English mega-local elections, 2021

[vileplume]

Goldsmith's 2016 campaign says hi

Honestly, no Tory was winning the London mayoralty in 2016 and Goldsmith's 13.6% loss in the second round was probably about the best the party could've hoped for.

Goldsmith's anti-Muslim tactics didn't actually hurt him as the type of people outraged were broadly never going to vote for him in the first place. However this tactic did massively help him in the Hindu-heavy Harrow where his performance was abnormally good for a Tory. He also absolutely crushed it in the Jewish areas of Barnet and in the more 'provincial' outer suburbs, whilst performing strongly in the upper middle class, remainy parts of the capital (save for Wandsworth, which was Kahn's home area) such as Richmond, Chelsea, Fulham, S. Ken and the posh parts of Westminster. The common idea that the rich elite areas of London were outraged by Goldsmith's anti-Muslim dog whistle (or perhaps more siren) campaign is not borne out in the data.

[vileplume]

Stockport remains under No Overall Control. This is more a Lib-Dem/Labour fight, and there is a small amount of reshuffling that has seen the council get its first Green. This time is Lib-Dems in first place.

Labour have held Oldham outside Manchester. There are notable Labour losses here to the Conservatives and Independents unlike in neighboring Rochdale where no net seats changed hands.  
Rochford is a Tory hold. Conservatives make gains at the expense of the regions few Green Councilors and UKIP.

Northumberland has flipped from no control (Conservative Minority) and now has a Conservative Majority. The story here is interesting. Conservatives ended up netting only 1 seat despite picking up six Labour seats in the Blythe Valley region. Labour flipped three Conservative seats to the West of Newcastle, aka where the remain voters are, and two Greens flipped Troy seats in the rural Northwest.

Funnily enough in 2/4 of the Tory gains in Oldham, they received less than 10% last time these wards were fought back in 2019. St. James is likely because the Lib Dem vote (they were in a decent 2nd back then) was likely an anti-Labour vote and when it collapsed it coalesced around the Tories. Medlock Vale by contrast is likely Asian/Muslim politics, it's really not uncommon for the Tories to do stunningly well in these types of areas in local elections if they run the right community candidate. The Tories have been known to manage more than 30% of the vote in local elections in areas as monolithically Labour as *East Ham* when they run a well connected candidate with deep local ties.

[vileplume]

BBC showed a fairly large Green surge in Stroud at the expense of the Conservatives. Any input in what's going on there, besides the normal demographic explanations.

Stroud is quite an 'alternative' town and thus has a lot of Green potential. This combined with the working class town to its south (Cam, Dursley etc.) makes Labour competitive in the Stroud parliamentary seat.

[vileplume]

... and the Tories gain my council from Labour. There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the Labour council but the results were very good for the Conservatives.

Southampton I presume? The results there for Labour were dire. Interestingly (though perhaps not surprisingly given its demographics) one of the 5 wards Labour actually held was Portswood which used to be one of the more Tory wards in the city up until very recently.

[vileplume]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

[vileplume]

It won't worry them because they did well in their region (the SW were they almost won the assembly seat) but the Lib Dem performance was pretty bad.

Any thoughts as to why the LDs did so well in the South West constituency? It's obviously a good area for them, but they did worse in the list (where they had a better chance) and poorly in the mayoral (10%). Did the candidate campaign a lot?

For people who know Richmond well: why is the bit north of the river (Twickenham, Teddington) more Lib Dem than south (Kew, Mortlake, Barnes)?

Twickenham and Teddington are somewhat less wealthy. They are very solidly upper middle-class, but not quite as exceptionally affluent as Barnes and surrounds.

This. The Lib Dems do best with comfortably off, educated suburbanites with a globalist worldview. Twickenham is full of these types of people. They do rather less well with the filthy rich, corporate lawyer/banker, laissez faire types that are very numerous in a place like Barnes.

[vileplume]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

Over my dead body.

