|
|
Post by Adam Gray on Dec 14, 2023 18:32:35 GMT
Well, it changed a lot towards the Conservatives, and now it's changed considerably back to Labour (though not of course, fully). Gibbs Green: the current West Kensington, was much less Labour in the 1960s and early 1970s than now; in part because the West Ken estate hadn't then been built but also because the demographics of the mansion blocks on the Baron's Court side was quite different. And yes, while Chelsea hasn't really swung to Labour its voting power has diminished as its electorate has shrunk.
So, while of course Fulham's different, because Labour is appealing to a quite different demographic these days, it's not so unreasonable to draw (very) broad comparisons. The Conservative vote in Palace & Hurlingham and Parson's Green & Sandford (a bit less so Town and a bit less so again Munster) was astoundingly weak at last year's local elections (honestly: I drew PG&S to include essentially zero Labour voters, and they got a ridiculous number of votes in that context!), while Labour won wards like Lillie and Walham Green by similar margins to those we used to win Halford (the closest equivalent) by in the old days. Sands End away from the new and newish-build riverside stuff was probably as good for Labour last year as it was in the 1980s.
An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives.
In response to Barnaby: you're right that Niton Street was never the epicentre of my vote when I was councillor for Crabtree, except to say they were mostly purpose-built flats rather than one-family houses, so slightly better for Labour than it looks from the outside! But of the Bishops Park estate that was in Crabtree, it didn't take all that long to get our vote out there!
All of what was Sulivan ward is now Tory-represented again. We failed to keep the southern half in Sands End at the boundary review. It's now part of Palace & Hurlingham (which to a small extent explains the pretty bad Tory result there last year, though let's not overplay the influence of Sulivan Court on that result: it's low turnout, massively R2B and far less Labour than the other estates that were - and still are - in Sands End. Even has a Tory MP living within it).
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 14, 2023 19:28:55 GMT
thanks Adam, in light of your last para I've edited my previous comment. There are other pockets of social housing in Palace & Hurlingham of course, but they're massively outnumbered by owner-occupied flats & houses. It's a little like Thamesfield ward over the water but more so, one might say.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 14, 2023 22:56:41 GMT
Well, it changed a lot towards the Conservatives, and now it's changed considerably back to Labour (though not of course, fully). Gibbs Green: the current West Kensington, was much less Labour in the 1960s and early 1970s than now; in part because the West Ken estate hadn't then been built but also because the demographics of the mansion blocks on the Baron's Court side was quite different. And yes, while Chelsea hasn't really swung to Labour its voting power has diminished as its electorate has shrunk. So, while of course Fulham's different, because Labour is appealing to a quite different demographic these days, it's not so unreasonable to draw (very) broad comparisons. The Conservative vote in Palace & Hurlingham and Parson's Green & Sandford (a bit less so Town and a bit less so again Munster) was astoundingly weak at last year's local elections (honestly: I drew PG&S to include essentially zero Labour voters, and they got a ridiculous number of votes in that context!), while Labour won wards like Lillie and Walham Green by similar margins to those we used to win Halford (the closest equivalent) by in the old days. Sands End away from the new and newish-build riverside stuff was probably as good for Labour last year as it was in the 1980s. An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives. In response to Barnaby: you're right that Niton Street was never the epicentre of my vote when I was councillor for Crabtree, except to say they were mostly purpose-built flats rather than one-family houses, so slightly better for Labour than it looks from the outside! But of the Bishops Park estate that was in Crabtree, it didn't take all that long to get our vote out there! All of what was Sulivan ward is now Tory-represented again. We failed to keep the southern half in Sands End at the boundary review. It's now part of Palace & Hurlingham (which to a small extent explains the pretty bad Tory result there last year, though let's not overplay the influence of Sulivan Court on that result: it's low turnout, massively R2B and far less Labour than the other estates that were - and still are - in Sands End. Even has a Tory MP living within it). Parsons Green & Sandford ward will be interesting in the future, its electorate will be massively inflated by the St William King’s Road Park development on the site of the former Fulham Gas Works which will include ‘affordable’ housing. This two member ward will become oversized in time, though the Tory majority will probably not be greatly affected. I certainly feel that newcomers to Fulham are a different tribe to those in the 1980s and 1990s. There will still be incomers from traditional English public school backgrounds, but a lot of the new arrivals have a more international feel or are at least outward looking. And yes I do think that some of the incomers are now so comfortably off that national politics doesn’t really threaten their position and no British government would ever seriously threaten their wealth. 20% VAT on private school fees would hardly make them flinch, it’s marginal in the overall decision about where to live in the world. Take away their parking space on the other hand…… |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Gray on Dec 15, 2023 3:09:10 GMT
Agree. We're five years on from the electorates on which the ward boundary review was predicated and (as usual) the forecasts bear little resemblance to reality.
