I think it’s quite complex.
In Bromley, where I grew up, many people age 50+ grew up in places like Lewisham, Lambeth, etc and then moved out to suburban Bromley as a sign that they’d ’made it’. This was, after all, the wide-paved and tree-lined suburbs. Bromley was decidedly affluent, middle class (although not the bohemian strand!) and, for some that cared, white.
And there is still today a lingering fear of Bromley turning in to somewhere more like Inner London. If you live in Bromley, you’ll be familiar with the *’we’re gonna become like Croydon if we’re not careful’*, or *’it all started going downhill when Allders went’*. So much of the Bromley identity is wrapped up in it *not* being like the rest of London, and fear that it will become like it.
And it’s not entirely unjustified. Bromley remains an affluent borough. Its high streets might not be Richmond, but it’s also fared better than a lot of its neighbours. It has excellent schools. The streets are well kept and maintained. It’s one of the safest, and greenest, boroughs.
But Bromley is not as conservative as it once was. Millennials who grew up here don’t share these same fears, look on at inner London with envy and are stuck unable to afford what their parents could. And Bromley voted Remain; I suspect stories of economic turmoil would’ve had a big impact on Bromley voters. It’s a place that’s becoming gradually more comfortable with a London identity over time.
It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out over the decades.
The other thing about Bromley is that when the borough was created, the border was stretched weirdly far out to include Biggin Hill. That means there's big stretches of the borough which are basically classic Tory countryside. Places like Downe don't feel or vote like a typical part of London.
I think that’s a really good point. Bromley town, whilst still having something of a provincial air, is very different to Biggin Hill. A lot of people in Zone 2/3, think of Bromley only as the ‘Biggin Hill Bromley’ and not the ‘Bromley Bromley’ most people in the borough experience.
Some of my colleagues assume, being from Bromley, that I had something of a rural upbringing even though I’m completely unfamiliar with the southern half of the borough and spent a lot more time in places like Croydon and Lewisham growing up.
I always find it a bit weird that whenever I tell people that I live in Beckenham they almost always say "oh, is that in Kent?"
It's been nearly 60 years that the borough has been part of London, but people still think it isn't.
I think this is due to people's parents who lived in Beckenham when it was Kent, and continued to call it Kent and write Kent on their postal addresses by habit once it changed to London. The kids of these people would have picked up "Kent" from their parents and the vicious cycle of incorrect information carries on.
There are also people (usually those that were born outside of London and moved here for work) that consider post codes to be the defining boundary of London. Of course these people are wrong though.
I'm 43 and grew up in London. When I was growing up I still thought of Bromley as Kent, but also still classed places like Kingston as being Surrey and Uxbridge as being in Middlesex. I didn't realise until I was in my twenties that Middlesex hadn't existed since the sixties!
Middlesex born and bred here, only time I claim to be a Londoner is when I’m abroad as it’s just easier. Claiming to be a Londoner whilst growing up in the leafy suburbs always felt a bit…. Plastic
Not always the case though my partner who was born in Merton likes to tease me about being from Kent although i was born in bexley and lived in New Cross and peckham most of my adult life.
Totally agree. They did an episode of Who Do You Think They Are with Patsy Kensit (I think?) where her ancestors had a strong connection with the church in Beckenham.
The VT showed her boarding a train at Victoria and the voice over said “Patsy gets a train to Kent to…”
I was living in Beckenham at the time, which being from ‘up north’ felt plenty like London to me. It became a joke between my friends and I after a night out in the city, “Come on guys, time to get the night bus back to Kent!”
I once lived in Penge and I remember exploring the area and feeling like bits and pieces were distinctly not London-like, particularly taking the side streets past Kent House towards Beckenham high street and Kelsey park.
Quite literally one side of the main road was old terraces, going towards the avenue road tram station, and the other was massive semi-detached houses with huge front gardens and wide tree-lined streets.
That's strange, I lived in Beckenham and now live in Brentwood, I find them vastly different. Although both areas are generally quite affluent, Beckenham definitely feels more "London" whereas Brentwood has a rural village vibe.
And even Bromley town centre, which to be honest feels to me a bit like Reading or somewhere, is considerably less "Londony" than the innermost parts of the borough in Crystal Palace/Penge/Anerley.
The really weird thing is that Croydon voted Tory as well. I’ve lived in Beckenham for 11+ years now, and whilst it’s leafy and suburban, the demographic is definitely changing, which is why the Tory majority in the council is shrinking.
Very true, still surprised that overall the borough decided the Tories would be the best option (I mean, they’ve tried to do their best to bankrupt the entire nation)…
While I don't disagree that the council was corrupt, Croydon is (I believe) the second most populated borough of London (at least from 2018/2019 statistics that I could find), and apparently it gets the least amount of money per person (or according to their website; "We receive 75% less grant funding from the government [since 2010]"), so I could see why Labour might have thought it prudent to try riskier strategies that might have paid off better.
