumentative there is an alternative way of looking at this. Why are such voters not attracted to a party with a programme that would appear to be aligned with their economic interests? Why are the Conservatives so signally failing to reach such people? I attended meetings led by Dominic Grieve with Sikhs presumably aimed at rectifying that.
Ashkenazi Jews started coming to Britain in large numbers in the 1880s, but it took many, many years for most of them to look twice at the Conservatives. This was a problem arising from their history and self-perception more than anything the Conservatives did or did not do (Yes, I know there was some right-wing antisemitism, but the Conservatives have always been replete with Jewish members and donors, and had a Jewish leader as early as the 1860s). An interesting example. In my local experience most families (and their descendants) have been in the UK since the early 1970s, so close on 50 years. There are are of course exceptions. I contributed in the Peterborough thread against the assumption that all the minority voters favoured Labour. There the Tories had been quite successful in local government at winning over a significant group. There have been other Tory successes for what appear to be local strategies. They don’t necessarily translate into General Election votes, I believe. However that selectivity isn’t confined to minority communities. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 27, 2019 9:43:32 GMT
Headline figures. Tilgate, Crawley: 8.7% swing from Labour to Conservative since May. Conservative hold. Alexandra, Ipswich: 7.1% swing from Labour to Liberal Democrats since May, 11.1% since 2018, 7% since 2016 and 3.5% since 2015. Labour hold. Icknield, Luton: 1.6% swing from Conservative to Labour since May and 8.7% since 2015. Labour gain from Conservative, the first since June 20th (Walkden South, Salford). Sweyne Park and Grange, Rochford: 0.4% swing from Liberal Democrat to Conservative since May, 1.1% since 2018 and 2.6% since 2016. Conservative gain from Rochford District Residents. Three Bridges, West Sussex: 8.6% swing from Labour to Conservative since 2017. Conservative hold. Full stats at - docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ACiXs2yMQAwXSEVTDLY1iaH6wDzHYM1psvUUTPlnoGI/edit?usp=sharingConservative share up in 3, down in 2 Labour share down in 4 Lib Dem share up in 3, down in 1. Considering the week it’s been, those are decent results for the Conservatives. Contrary to the belief of the BBC, I’m not sure this week, or indeed most national events, are changing many minds, they are just hardening opinions. Two swings from Tory to Labour, though (Ipswich as well as Luton) not been so many of those since Johnson became PM. The results in Crawley are so good for the Tories that its hard to believe national politics was the main motivator - anybody with local information? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 27, 2019 10:39:19 GMT
Three results so far, all interesting. I wonder how many Asian voters there are in the Luton ward. Why is that relevant? You should be asking how many working class voters there are in the ward compared to middle class voters and maybe questioning ways to widen your appeal to attract more of the former. Perhaps after the Euro elections Labour should be thinking how to appeal to working class voters as well? You did seem to very much focus on the middle class vote in 2017... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 27, 2019 10:42:17 GMT
Conservative share up in 3, down in 2 Labour share down in 4 Lib Dem share up in 3, down in 1. Considering the week it’s been, those are decent results for the Conservatives. Contrary to the belief of the BBC, I’m not sure this week, or indeed most national events, are changing many minds, they are just hardening opinions. Two swings from Tory to Labour, though (Ipswich as well as Luton) not been so many of those since Johnson became PM. The results in Crawley are so good for the Tories that its hard to believe national politics was the main motivator - anybody with local information? Two places where the Lib Dem vote went up more at the expense of the Tories than Labour (resulting in a net swing). That would be good news for Lab-Con marginals. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 27, 2019 11:14:16 GMT
Conservative share up in 3, down in 2 Labour share down in 4 Lib Dem share up in 3, down in 1. Considering the week it’s been, those are decent results for the Conservatives. Contrary to the belief of the BBC, I’m not sure this week, or indeed most national events, are changing many minds, they are just hardening opinions. Two swings from Tory to Labour, though (Ipswich as well as Luton) not been so many of those since Johnson became PM. The results in Crawley are so good for the Tories that its hard to believe national politics was the main motivator - anybody with local information? It's certainly a situation the local Tories can crow about |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 27, 2019 11:33:50 GMT
Conservative share up in 3, down in 2 Labour share down in 4 Lib Dem share up in 3, down in 1. Considering the week it’s been, those are decent results for the Conservatives. Contrary to the belief of the BBC, I’m not sure this week, or indeed most national events, are changing many minds, they are just hardening opinions. Two swings from Tory to Labour, though (Ipswich as well as Luton) not been so many of those since Johnson became PM. The results in Crawley are so good for the Tories that its hard to believe national politics was the main motivator - anybody with local information? I did wonder whether Labour having Asian candidates in both Crawley elections might be a factor? I have no idea what the wards are like though. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 27, 2019 11:43:36 GMT
The name of the winning Tory in the Crawley DC seat does maybe argue against that, though.....