Of course the pandemic had a huge impact in respect of new builds - especially in those areas where huge amounts of new homes were expected. White City, College Park & Old Oak and Shepherd's Bush Green in particular have a lot fewer electors than they should have by now. The Earls Court development was forecast to have added about 800 new electors to West Kensington ward by now - it's nowhere close to even being started yet - don't believe it's even close to receiving planning permission.
I'd argue that at least three to five years' extra time needs to be given to overcome the pandemic-sized crater in housebuilding - but it's entirely possible the forecasts will now never come close to realisation because of the shift in work patterns Covid caused (in which case virtually all the London reviews will be awry). The government clampdown on legal migration is also likely to have a larger impact in London than the country as a whole, and maybe the repurposing of no longer needed office blocks towards the centre of the city will also realign things, both in terms of where electorate growth will appear and where it will not any more.
The Kings Road Park development (Sandford Manor would've been so much better a name for it!) was outside of the electorate projections period but yes, it will explode [perhaps an unfortunate choice of word given it's built on a gasworks!) the electorate of that ward. Which is a little ironic given its predecessor, Parson's Green and Walham, was the most over-represented ward in the borough prior to the review.
All of the Conservative-held Fulham wards are on the large side right now, mainly because, PG&S aside, they were designed large because there are no major development sites within them. So, as the electorate grows in those wards where there is development potential and therefore the borough as a whole - driving up the quota - the logic was that the Tory wards would move into line. With the previous review, these central and south Fulham wards started in line with the quota and then shrank substantially below it as their electorate stayed the same while all around them grew. But if developments aren't being developed, the Tory wards will remain under-represented. It may be the case that there is a small redistribution of councillors back to Fulham if the housing forecasts remain awry.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 17, 2023 16:14:42 GMT
Agree. We're five years on from the electorates on which the ward boundary review was predicated and (as usual) the forecasts bear little resemblance to reality. Of course the pandemic had a huge impact in respect of new builds - especially in those areas where huge amounts of new homes were expected. White City, College Park & Old Oak and Shepherd's Bush Green in particular have a lot fewer electors than they should have by now. The Earls Court development was forecast to have added about 800 new electors to West Kensington ward by now - it's nowhere close to even being started yet - don't believe it's even close to receiving planning permission. I'd argue that at least three to five years' extra time needs to be given to overcome the pandemic-sized crater in housebuilding - but it's entirely possible the forecasts will now never come close to realisation because of the shift in work patterns Covid caused (in which case virtually all the London reviews will be awry). The government clampdown on legal migration is also likely to have a larger impact in London than the country as a whole, and maybe the repurposing of no longer needed office blocks towards the centre of the city will also realign things, both in terms of where electorate growth will appear and where it will not any more. The Kings Road Park development (Sandford Manor would've been so much better a name for it!) was outside of the electorate projections period but yes, it will explode [perhaps an unfortunate choice of word given it's built on a gasworks!) the electorate of that ward. Which is a little ironic given its predecessor, Parson's Green and Walham, was the most over-represented ward in the borough prior to the review. All of the Conservative-held Fulham wards are on the large side right now, mainly because, PG&S aside, they were designed large because there are no major development sites within them. So, as the electorate grows in those wards where there is development potential and therefore the borough as a whole - driving up the quota - the logic was that the Tory wards would move into line. With the previous review, these central and south Fulham wards started in line with the quota and then shrank substantially below it as their electorate stayed the same while all around them grew. But if developments aren't being developed, the Tory wards will remain under-represented. It may be the case that there is a small redistribution of councillors back to Fulham if the housing forecasts remain awry. The lag time for new housing completions particularly in regeneration areas is certainly a big issue in terms of the length of time that there is an under representation of the electors in the more established neighbourhoods. It is a London wide issue due to the scale of new housing development projected and given that the larger developments are often concentrated in specific wards which are over represented until development really gets going. I do wonder if an interim review process that could award an extra member to an existing oversized ward might be a better long term solution than allocating extra representation years in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 17, 2023 16:21:18 GMT
The Earl's Court development was a pet project of the Conservative council in Hammersmith & Fulham. Once Labour took control the brakes were applied heavily.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 17, 2023 20:23:37 GMT
The Earl's Court development was a pet project of the Conservative council in Hammersmith & Fulham. Once Labour took control the brakes were applied heavily. It is now back, minus the estates which have been returned to Council ownership. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Gray on Dec 17, 2023 23:04:30 GMT
Most of the high rise crap seems to be on the K&C side. The poor residents of Eardley and Philbeach (appreciating that they had a massive exhibition centre up their behinds for decades)...