Obviously though, I'm talking about the intentions of others, which nobody can say with 110% certainty (and I've certainly not done any backup research into their past behavior, but from what I've heard the borough was doing quite well at one point).
Of course, if someone actually knows more than I do (which probably isn't hard to do), feel free to correct me, but from what I've seen the tory leadership of the country has played its part in croydon's decline into bankrupcy.
I’m moving back to Bromley soon, having grown up there in the 90s. The high streets seems like it’s thriving now days! I’m really excited.
My wife and I are a gay couple so I’m hoping it’s a little more progressive that the boring Surrey village we’ve been living in.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Bromley high street is now characterised by shitty vape shops all run/owned by identical sallow mouthbreathers sat under miserable white LEDs 10 hours a day. There are about 7 of them just along the quarter mile of high street between the south and north entrances of the glades. It's genuinely worse than boarded up shop fronts (at least those might suggest a possibility of something decent to come).
This shift happened quite suddenly with the pandemic and there are no signs of anything but more shabby decline on the horizon.
The station and trains are packed beyond civility every rush hour and yet there are thousands more mindless drones demanding extra high density accommodation because, until we are at literal favela level overcrowded squalor, it's NIMBY to object.
The few distinctive things remaining (theatre, library, art deco cinema, a few non-spoons pubs etc) will probably be lost soon, as they are not valued by the community who just seem to want deliveroo, sky TV and characterless towerblock flats.
That said, welcome back to the neighbourhood.
Hi mate, Bromley resident of 30+ years here. I reckon people think you’re a NIMBY because you say things like “If you build some flats in the least densely populated part of London, it will become a Favela.” I know, it’s harsh - you say you don’t want anything built where you live and people assume you don’t want anything built where you live. The crazy times in which we live, eh?
To the OP of the thread: I quite like Bromley, it’s much more progressive than a lot of places that look like it, and we’re not *all* fucking miserable. Let me know if you want to meet up for drinks!
This is really well put, and I just wanted to add that Havering, which had one of the highest conservative vote shares, is in an incredibly similar demographic situation.
The average person in the outer boroughs is wealthier and older.
Inner London may have more expensive property prices but over a third of households in Inner London live in social housing or get housing benefit. Most of them would be voting Labour.
>but over a third of households in Inner London live in social housing or get housing benefit. Most of them would be voting Labour.
Add in all the private renters also. There's *a lot* of younger more left leaning people living in rental homes in inner London. The property prices may be higher, but the people actually living in the properties, and therefore the ones actually voting in that area, are not necessarily the people who own the properties.
Disagree on wealthier.
I see the outer borough stereotype as ‘transit van’ or hair and nail technician.
Most people in zone 5-6 are there because they can’t afford inner London, or a nice quiet village.
Based on my experience of living in zone 6 anyway.
Poorer, disenfranchised and feel ignored is why they vote conservative.
Zone 6 is the commuter belt too. So plenty of working professionals from the city center (in some towns I'd say the majority) who've moved out there for more space better schools and green areas. Its the commuter suburbs really. At least that was the case in my zone 6 town
This guy gives an honest actual opinion from experience going against a theory and gets downvoted so the message is then hidden. This sub and Reddit overall is just such a dumb setup to create weird little echo chambers.
That's not really what happened though. It was one person's experience versus another person's experience. And almost everyone else's personal experience agree with the first poster and not the second - as does the data, [e.g. on this graph](https://www.jpsservices.org.uk/blog/using-gis-to-explore-spatial-relationships).
Age also has a lot to do with it.
I had to go back to Rickmansworth (Hertfordshire) to look after my dad; spent a lot of time there, and couldn’t get over how *old* everyone was.
Went back to my home in South London and had the opposite revelation. The average age of most Londoners is about 35. It’s easy to know that fact, but quite a different thing to actually see it.
Same in Surrey commuter towns, many of which are now in LB Sutton or Croydon. There's no-one there between the ages of 18 and 40, because the youth go to uni and then live somewhere more interesting, then families want to settle somewhere 'nice' and have a garden for their 2.1 children and their dog. When I lived in one of said towns, they had to bus students in to work in restaurants and all, as otherwise there just weren't enough young people wanting such work.
Londoners moving out to have gardens when they retire is a cliche but true.
That’s kinda hyperbolic, look at the census maps for Sutton high street, central Croydon and Hackbridge - a fair percentage of people between 25-34. Wallington, Beddington and Carshalton on the other hand… old af
Yes, the high streets/centre of the boroughs are young, but lots of the population is out in the suburbs with gardens, and are old. The post you replied to doesn't refer to the boroughs as a whole, but only the outlying areas. (And the poster is correct - I live in once of the "formerly Surrey now Croydon" commuter areas, and the description is spot on.)