|
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Sept 27, 2019 11:55:50 GMT
Oh come on,lots of unscrupulous Brexit Party "supporters" have been recently calling foul on the Peterborough by-election result because apparently lots of Asians voted it in. The allegations of electoral fraud were investigated by the police and guess what- it didn't happen. I live in the Borough of Reading,which has a sizeable Asian population and we've never had any instances of electoral fraud that I can remember, the same extending to communities like the London Borough of Newham where the proportion of the population of British Asian origin is even larger. I don't think either his Lordship nor a humble commoner such as myself were suggesting any fraud. My point is that in parts of East Lancashire, the turnout and percentage of postal voters in wards with a high proportion of Pakistani/Bangladeshi heritage voters, is significantly higher than in other wards, and they largely vote Labour. For example, one ward in Burnley has over 30% postal voters, which is nearly double the average of the rest of the Borough. Is that Daneshouse with Stoneyholme? Where results are consistently around 90% Labour. (FWIW, I do know of a ward elsewhere in the north-west that's been completely ruled out as a target because of the extent of postal vote fraud, and that's based on testimony from people within the community, rather than hearsay. But (a) that's just one ward in one LA, (b) it's almost impossible to discuss without sounding extremely BNP, and (c) nobody has the solid evidence needed to raise concerns with the authorities.) |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 27, 2019 11:56:19 GMT
This is one of the most upmarket wards in Luton and it's clear that the rapid increase in the Asian population is the reason for the drift to Labour. Barnfield ward (which was carved out of the original Icknield ward and is if anything even more upmarket on most indicators) had already completed the transformation and this is why Luton North (which would have still been quite comfortably Conservative on current boundaries in 1992) is now a very safe Labour seat even when they are losing nationally. It's hardly controversial to note this. Being from an ethnic minority is the surest predictor of Labour voting now. That's broadly true, with the qualifiers noted below. It's also true, again broadly, regardless of economic circumstances. To take an example local to me, an affluent housing estate on the edge of Derby has a very large (but not majority) primarily Sikh population, almost all second or third generation British residents. It's full of professionals and small business people. They are aspirational for themselves and their children. The estate votes overwhelmingly Labour (with one local Sikh and one white British councillor who doesn't live in the ward but is active) . They get similar votes.
Without wishing to be argumentative there is an alternative way of looking at this. Why are such voters not attracted to a party with a programme that would appear to be aligned with their economic interests? Why are the Conservatives so signally failing to reach such people? I attended meetings led by Dominic Grieve with Sikhs presumably aimed at rectifying that.