They definitely should be expanded. People from places like Bradley Stoke, Filton, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield etc. consider themselves as being from Bristol and many are quite confused as to why they come under South Gloucestershire instead. If it were up to me I'd return Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas to Gloucestershire proper and bring the rest into Bristol dissolving the 'West of England' area in the process.

[vileplume]

It won't worry them because they did well in their region (the SW were they almost won the assembly seat) but the Lib Dem performance was pretty bad.

Any thoughts as to why the LDs did so well in the South West constituency? It's obviously a good area for them, but they did worse in the list (where they had a better chance) and poorly in the mayoral (10%). Did the candidate campaign a lot?

For people who know Richmond well: why is the bit north of the river (Twickenham, Teddington) more Lib Dem than south (Kew, Mortlake, Barnes)?

Twickenham and Teddington are somewhat less wealthy. They are very solidly upper middle-class, but not quite as exceptionally affluent as Barnes and surrounds.

This. The Lib Dems do best with comfortably off, educated suburbanites with a globalist worldview. Twickenham is full of these types of people. They do rather less well with the filthy rich, corporate lawyer/banker, laissez faire types that are very numerous in a place like Barnes.

Are those types particularly present in Barnes? More so across the river I should say.

Yes they are present, less so than in Chelsea but much more so than in the rest of Richmond-upon-Thames. It's hardly surprising that in the Tory meltdown in Richmond borough in the local elections of 2018 the only ward they won a full slate of councillors in was Barnes, with Mortlake & Barnes Common being their second best (winning 2/3 and missing out on the third seat by 1 vote).

[vileplume]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

Over my dead body.

They definitely should be expanded. People from places like Bradley Stoke, Filton, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield etc. consider themselves as being from Bristol and many are quite confused as to why they come under South Gloucestershire instead. If it were up to me I'd return Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas to Gloucestershire proper and bring the rest into Bristol dissolving the 'West of England' area in the process.

You from these parts?  Not a snide question, genuinely interested.

Whilst those places might look close on a map they aren't actually all that near and culturally they are rather different.  Almondsbury is rather unlike Lawrence Weston and Thornbury nothing like Brislington.

I went to Uni there and because I don't tend to get on all that well with the stereotypical Bristol Uni students, a large proportion of my friends from my time there are locals so I like to think I know the area pretty well.

My suggestion would not be to put Almondsbury or Thornbury into Bristol, that would be absolutely ridiculous. I would give these areas back to Gloucestershire proper and transfer the built up areas of South Gloucestershire district  to Bristol City as the people from these places see themselves as being from Bristol.

[vileplume]

There is a Mayor of the West of England? Ridiculous country.

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough is even more ridiculous, Cambridge and Peterborough are over 40 miles away from each other. At least the 'West of England' is basically Greater Bristol (the boundaries of Bristol city really should be expanded but that's a whole other issue) plus Bath and a handful of other towns (Yate etc.). The name 'West of England' is hilariously dire though as it could mean practically anywhere in England west of Oxford.

Over my dead body.

They definitely should be expanded. People from places like Bradley Stoke, Filton, Patchway, Kingswood, Mangotsfield etc. consider themselves as being from Bristol and many are quite confused as to why they come under South Gloucestershire instead. If it were up to me I'd return Yate, Thornbury and the rural areas to Gloucestershire proper and bring the rest into Bristol dissolving the 'West of England' area in the process.

You from these parts?  Not a snide question, genuinely interested.

Whilst those places might look close on a map they aren't actually all that near and culturally they are rather different.  Almondsbury is rather unlike Lawrence Weston and Thornbury nothing like Brislington.

It's also quite a large area. Filton is actually the largest UK settlement beginning with F, and I doubt people in the US equivalent want to be governed by Dallas.

People here would honestly prefer it, as their identity is Bristolian and so they'd be happy to be governed by the city that they see as theirs. Doing something silly and trying to add Yate to Bristol would bring the pitchforks well and truly out.

[vileplume]

It won't worry them because they did well in their region (the SW were they almost won the assembly seat) but the Lib Dem performance was pretty bad.