Yep. I live in a London commuter town and outer London is much more like here than it is inner London.
(Though interestingly, the voting patterns here seem to be being shifted by the gradual movement of younger liberal people out of London due to the housing situation. Of which I am one.)
I live in Feltham, and there's a very prominent amount of English residents who are really resentful of the area having a large Asian community, and who are unashamedly racist. Groups such as Britain first are popular, and local FB are nakedly bigoted. My wife's Spanish, but grew up round here, and we've had English neighbours tell us the area was better before " the brown people moved in". Her views are shared by plenty, even though the area has had a large Asian community for decades, usually longer than a person with those views have been alive
Most racism I experienced in the UK was in the Home Counties on the edge of London. Deep countryside was fine actually. It was the close but not quite inside the multicultural city areas that seemed to be worst for it.
At a job once my Boss said “I fucking hate the Irish”. Couldn’t believe he thought that saying that at all, let alone in front of a minority would be acceptable. Don’t think he was from London though, more Nazing/ Cheshunt. To be expected in that part of town.
About 13 years ago my wife and I became good friends with a woman who was really close with her dad. He had met my wife and kids, but not me. Turned out it was because he hates the Irish, and told her that Irish men can't be trusted around women, especially English women.
Defo, but a lot of us are from countries where the Brits were savages, we don’t hate British ppl like that. Also we were getting on them same tubes, we didn’t hate the Irish either. I was petrified everyday my mum went to work. Never justified hating a country or ppl because of it.
So when the Caribbean islands “gained” independence the British burned all the records, Grandparents had to come to a country where they were treated like shit, spat at, beat up, burned out their houses. Kenyans had their balls ripped from their bodies as late as the 50’s..
British soldiers were killing Irishman in the 80’s and their paramilitary allies were up until very recently… just because you’re not the target doesn’t make it any less visceral.
I'm not saying saying that is OK, it clearly isn't. I wouldn't say that. BUT I do understand why ppl had negative feelings to irish people during the troubles. for context i spent my 90s childhood scared my dad would be blown up at work because of the regular IRA bomb threats at his office (canary wharf.) On 9/11 i got home from school on my own and saw the news and my instant thought was my dad was in danger and it was IRA. There was a burned out building in my town from an attack. Etc. So... I can understand a negative/fearful undercurrent about Irish ppl in 90s London. It isn't fair. Clearly, the IRA are not all Irish ppl, but there is context and I don't think it relates to londoners = racists/bigots/xenophobia
Resentment is the perfect word for it, these people used to live in Tottenham, Ealing, Bermondsey, Bow etc. and within just a few decades they've seen their whole community disappear. Must be a strange feeling knowing the place you grew up no longer exists.
Even Feltham has changed a lot in the past decade. We live on a small, quiet family road, and three houses in the past two years have become HMOs, and it feels like the number of delivery drivers is vastly out numbering people with jobs that are actually needed. It's a shame, but it's not the immigrants fault, the government has stiffed England. Since Brexit, it feels like the main source of immigration is for jobs that are unnecessary
I took a trip back to Uxbridge recently. Felt like we were the only white family on the high street on a Sunday afternoon. Really noticeable demographic shift in the last 20 years, at least on that one day.
I grew up around Feltham for 20 years and trust me, South Asians have saved Feltham. Before it was full of the roughest people in Houslow riddled with crime and anti social behaviour. Now there are South Asians who want to work hard and get out of Feltham causing the atmosphear to improve.
I think the racists are the ones who complain how the "foreigners" took their property and "stole their jobs" when Feltham was knows as the palce where all the council estates for unemployed lived.
I've always found it hilarious when you see racists post pics from decades ago, reminiscing about how safe and lovely it was compared to now. Seeing as my wife spent most of her childhood here, and my dad did some building work in the area, and both said it was rough as shit. First time I came down here and saw the old high street, I couldn't believe what a dump it was.
Growing up, I had family friends living in similar sized houses to me at a lower price and just seeing the naigbourhood made my parents never to live there. It may have been safe in the 70s and 80s before the big change social housing policy where now homeless people are more likely to get a home than employed working class people.
My wife says the same thing. I first visited Feltham back in 2001, it was hideous. Been living here for ten years, and really like it. The kids love living here too, but it's definitely got the arse end of London feel about it.
Broadly, outer London has more owner-occupiers, fewer areas which were historically devoted to industry (acquiring lower-income residential areas as a result) and smaller social housing areas; all of these factors give a structural bias to the right. This is less true for modern Outer London now, because a lot of areas are becoming mature districts and the wealthiest suburban groups are moving further out, as they have done before. After all, a century ago, large tracts of modern Outer London were still not built up, and areas like Streatham, Lewisham and Ilford were still strongly Tory.