I do wonder about any architect that takes a look at the Empress State Building and thinks "gee, that's too small".
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Gray on Dec 17, 2023 23:24:29 GMT
The lag time for new housing completions particularly in regeneration areas is certainly a big issue in terms of the length of time that there is an under representation of the electors in the more established neighbourhoods. It is a London wide issue due to the scale of new housing development projected and given that the larger developments are often concentrated in specific wards which are over represented until development really gets going. I do wonder if an interim review process that could award an extra member to an existing oversized ward might be a better long term solution than allocating extra representation years in advance. It may be more than just actually building stuff but occupancy of stuff recently finished too. Lillie ward is another ward somewhat on the small side (not alarmingly so but somewhat over-represented) - it's also not where it was projected to be. The main development site in Lillie is the Seagrave Road Earl's Court-linked development which anyone who's been through West Brompton tube station will have seen has been more or less completed for some time. So, if there's nothing much left to build there and the electorate's not where it should be then a) there are a lot of empty homes, b) there are a lot of ineligible to vote occupants or c) the assumptions made about occupants per unit in the projections were wrong. c) is very likely because I know H&F used a uniform occupancy-to-unit ratio in its electorate projections whereas affordable housing has vastly more occupants per unit than market housing. Affordable housing units tend to be filled by families - often large families; private market apartments tend to be single- or couple-occupied homes but rarely family units. So the ratio for affordable homes might be 3 or 4 to 1; that for market homes could be something like 1.3 to 1 (maybe even lower given the number of typically empty corporate lets and ineligible voters). If you're using a single aggregate ratio - say 2.3/1, the scheme is relatively large and the scheme has very little affordable in it (like Lillie Square) the forecast is going to be quite a lot out. If you look at, say, Imperial Wharf in Sands End it was 50/50 affordable to private housing. But the affordable accounts for at least 2/3rds of the electorate there because of this phenomenon. It's the main reason, aside from the decline of Conservative popularity in London, why Sands End returned to competitiveness after the considerable move away from Labour from the 1980s to 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 18, 2023 2:10:25 GMT
The lag time for new housing completions particularly in regeneration areas is certainly a big issue in terms of the length of time that there is an under representation of the electors in the more established neighbourhoods. It is a London wide issue due to the scale of new housing development projected and given that the larger developments are often concentrated in specific wards which are over represented until development really gets going. I do wonder if an interim review process that could award an extra member to an existing oversized ward might be a better long term solution than allocating extra representation years in advance. It may be more than just actually building stuff but occupancy of stuff recently finished too. Lillie ward is another ward somewhat on the small side (not alarmingly so but somewhat over-represented) - it's also not where it was projected to be. The main development site in Lillie is the Seagrave Road Earl's Court-linked development which anyone who's been through West Brompton tube station will have seen has been more or less completed for some time. So, if there's nothing much left to build there and the electorate's not where it should be then a) there are a lot of empty homes, b) there are a lot of ineligible to vote occupants or c) the assumptions made about occupants per unit in the projections were wrong. c) is very likely because I know H&F used a uniform occupancy-to-unit ratio in its electorate projections whereas affordable housing has vastly more occupants per unit than market housing. Affordable housing units tend to be filled by families - often large families; private market apartments tend to be single- or couple-occupied homes but rarely family units. So the ratio for affordable homes might be 3 or 4 to 1; that for market homes could be something like 1.3 to 1 (maybe even lower given the number of typically empty corporate lets and ineligible voters). If you're using a single aggregate ratio - say 2.3/1, the scheme is relatively large and the scheme has very little affordable in it (like Lillie Square) the forecast is going to be quite a lot out. If you look at, say, Imperial Wharf in Sands End it was 50/50 affordable to private housing. But the affordable accounts for at least 2/3rds of the electorate there because of this phenomenon. It's the main reason, aside from the decline of Conservative popularity in London, why Sands End returned to competitiveness after the considerable move away from Labour from the 1980s to 2010. Very interesting! |
|
rr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 20 
|
Post by rr on Sept 13, 2024 20:08:30 GMT
An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives.
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 14, 2024 3:57:53 GMT
An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives.