It's no longer feasible to claim that the Conservatives are aligned with their economic interests, since their national agenda has been reduced to "achieving as hard a Brexit as we can get away with". They have now completely thrown away any pretense at being the party of business or of the aspirational middle classes. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 27, 2019 12:10:47 GMT
Two swings from Tory to Labour, though (Ipswich as well as Luton) not been so many of those since Johnson became PM. The results in Crawley are so good for the Tories that its hard to believe national politics was the main motivator - anybody with local information? I did wonder whether Labour having Asian candidates in both Crawley elections might be a factor? I have no idea what the wards are like though. I would assume it would be more of a factor in Tilgate, which is broadly a middle of the road area and isn't very ethnically diverse. I suspect a decent amount of its population are white lower middle class people moving out of London but can't prove that. On the other hand, Three Bridges is more affluent, has a lot of London commuters with its major junction station, and is quite a lot more diverse. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 27, 2019 12:52:31 GMT
Yes, but I think there was no Green candidate there last time so the Greens can return to voting for their own candidate and the Lib Dems are returning to be the home for the local protest vote. Eh? This is Icknield we are talking about? Don't think there's ever been a Green candidate there. Apparently there was one this time. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,029
|
Post by Sibboleth on Sept 27, 2019 12:54:45 GMT
Not really convinced that iTs thE dEmoGraPHicS really works as an explanation for the Luton result when the Conservatives won the ward a few months ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 27, 2019 13:07:05 GMT
Not really convinced that iTs thE dEmoGraPHicS really works as an explanation for the Luton result when the Conservatives won the ward a few months ago. The Conservatives held on by all of about 20 votes in May and lost by the same amount in this by-election, in other words there has been no real net movement between Conservative and Labour since then requiring any explanation. The demographic changes (not sure why this requires some infantile capitalisation of odd letters) has obviously occurred over many years and already brought us to the point in May where a hitherto safe Conservative ward was effectively neck and neck. It may be that as has been suggested, a movement of some Remainer Conservatives to the Lib Dems was enough to make the difference this time, but it doesn't explain why Labour are in the high 30s percentage wise and thus in a position to capitalise on that |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 27, 2019 13:32:00 GMT
Eh? This is Icknield we are talking about? Don't think there's ever been a Green candidate there. Apparently there was one this time. OK, so 37 voters were able to vote Green this time. They hadn't had that option before, so were hardly "returning". Who had they voted for before, if anyone? Who knows and the numbers are hardly significant enough to matter much anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 27, 2019 13:39:23 GMT
The name of the winning Tory in the Crawley DC seat does maybe argue against that, though..... she is of Ugandan heritage. |
|
|
|
Post by ideal4radio on Sept 27, 2019 13:59:49 GMT
I don't think either his Lordship nor a humble commoner such as myself were suggesting any fraud. My point is that in parts of East Lancashire, the turnout and percentage of postal voters in wards with a high proportion of Pakistani/Bangladeshi heritage voters, is significantly higher than in other wards, and they largely vote Labour. For example, one ward in Burnley has over 30% postal voters, which is nearly double the average of the rest of the Borough. Is that Daneshouse with Stoneyholme? Where results are consistently around 90% Labour. (FWIW, I do know of a ward elsewhere in the north-west that's been completely ruled out as a target because of the extent of postal vote fraud, and that's based on testimony from people within the community, rather than hearsay. But (a) that's just one ward in one LA, (b) it's almost impossible to discuss without sounding extremely BNP, and (c) nobody has the solid evidence needed to raise concerns with the authorities.) It is indeed ! This year it was 90.1 % Labour, in 2015 there was no election as the Labour candidate was returned unopposed. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 27, 2019 14:12:10 GMT
Is that Daneshouse with Stoneyholme? Where results are consistently around 90% Labour. (FWIW, I do know of a ward elsewhere in the north-west that's been completely ruled out as a target because of the extent of postal vote fraud, and that's based on testimony from people within the community, rather than hearsay. But (a) that's just one ward in one LA, (b) it's almost impossible to discuss without sounding extremely BNP, and (c) nobody has the solid evidence needed to raise concerns with the authorities.) It is indeed ! This year it was 90.1 % Labour, in 2015 there was no election as the Labour candidate was returned unopposed. Without wanting to drag things too off topic, do you why has one Burnley ward got such different demographics to the rest? The rest of the town wards are all extremely white, and elsewhere only one of the Halifax wards seems equally diverging from the rest of its town. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 27, 2019 14:33:46 GMT
Nearby Whiteefield ward in Pendle has similar demographics but a wildly erratic voting pattern
2014
Asjad Mahmood Lab 997 77.9%
Imran Waheed Lib Dem 194 15.2%
Margaret Beckett Con 89 7.0%
2016
Nadeem Ahmed Lib Dem 1237 81.0%
Adrian Barrett Lab 245 16.0%
Jess McNamara Con 45 3.0%
2018
Asjad Mahmood Lab 1103 55.3%
Matloob Ahmed Con 893 44.7%
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 27, 2019 14:57:15 GMT
Nearby Whiteefield ward in Pendle has similar demographics but a wildly erratic voting pattern 2014 Asjad Mahmood Lab 997 77.9% Imran Waheed Lib Dem 194 15.2% Margaret Beckett Con 89 7.0% 2016 Nadeem Ahmed Lib Dem 1237 81.0% Adrian Barrett Lab 245 16.0% Jess McNamara Con 45 3.0% 2018 Asjad Mahmood Lab 1103 55.3% Matloob Ahmed Con 893 44.7% Margaret Beckett!  |
|