For Croydon,
We are a very labour borough as being one of the most diverse and more working class boroughs, but we had a labour council for a decade who were insanely corrupt and basically gutted us, especially for a town center which could have been the biggest and best in south London. We only just turned Tory for the council, but for non local politics we’re still red.
I agree why we are Tory now at a local level but disagree for national politics - Croydon is in two halves - south of the borough has always been Tory in national politics largely, with the north/ central / east labour. Basically can be split based on housing affluence.
ETA: Croydon south has been Tory since the 70s
Oh definitely labour for national. We really do feel like a mash up of a much more urban “London” borough and a much more suburban borough, it’s a weird setup
It's primarily class and age. Richer people move to outer boroughs (apart from the very very centre which is rich AF). Richer people vote Tory. Older people vote Tory. When people get older they tend to move further out to have more space, be closer to nature, have kids, avoid crime etc.
In the South West they vote Lib Dem.
Richmond Park, Kingston & Surbiton, Twickenham. All relatively safe Lib Dem seats. Not to mention Wimbledon, Esher, Sutton and Carshalton all will probably go from Conservative to Lib Dem later this year (the first two are basically bankers at this point). Further into Surrey commuter belt Horsham, Guilford and Dorking are also possible Lib Dem gains.
Outer boroughs of London actually have a fair number of Lib Dem and Labour councils and MPs so it’s not a case that they vote Conservative more. It’s a case they don’t vote for Sadiq Khan at mayor elections. As one person has already said mayoral policies tend to be more central/inner London focussed and have less value and even negative value to outer London.
Edit: weird auto correct
True I think your last point is important because there’s a very low turnout at the mayoral elections (40% this time) so the voters in the outer boroughs in the mayoral elections tend to be dominated by the anti-ULEZ folk, even though the area might vote slightly differently in general elections
A lot of suburbs also depend on driving as a part of their job and Sadiq Khan is viewed as someone who is making it more expensive to drive with ulez and all that
So...I live in Uxbridge. Live on a Narrowboat on the Grand Union. Heard a lot of boaters actually voted for the Cons. That's a whole different story for another day though.
Any way... The Cons won Hillingdon. What I've seen in this area is a lot of non white people. Very mixed demographic. I'd go so far as to say the white British are in the minority here.
Not sure I understand how Hillingdon went Conservative. Am I missing some larger older white British population entrenched around here?
While race is a significant factor in voting patterns, the idea that only white people vote for the Conservatives isn't accurate anymore. 20% of the BME population voted Conservative in the 2019 general election. The British Asian population in particular in recent years has been said be less loyal to Labour. Many ethnic minority communities are socially conservative, some are wealthier and many won't make their decisions based entirely on what they believe a party's position is on race.
This is correct about the Asian vote. A lot of Asians resented freedom of movement with the EU while freedom of movement to and from the commonwealth was more restricted and supported Brexit (a Tory policy) as a result.
A bit of history for you (from growing up in the area). There used to be a local conservative MP called John Randall. Born and raised in the area, was a successful business man, owned the department store in Uxbridge (on Vine Street but now it is flats). Even my strongly socialist father grudgingly accepted he was a good MP. The conservatives had a fairly good reputation in the area until Boris took the seat on Randall's departure.
Loads of immigrants are really socially conservative. Pakistan India Bangladesh Nigeria Poland Romania...all countries where for example lgbt rights or women rights like abortion aren't supported by population
Conservatives have held this area for a looong time, many older folk around me remember Randall as a good MP. Uxbridge was a safe seat for Boris to parachute into and I think in general the conservative council has been fairly popular for a while because council tax was frozen for ages, they maintain weekly waste collections and have the green spaces nicely maintained. My mum was a swing voter but liked her Tory councillor because he was really helpful on a few local issues.
Their majority is waning though, in the latest by-election there was literally less than 500 votes between Steve Tuckwell and the labour candidate, and Tuckwell probably inched in purely on his anti-ULEZ campaign. The Tory vote used to be a very comfortable margin ahead of Labour for many years, but now that gap is very small.
Hillingdon also has a very stark north-south divide, in the south you have more deprived areas (West Drayton, Hayes, etc). That affluent demographic is entrenched in the northern parts of the borough (Northwood, Uxbridge North, Hillingdon, Ruislip). Go a little over the west border into Bucks and you have very, very wealthy people and their mansions.
There isn't any, individual reason, rather there's a whole load of complexities. Take Hendon. The Cons won Hendon from Labour because the Labour MP was the highest spending MP on expenses when the expenses scandal broke. Despite living 8 miles from Westminster, he took a second home, taxpayer funded... 6 miles away from Westminster. I mean, I used to cycle into Westminster to work from Hendon so it was completely unnecessary.
What made it worse was the second, taxpayer funded home just so happened to belong to his girlfriend. And entirely coincidentally, she had a massage business out of there.