Any thoughts as to why the LDs did so well in the South West constituency? It's obviously a good area for them, but they did worse in the list (where they had a better chance) and poorly in the mayoral (10%). Did the candidate campaign a lot?

For people who know Richmond well: why is the bit north of the river (Twickenham, Teddington) more Lib Dem than south (Kew, Mortlake, Barnes)?

Twickenham and Teddington are somewhat less wealthy. They are very solidly upper middle-class, but not quite as exceptionally affluent as Barnes and surrounds.

Fwiw, in the GLA elections, Richmond sometimes voted Liberal, but Twickenham always voted Tory.

That was a long time ago. The demographics were different back then.

Back then the Twickenham constituency and its neighbouring areas across the river in Kingston & Surbiton were snooty, upper middle class, quite 'provincial' in attitudes and solidly right wing. A good example of the type of people who lived in these places the time can be typified (albeit in an exaggerated way) by the character of Margo Leadbetter from the 70s sitcom 'The Good Life' who lived in Surbiton. Richmond meanwhile was home to a much more 'liberal, middle class intellectual' population that was unsurprisingly (even back then) less favourable to the Tories.

Fast forward to now, Richmond, and especially Barnes, have become so expensive that only the super rich can afford them and thus these areas now chock full of corporate lawyers, hedge fund managers etc. with the liberal middle classes priced out. The places these people have typically been priced out to are the old Tory strongholds further out: Twickenham, Kingston, Surbiton etc. The modern day Margo Leadbetters of this world have meanwhile long left the Capital for smart/picturesque towns and villages dotted across the South East.

[vileplume]

I was commenting on AI's (2007) assertion that the more 'hum-drum' areas of SW London were more Tory than the richer areas. What you say might well be true - though by its logic perhaps Esher & Walton should be solidly Tory - but I was looking for evidence supporting the above conclusion.

In any case, do you have any statistics for all these 'corporate lawyers' you are so fond of referring to?

I don't think they provide information on such specific things. But what I can give you is this:

The total amount of income tax paid to the treasury by constituency in the financial year 2018/2019:

Richmond Park: £1,500 million
Twickenham: £945 million
Kingston & Surbiton: £524 million

Average income by constituency over the same financial year:

Richmond Park: £86,200
Twickenham: £61,200
Kingston & Surbiton: £43,500

Both Richmond Park and Twickenham have similar rates of Home Ownership and low deprivation (Kingston & Surbiton is quite deprived in places), but as these figures indicate, the primary difference between the two is that Richmond Park has significantly more very rich people than Twickenham (corporate law merely being an example of an industry such people may be employed in). True, Richmond Park is nowhere near as insanely rich as Chelsea & Fulham is but its proximity to central London (and likely its fairly non-urban feel) has clearly attracted some of this demographic to the area. Super rich Remainers are unsurprisingly more forgiving of the Tories than those of just comfortably off means, hence Richmond Park is the better of the two seats for them.

As a side note, the difference between Labour held Putney, which also has some of this super-rich demographic, and Richmond Park (or indeed Twickenham) is that Putney has a way lower rates of home ownership and significantly more deprivation. It goes without saying that renting increases economic insecurity, thus massively increasing the propensity of voters to support Labour.

[vileplume]

Also, Conservatives lost their majority in Tunbridge Wells this time, it's now "no overall control".

The District Council there is/was extremely unpopular and has been for a number of years e.g. https://www.kentonline.co.uk/tunbridge-wells/news/council-told-this-is-madness-210656/ .

The Tories held up better there in County Council elections.

Be careful in reading too much into any local election result. There are things that can be taken from them, but a lot of these elections are genuinely just decided by local issues.

[vileplume]

Why did New Addington in Croydon have one of the biggest swing to Bailey?

Very White Working Class and pro-Brexit. It's swung massively to the Tories at all levels since the referendum and part of Bailey's success there is just a continuation of that. However Sadiq Khan is a terrible fit for New Addington and a different Labour politician (e.g. the late Tessa Jowell who Khan beat to win the Labour nomination back in 2016) would have performed better in the area, although given current trends, likely still would have lost by a lot.

