Dulwich & West Norwood Results

[Green Goose]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Of course most people vote out of self interest

> and that's why all parties set policies to

> 'reward' groups of people for voting for them.

You are correct.

> Labours success in London is not down to people on

> benefits, it's down to a whole mix of people, from

> Judges and the well educated, to the small

> business owner.

Here you contradict your earlier statement.

[Blah Blah]

No contradiction at all. I said 'most' vote out of self interest but London is an anomalie to that. That's the point. It's why it attracts so much debate from career pollsters, trying to understand why it's that way.

[northdulmum]

Really? We go to local state school so that n of one contradicts you uncleglen and use the nhs through two kids births etc.

[Blah Blah]

London is also different to the rest of the country in that it has so much money floating around. You'll also have a council estate next to millionaires mansions. It's that mix that skews everything, whilst at the same time levelling the quality of local services up, rather than down. Local authorities in other cities however, don't have revenue for keeping parks nice, or funding community events on anything like the same scale. They are far more restricted by the overall demographic of the area they manage, just because the demograhpic mix isn't so wide ranging within their boroughs. Even someting like Tfl is unique to london.

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nice flaming.

See.

[Bic Basher]

Hampstead and Kilburn (which is probably close to Dulwich and West Norwood demographically) also voted Labour back in with a tiny majority. This is an area also full of media luvvies, well off people etc who are more liberal leaning than in other parts of the country.

If the old Dulwich constituency area was still in place, I still think Helen Hayes would have been elected, but it'd be a more interesting fight between Labour and the Tories. As mentioned, it's the old Norwood seat which will maintain Labour in Dulwich as a safe seat.

[Penguin68]

I suspect the Lib Dems were stuffed in Dulwich for the same reason they were stuffed across the country - people were polarised wanting either a conservative or a socialist (Lab/ SNP) government. We had all been led to believe that further coalition was likely and the Lib Dems had indicated that they could ally with either the conservatives or the socialists. That meant that in voting for them you couldn't know whether that would make a conservative or a socialist government more likely. If you lent more to Tory, or to Labour, then voting Lib Dem was voting for an unknown, you could be left leaning and make a Tory led coalition more possible, or right leaning and find the Lib Dems allying with Labour. So that forced electors to go for the main party of their choice - even if they would have preferred either a Labour government tempered by Lib Dem views, or a Tory one ditto. Because the Lib Dems tried to ride both horses, they found themselves riding neither.

Frankly the quality and reputation of the actual candidates wasn't relevant - hence we saw great constituency MPs being knocked down. If the Lib Dems had been clear about where their sympathies lay they would certainly have lost seats, but not nearly as many. Clearly they upset their more left leaning electors by working in coalition for the last 5 years, but had they stuck to their guns their former Tory sympathisers might well have stuck to them. Or vice versa. By keeping their negotiating powder dry they found themselves with nothing to negotiate for.

[Green Goose]

Good analysis Penguin.

The LibDems were certainly the Piggy in the Middle. They lacked conviction. A wishy-washy compromise in effect.

[LadyDeliah]

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I confess to being delighted Simon Hughes lost his

> seat. He was a venomous snake who deserved to be

> dumped a long time ago. I lived in SE1 for 8 years

> and had some contact with him in various roles re

> housing and tenants associations - he was a self

> serving egotist and a snide.

>

I agree. I'm delighted he lost his seat.

[Lynne]

Not so much champagne socialists locally as de-caff, soya milk Americano socialists

[Blah Blah]

I never understand why people sneer with labels like 'champagne socialists'. If it were not for MPs and Lords (who in the past were more likely to be from the landed gentry) taking up causes to help the poor and bring about social reform, we'd still be living in some kind of early Victorian nightmare. Affluent people are as capable of wanting a fairer society as anyone. Not everyone has to be totally self interested and damning everyone else.

[James Barber]

We put a huge amount of our effort into helping Simon Hughes.

I think P68 analysis is spot on. Lib dem strategy played to the Tory strategy of fear about Labour and SNP. Labour out campaigned us locally with things like hours to save the NHS, coalition will close King's College hospital, etc.

Either way its over.

Unlikely they'll ever be another Dulwich & West Norwood general election campaign assuming the tories now press ahead with significant boundary changes.

[LondonMix]

Right you are!