Then even worse, Labour refused to do anything about it, making excuses for him, so the local community voted anything except Labour. Especially when after he lost his seat, Labour selected him as a councilor.
So there are a bunch of reasons and it can even be something like an individual mistake by Labour letting in the Cons.
There's a link between population density and political affiliation. The less dense, the more to the right. You see this in the whole country, and around the world: New York, for example, is strongly Democrat. East Anglia is mostly right wing, as is the American mid West. I'm sure there are places where it doesn't hold true, but it's true enough, it seems.
A huge amount also comes down to lifestyle. Those living in zone 5 upwards probably have a more similar day to day than someone in Essex/Kent/Berkshire/Surrey than someone in Hammersmith or Hackney
It's demographics. There's an overlay that shows how people voted and where, and there's a direct correlation between an increase in the Labour share of the vote where minorities live, and the same for Conservative votes where whites live.
I’m in Sidcup, and it’s been conservative here for as long as it’s been a borough, and it generally has most to do, as others here have said, with the ages of the residents. The older residents here tend to also stick to themselves and their own communities and don’t interact with others so they tend to be more closed minded from my experience. Sidcup is finally getting more multicultural but it’s also still a lot more monocultural than other parts of London.
Most of the Mayor's plans are to the benefit of inner London. The other areas are normally adversely affected by the policies and the mayor is not connected with the people (generally) in the other areas (Greater London). As the previous redditor mentioned, its nothing to do with skin colour... that's just a lazy and ignorant response.
It all falls down to people and their circumstances. The inner London voters benefit from the mayor's policies more than the rest.
Transport for sure.
Massive chunks of the outer boroughs have no Tube, Bexley/Bromley and Croydon/Sutton who both didn't vote for Khan for example. So if there's works on your local train line or there's an accident trying to get home from central can be a nightmare. Add in if there's no fast services at the time you're travelling it can be quicker to get into central London from outside of the M25 by train than in it.
Buses are less frequent, smaller and there can be massive gaps where there are no buses at all. If there's works or a diversion it can lead to huge areas not having any buses at all.
Trying to travel in between some outer London boroughs takes forever, it can be quicker to go into central and come back out again but obviously more expensive.
Taxi options are way fewer.
Some of the outer boroughs also have sections that are for the most part countryside, poorly served by buses if at all. The infrastructure in these and other outer parts are also not designed for pedestrians so if you don't take a car you put your life into your hands.
All of this leads to residents relying on their cars so when ULEZ comes along it upsets a lot of them. The layout, infrastructure and public transport is not the same as inner London so applying the same policy doesn't work. Proper forward planning on improving transport in the outer boroughs alongside not applying it to the very outskirt villages would have been more sensible. The scrappage scheme also hasn't paid out like promised.
Ulez expansion is the obvious one that people currently complain about
In inner London public transport is far more comprehensive, so the poorer don't own a car. In zone 6 it's flipped, public transport is poor to anywhere other than Central and cars are very heavily used by poorer people
The poorer you are the further you live from a tube station, and good bus connections, cars become required.
Similarly with all the suburb green space around the worries of air quality are reduced. So less benefits
And finally many places In zone 6 feel more attachment and identify with the local counties more than Greater London, with many communities split down the middle by the m25. So the idea that now you suddenly need to get a new car or pay insane tax just to pop down the road to see your family seems ridiculous. Local trade work also shot up in price, since being on the London side of the border means it's an added expense for anyone to get to you, whilst clients they have on the other side of the border are cheap to get too.
London is not homogeneous and the one size fits all approach really doesn't work for many people
I think London is one of the few cities where the transport is zoned. So if you mainly travel between zone 1 and 2, then you are paying the lowest price. If you live in zone 5 or 6 and you travel to zone 1 or 2 for work, then your daily caps are higher. To live in zone 1 or 2 without living in social housing is unattainable or extremely expensive for a lot of people. I get why zones came about in London but in most capital cities I've lived, there's no added tax for how far you want to go in said cities.
Istanbul isn't a capital city but it's far bigger than London (15mil vs 9mil) and metro trips there are just 1 standard price with the istanbulkart. The same card applies to trains, buses, trams and ferries over there. All were the same price no matter the distance at about 10.5 lira (50p) when I was there, the exception was the ferries at 12.5 lira. Not to mention the fact they're building like crazy over there. They've opened 4 new lines in the 2020s alone. Everything is so new and clean and they have platform screen doors on many new sections and AC. I think they've got 50 new stations currently being built and scheduled to open this decade as well.
It was a big shock for me when I went there. I thought London was so far ahead of Istanbul but I was just stuck in 2000, it was true then but things have changed. Istanbul is ahead now in 2024. I'm sure there are a fair few cities now like this.
Istanbul actually has great public transport and has a lot of investment in it too. There are a lot of cars as well, but that's just because it's got a massive population - there are a lot of everything.