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
Metropolitan elitist constituency elects Labour MP. In other news, sky is blue. I joke, but it's broadly true. The Tories shouldn't pander to Fulham. It's not the real world, honestly. Tories are becoming like the GOP. It's easier to see the Tories regaining a seat like Rother Valley than it is to see to them regaining this seat. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 14, 2024 7:07:27 GMT
An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives.
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
Adam is extremely knowledgeable about this part of the world, but the great profile was written by me. 😁This is (across the Thames) a neighbouring constituency for me, and I do know the area extremely well, particularly the Hammersmith and Fulham wards. I don’t often have cause to go to Chelsea, although the Cadogan Hall is just within the constituency and I sang there in July, witnessed by John Loony and Andrew Teale. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 14, 2024 7:22:15 GMT
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
Adam is extremely knowledgeable about this part of the world, but the great profile was written by me. 😁This is (across the Thames) a neighbouring constituency for me, and I do know the area extremely well, particularly the Hammersmith and Fulham wards. I don’t often have cause to go to Chelsea, although the Cadogan Hall is just within the constituency and I sang there in July, witnessed by John Loony and Andrew Teale. Tories got Mardered here - wonder why. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 14, 2024 9:56:02 GMT
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
Metropolitan elitist constituency elects Labour MP. In other news, sky is blue. I joke, but it's broadly true. The Tories shouldn't pander to Fulham. It's not the real world, honestly. Tories are becoming like the GOP. It's easier to see the Tories regaining a seat like Rother Valley than it is to see to them regaining this seat. Except that this ignores the age dimension referred to above, some time fairly soon permanently ANGRY culture war boomers are going to start dying off in large numbers - and this will be true in places like Rother Valley as well. Tories need to get across that they don't despise younger (ie under 50 if not 60) Britons and the country *they* live in. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Sept 14, 2024 14:54:51 GMT
An argument has been made to me by a senior councillor there that Fulham has now moved so far up the ladder that the sort of voters who can now afford to buy there have moved past being dependably Conservative, at least in the way the incomers of the 1970s and 1980s were - that is brash right-wing city traders; that the new lot are so loaded they're sort of above or indifferent to parochial national politics. Not sure if I buy that myself, though the large what you might call "old EU" contingent resident are hardly going to be well disposed to the Conservatives. In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
The age tipping point for the Conservatives was 63 at the last election. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 15, 2024 8:47:41 GMT
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
The age tipping point for the Conservatives was 63 at the last election. Well, yes, in the context of a national landslide, that's not surprising is it. It's almost like the Conservatives lost the election ... oh wait.  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 15, 2024 9:19:48 GMT
Was there an "age tipping point" at all in 1997, for example? The point is surely how our voting has become much more polarised by age in recent years - and to contrast, the relevant age in 2019 was only somewhere in the early 40s.
|
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 15, 2024 18:32:17 GMT
Was there an "age tipping point" at all in 1997, for example? The point is surely how our voting has become much more polarised by age in recent years - and to contrast, the relevant age in 2019 was only somewhere in the early 40s. Context was a Tory landslide in 2019. What I'd like is a direct comparison between say, 1992, and 2015. Both narrow Tory wins. 1997 and 2024 are good comparisons too, but the Tories vote share was far lower in 2024 than 1997, so the point about early 60s as the tipping point is sort of irrelevant, since Reform took so many voters directly from the Tories, far more than the Referendum Party in 1997. There is no historical parallel to 2024 for the Conservative Party. |
|
rr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 20
|
Post by rr on Sept 17, 2024 17:10:49 GMT
In my view, it's simply that the contemporary Conservative Party has abandoned the aspirational older millennials/gen-x that make up the bedrock of places like Fulham. See also Wandsworth.
Instead it has decided to become the party of over-60 pensioners, most recently defending a Labour-introduced universal benefit that supports higher energy prices for everyone else. The Spectator magazine (which I'm sure is widely read in Fulham) has remained sound on this.
In the 2024 election, the age "tipping point" from Labour to Conservative became something bonkers like 60 - this is completely unsustainable for that party long-term.
Great seat profile nonetheless, Adam :-)
Adam is extremely knowledgeable about this part of the world, but the great profile was written by me. 😁This is (across the Thames) a neighbouring constituency for me, and I do know the area extremely well, particularly the Hammersmith and Fulham wards. I don’t often have cause to go to Chelsea, although the Cadogan Hall is just within the constituency and I sang there in July, witnessed by John Loony and Andrew Teale. Yes - my mistake. Another one of your excellent profiles, Barnaby.
Fulham is quite a distinctive area and though (very) heavily gentrified it does still retain a character of its own.
|
|