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> income tax from 40 percent when they took office

> to 45 percent now (they were temoparirly 50

> percent) but are still 5 percent higher than when

> they took office >

>

> This is wrong. Labour increased the top rate from

> 40% to 50% in their last months in office (far too

> late IMHO) and Osborne then cut the rate to 45%,

> since they were so concerned about the tax

> "burden" on multi-millionaires. If it had not been

> for the Lib Dems, they would have probably cut it

> back to 40%.

>

> This is not to defend the Lib Dems' role in the

> coalition since they allowed many bad things to

> happen, in particular the so-called "reform" of

> the NHS.

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I never understand why people sneer with labels

> like 'champagne socialists'. If it were not for

> MPs and Lords (who in the past were more likely to

> be from the landed gentry) taking up causes to

> help the poor and bring about social reform, we'd

> still be living in some kind of early Victorian

> nightmare. Affluent people are as capable of

> wanting a fairer society as anyone. Not everyone

> has to be totally self interested and damning

> everyone else.

William Wilberforce. Bloody champagne socialist.

[azurh]

i voted for you James Barber!

I went in thinking conservative. I saw your name and then I realised YOUR the only person who works SO hard to get anything done for us.

Your always helping out, advising and taking leads on projects like the new schools.

THANK YOU!

[landsberger]

bobbsy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can someone explain to a layman why many central

> city areas across England are so labour centric?

Er, because privately educated, out of touch, bloated plutocrats don't tend to represent them very well, perhaps?

[Andrew1011]

I worked extremely hard over the last 12 months to ensure that Simon Hughes was ousted from Bermondsey and Old Southwark and that the very hard working Neil Coyle replaced him as MP. Simon appeared completely oblivious to the fact that hsi constituents who previously supported him could see through his habit over the last five years of saying one thing and voting for another. Still, please don't feel too sorry for Simon Hughes as his selling of his soul by entering government as a minister will at least result in him having a significantly enhanced pension from 8th May.

I also worked hard to get Helen Hayes elected in Dulwich and West Norwood and I know she will be an excellent MP who will work every bit as hard as any of the other parliamentary candidates would have done. Anyone who knowing Helen - she's been a very hard working, effective and well liked councillor for College Ward since 2010 - knows she will work for fairness and for the representation of all living in the constituency.

[uncleglen]

There are a lot of free-loaders of one type or another in London- they are attracted to London and it is a bit more difficult to be a free-loader under the Tories.

[Blah Blah]

You are such an idiot/ troll (haven't decided which yet) uncleglen.

I agree that Simon Hughes couldn't expect anything else after towing the Tory whip in pretty much every vote of the first three years of the Tory coalition, including on tuition fees. Being a good local MP counts for nothing when you run the kind of campaign he did to get that seat and then at the first grasp of central government sells out on every principle that made him a liberal democrat in the first place (and for what? A vote on AV - which is not PR btw). No symapthy from me. He chose that path.

I have my issues with James Barber's views, but that doesn't stop me from acknowlegding the effort he puts into local issues and representing local people.

[Blah Blah]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> William Wilberforce. Bloody champagne socialist.

LOL...that'll be it then :D

[uncleglen]

It's TOEING the party whip as in TOEING the party line blah blah. TOWING is when you get pulled along by something-you know TOW path, TOWING the car etc. Anyway you can think what you like about me. Hopefully now the boundaries will be altered without Clegg interfering like he did last year.

[Blah Blah]

yawn....

[Bic Basher]

If the original proposals go through this time to have a constituency where the majority of ED including Peckham Rye ward merges with part of the Lewisham West and Penge constituency to become the Dulwich and Sydenham constituency, here at least it'll remain a safe Labour seat.

Nationally, it would be more damaging to Labour.

[Townleygreen]

Bic, I think they'll have to alter those proposals because they were based on having 600 MPs, but Cameron has apparently agreed to have 650 so there won't be unseemly scrabbling between MPs for the seats.

And on a point someone else made, the LibDems binned the boundary changes in retaliation for the Tories failing to back Lord's reform.

[Blah Blah]

I agree they will have to alter proposals. The Tories may have a majority but it's only a tiny one and I'm sure activists will be lobbying backbench Tories in marginals to make life as difficult as possible for Cameron.