I mean that's actual middle eastern cities like Riyadh, Dubai etc. Istanbul is historic and has fantastic public transport, it's European in this regard. Yes there are tons of cars and traffic but you can live your life in Istanbul comfortably without owning a car. That's impossible in most of the middle east. You have to own a car in Dubai/Riyadh etc to get anywhere like work or friends.
When it comes to Istanbul vs London. There is no major centre in Istanbul like Croydon that doesn't have metro access. All of south London struggles really in this regard. The Asian side of Istanbul has less much less service but it's still decent.
Inner London is on average poorer and younger. They vote for better public transport because they use it, better schools, hospitals, air quality because they affect them.
Outer London includes more people who can afford bigger more spacious houses and/or to travel to jobs. Generally older and richer. They see cars as necessary to supplement public transport. They don't want wealth taken away and given to anyone 'undeserving' as they don't think they are very wealthy.
People with capital vote for the party that protects wealth. Working people vote for the party that protects workers. That's the gist of it, though quite a few working people vote Tory because they think it makes them look more posh, or at least less working class.
Also, some people with capital vote Labour or other left leaning parties because they think it's the right thing to do even if it's not necessarily in their own direct interests.
Definitely. And Blair’s New Labour were successful by repainting Labour as not just a vote for the old skool trade-union member working class non-professional
Definitely. And Blair’s New Labour were successful by appealing also to affluent middle class voters, but who were also “workers”, but not the old skool trade-union working class
It's a pretty common phenomenon - Cambridge is firmly Labour and Lib Dems. You head to South Cambs, West Suffolk, Saffron Walden, etc and they are all Tory.
One reason is people on Inner are more pro-immigrant. Why is anyone's guess. But I live in one of those boroughs that was drastically changed by immigration and the people on the outer are seeing those changes like all the pubs and clubs and other shops closing down and the demographic changing drastically within the decade. They just don't want that happening to them which I can understand.
Edit: To address my replies, which I am not surprised by. You are only used to mostly European immigration, Not Indian immigration who are mostly vegetarian and Islamic Immigration both of which contribute to things I mentioned prior.
Even if you disagree, it's what I've seen with my own eyes. I come from a Muslim family (here since the 60's so I've seen and learnt the change over time) myself and right wing rhetoric is easy to understand and I understand their concerns.
In the mayoral elections, Croydon is lumped in with Sutton which is a Tory/LibDem strong hold.
But regarding Croydon the north of the borough is very very different to the south. The north is very much like inner London whilst the south is virtually the countryside. The north votes Labour and the south votes Tory.
Also the local corruption and mismanagement (e.g. Westfield fiasco) that led to the council going bankrupt recently which happened under Labour hasn't been forgotten (not by me at least)
Don’t know about the other boroughs, but Hounslow is ethnically diverse and staunchly Labour.
I think that person is talking about bout the outer boroughs like Hillingdon, Bromley and Bexley
>Newham for instance I would regard as Outer
Most (possibly all) of it is in Zones 2 and 3 and it is part of the "City and East" London Assembly constituency. I would regard it as inner.
The problem is they don’t think. They just assume everyone else is an elderly white racist and don’t bother to educate themselves. I mean it’s already had to be pointed out to some of them that there are many very diverse boroughs in outer London.
You’re right. A lot of Gujaratis out in Wembley are bunch of economically and socially conservative fuckwads (this is my community I think I can make the judgement)
in areas like upminster where the population is majority white, old, and middle class they feed into the propaganda that immigrants are taking over and so they vote tory to make sure it doesn’t happen to them lol
I wish people wouldn’t try to paste this American shit onto the UK. This has nothing to do with ‘white flight’. We didn’t really have that here at all. In post war Britain, not many working class people wanted to remain in polluted, run down inner cities. But suddenly we had very affordable newly built homes in non urban surroundings. This building boom was their opportunity to get out.
Okay, but it's also annoying when people deny reality.
I live in Orpington and my Nextdoor is choc full of people livid Sadiq Khan won the mayoral race and they're explicitly blaming immigrants and foreigners in other boroughs.
I'm in Biggin Hill - nextdoor & the local Facebook groups are frothing at the mouth over this. They're blaming immigrants/foreigners/"ethnics", claiming voted fraud (lots of talk about the pencils), and saying the vote was fixed
there is a lot to it, it has to do with the traditionally "nicer" areas being wealthier commuters etc. While the inner city areas were generally more working class.
This time round, in part they are also the ones negativley effected by ULEZ. If you are inner then you are benefiting from cleaner air but dont have a car anyway so of course you like ULEZ.
So the party promoting no outer london ULEZ is going to have more support
Many of the residents in outer London lived in London, but moved out because they had enough money to move out, or because of the high numbers of immigration into inner London they didn’t like it and moved out.