[vileplume]

Here it is! I used a slightly older ward map so a few wards a slightly off - but usually all the wards surrounding them voted similarly so it hasn't been much trouble.
Also, I've probably made some mistakes; so point them out if you spot any.

Shades: 30-35, 35-40, 40-45, 45-50, 50-55, 55-60, 60-65, 65-70*, 70-75*, 75-80*
*Only Tory

Great map. The only thing is you need to correct Kenton (Brent). You've got it as Kahn when it should be strongly Bailey.

[vileplume]

does The City usually vote Labour?

Not often historically, no, though it would do on occasion e.g. Livingstone 2004. Nevertheless, it has long been one of the least Tory parts of the City of London & Westminster constituency (their strongest areas instead being Knightsbridge, Belgravia, Marylebone, Mayfair*, Tyburnia etc.). When the constituency as a whole shifted left after the referendum it's currently probably more likely to be Labour than not, but Khan's performance is better than what is typical for a generic Labour candidate.

Interestingly Labour's traditional best ward in the constituency ahead of the City, Churchill, hasn't really moved left in the way other parts of the constituency have and it probably voted for Bailey once postals are factored in. The reason for this is probably because it's poorer and much more ethnically diverse than the other wards, meaning less white liberals for the Tories to annoy. This ward has been abolished for next year's council elections though, with its area being split between Knightsbridge & Belgravia and the new ward of Pimlico South.

*West End is a divided ward with the Tory vote coming primarily from very affluent Mayfair and the Labour vote from Soho (London's traditional gay district).

[vileplume]

does The City usually vote Labour?

Not often historically, no, though it would do on occasion e.g. Livingstone 2004. Nevertheless, it has long been one of the least Tory parts of the City of London & Westminster constituency (their strongest areas instead being Knightsbridge, Belgravia, Marylebone, Mayfair*, Tyburnia etc.). When the constituency as a whole shifted left after the referendum it's currently probably more likely to be Labour than not, but Kahn's performance is better than what is typical for a generic Labour candidate.

Interestingly Labour's traditional best ward in the constituency ahead of the City, Churchill, hasn't really moved left in the way other parts of the constituency have and it probably voted for Bailey once postals are factored in. The reason for this is probably because it's poorer and much more ethnically diverse than the other wards, meaning less white liberals for the Tories to annoy. This ward has been abolished for next year's council elections though, with its area being split between Knightsbridge & Belgravia and the new ward of Pimlico South.

*West End is a divided ward with the Tory vote coming primarily from very affluent Mayfair and the Labour vote from Soho (London's traditional gay district).

Dammit - no ultra-blue ward to talk about. We still have Royal Hospital though.

Knightsbridge & Belgravia is gaining the area of Churchill west of the railway line. This is the less Labour part, as the block Labour vote in the ward comes mainly from the run down Churchill Gardens Estate (which gave the ward its name) east of the railway line. These boundary changes will weaken Knightsbridge & Belgravia a bit, but nowhere near enough to challenge Tory hegemony. In fact I suspect these are the boundaries the Tories probably wanted in the first place.

[vileplume]

Why did Labour crash so much in Kensington? It was close in both 2017 and 2019. It's especially bizarre given their gains elsewhere in that part of London, and the fact that Labour has actually won the seat federally in a recent election unlike Wimbledon or London and Westminster. London and Westminster does seem like an underrated flip for the election when Labour next wins government.

Khan significantly underperformed Labour's showing in the Assembly vote in many places.

That doesn't really explain Kensington though, as whilst he did underperform in North Kensington, he actually overperformed Labour's assembly vote in South Kensington (as was typical in posh areas).

[vileplume]

These are the three maps for the mayoral, assembly member and assembly list votes with reallocated postal votes. The assembly maps represent a more 'generic' London map than the very odd looking mayoral one.

Mayoral



Assembly Member



Assembly List