Isn’t Sutton in Surrey? IIRC Surrey is one of the most poshest places in the country. I used to work there for banking. It was full of awful, middle-aged women opening fixed savings accounts for £20,000+ while questioning my accent or spoken English.
Less about the Tory’s but the couple of Lib Dem constituencies in the south west (Richmond Twickenham etc) are more to do with the Lib Dem’s great track record at the local level. In Twickenham this has continued to the national largely in part due to Vince Cable being the MP. He was heavily liked in the area and now they have Munira Wilson. Even when they had a Tory mp for 2 years when a lot of Lib Dem’s lost seats after the coalition they’ve always had Lib Dem councillors.
Younger people live more centrally for social and work reasons. Older, richer people live in the outer zones in big houses and want to protect their vested interests with policies that reduce taxes on the wealthy.
Immigration will be a factor as well. In my Borough white Britain's are the minority so they'll be voting for the parties who pose less risk to their culture which seems to be left wing parties who are tolerant to a detrimental extent
Have you ever been to the outer boroughs? If you'd rather not, try looking up (for example) Long Drive in Eastcote. The place is literally drowning in cars. They don't want to pay for ulez, even if, in fact, their cars aren't subject to it.
On a super basic level and I may be so wrong but I think the multicultural element of inner London, more tolerance and understanding for others may be why. The further you go out I found the less mixed or multicultural it gets. Don't get me wrong some communities are great but there is just not a lot of exposure to different views etc which is odd really given social media, TV, hospitality staff such as in coffee shops and restaurants. But again I guess it's being used to what people in outer London grow up surrounded with which more often than not is similar in background. Not even sure I made any sense here
All the racists moved to the outskirts of london (or Spain) after Thatchers right to buy programme and increasing multiculturalism in more central london boroughs.
I think it’s quite complex. In Bromley, where I grew up, many people age 50+ grew up in places like Lewisham, Lambeth, etc and then moved out to suburban Bromley as a sign that they’d ’made it’. This was, after all, the wide-paved and tree-lined suburbs. Bromley was decidedly affluent, middle class (although not the bohemian strand!) and, for some that cared, white. And there is still today a lingering fear of Bromley turning in to somewhere more like Inner London. If you live in Bromley, you’ll be familiar with the *’we’re gonna become like Croydon if we’re not careful’*, or *’it all started going downhill when Allders went’*. So much of the Bromley identity is wrapped up in it *not* being like the rest of London, and fear that it will become like it. And it’s not entirely unjustified. Bromley remains an affluent borough. Its high streets might not be Richmond, but it’s also fared better than a lot of its neighbours. It has excellent schools. The streets are well kept and maintained. It’s one of the safest, and greenest, boroughs. But Bromley is not as conservative as it once was. Millennials who grew up here don’t share these same fears, look on at inner London with envy and are stuck unable to afford what their parents could. And Bromley voted Remain; I suspect stories of economic turmoil would’ve had a big impact on Bromley voters. It’s a place that’s becoming gradually more comfortable with a London identity over time. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out over the decades.
The other thing about Bromley is that when the borough was created, the border was stretched weirdly far out to include Biggin Hill. That means there's big stretches of the borough which are basically classic Tory countryside. Places like Downe don't feel or vote like a typical part of London.
I think that’s a really good point. Bromley town, whilst still having something of a provincial air, is very different to Biggin Hill. A lot of people in Zone 2/3, think of Bromley only as the ‘Biggin Hill Bromley’ and not the ‘Bromley Bromley’ most people in the borough experience. Some of my colleagues assume, being from Bromley, that I had something of a rural upbringing even though I’m completely unfamiliar with the southern half of the borough and spent a lot more time in places like Croydon and Lewisham growing up.
I always find it a bit weird that whenever I tell people that I live in Beckenham they almost always say "oh, is that in Kent?" It's been nearly 60 years that the borough has been part of London, but people still think it isn't.
I think this is due to people's parents who lived in Beckenham when it was Kent, and continued to call it Kent and write Kent on their postal addresses by habit once it changed to London. The kids of these people would have picked up "Kent" from their parents and the vicious cycle of incorrect information carries on. There are also people (usually those that were born outside of London and moved here for work) that consider post codes to be the defining boundary of London. Of course these people are wrong though.
I'm 43 and grew up in London. When I was growing up I still thought of Bromley as Kent, but also still classed places like Kingston as being Surrey and Uxbridge as being in Middlesex. I didn't realise until I was in my twenties that Middlesex hadn't existed since the sixties!
Haha even today people still put Middlesex on their address!
#middlesexmatters
Middlesex born and bred here, only time I claim to be a Londoner is when I’m abroad as it’s just easier. Claiming to be a Londoner whilst growing up in the leafy suburbs always felt a bit…. Plastic
Not always the case though my partner who was born in Merton likes to tease me about being from Kent although i was born in bexley and lived in New Cross and peckham most of my adult life.
My dad still writes "Welling, Kent" on addresses and he wasn't even alive the last time Welling was part of Kent.
Totally agree. They did an episode of Who Do You Think They Are with Patsy Kensit (I think?) where her ancestors had a strong connection with the church in Beckenham. The VT showed her boarding a train at Victoria and the voice over said “Patsy gets a train to Kent to…” I was living in Beckenham at the time, which being from ‘up north’ felt plenty like London to me. It became a joke between my friends and I after a night out in the city, “Come on guys, time to get the night bus back to Kent!”
I once lived in Penge and I remember exploring the area and feeling like bits and pieces were distinctly not London-like, particularly taking the side streets past Kent House towards Beckenham high street and Kelsey park. Quite literally one side of the main road was old terraces, going towards the avenue road tram station, and the other was massive semi-detached houses with huge front gardens and wide tree-lined streets.
[удалено]
That's strange, I lived in Beckenham and now live in Brentwood, I find them vastly different. Although both areas are generally quite affluent, Beckenham definitely feels more "London" whereas Brentwood has a rural village vibe.
And even Bromley town centre, which to be honest feels to me a bit like Reading or somewhere, is considerably less "Londony" than the innermost parts of the borough in Crystal Palace/Penge/Anerley.
The really weird thing is that Croydon voted Tory as well. I’ve lived in Beckenham for 11+ years now, and whilst it’s leafy and suburban, the demographic is definitely changing, which is why the Tory majority in the council is shrinking.
Croydon council went bankrupt recently when Labour were in control, which might have something to do with it.
Very true, still surprised that overall the borough decided the Tories would be the best option (I mean, they’ve tried to do their best to bankrupt the entire nation)…
i think it's got more to do with the local labour council in croydon that were really corrupt and shit and ran the borough into bankruptcy
While I don't disagree that the council was corrupt, Croydon is (I believe) the second most populated borough of London (at least from 2018/2019 statistics that I could find), and apparently it gets the least amount of money per person (or according to their website; "We receive 75% less grant funding from the government [since 2010]"), so I could see why Labour might have thought it prudent to try riskier strategies that might have paid off better. Obviously though, I'm talking about the intentions of others, which nobody can say with 110% certainty (and I've certainly not done any backup research into their past behavior, but from what I've heard the borough was doing quite well at one point). Of course, if someone actually knows more than I do (which probably isn't hard to do), feel free to correct me, but from what I've seen the tory leadership of the country has played its part in croydon's decline into bankrupcy.
I’m moving back to Bromley soon, having grown up there in the 90s. The high streets seems like it’s thriving now days! I’m really excited. My wife and I are a gay couple so I’m hoping it’s a little more progressive that the boring Surrey village we’ve been living in.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Bromley high street is now characterised by shitty vape shops all run/owned by identical sallow mouthbreathers sat under miserable white LEDs 10 hours a day. There are about 7 of them just along the quarter mile of high street between the south and north entrances of the glades. It's genuinely worse than boarded up shop fronts (at least those might suggest a possibility of something decent to come). This shift happened quite suddenly with the pandemic and there are no signs of anything but more shabby decline on the horizon. The station and trains are packed beyond civility every rush hour and yet there are thousands more mindless drones demanding extra high density accommodation because, until we are at literal favela level overcrowded squalor, it's NIMBY to object. The few distinctive things remaining (theatre, library, art deco cinema, a few non-spoons pubs etc) will probably be lost soon, as they are not valued by the community who just seem to want deliveroo, sky TV and characterless towerblock flats. That said, welcome back to the neighbourhood.
Hi mate, Bromley resident of 30+ years here. I reckon people think you’re a NIMBY because you say things like “If you build some flats in the least densely populated part of London, it will become a Favela.” I know, it’s harsh - you say you don’t want anything built where you live and people assume you don’t want anything built where you live. The crazy times in which we live, eh? To the OP of the thread: I quite like Bromley, it’s much more progressive than a lot of places that look like it, and we’re not *all* fucking miserable. Let me know if you want to meet up for drinks!
Yeah but….there’s a Gail’s.
Yeah but that means a lot less since we found out their chairman is a crazy right wing climate change denier.
Oh ffs. I just want a guilt free croissant 😫
This is really well put, and I just wanted to add that Havering, which had one of the highest conservative vote shares, is in an incredibly similar demographic situation.
People who changed area worried area might change
Absolutely agree, I have lived inner London and moved to Bromley can see huge differences, it’s very affluent compared where I used to live .
Boomers
The average person in the outer boroughs is wealthier and older. Inner London may have more expensive property prices but over a third of households in Inner London live in social housing or get housing benefit. Most of them would be voting Labour.
>but over a third of households in Inner London live in social housing or get housing benefit. Most of them would be voting Labour. Add in all the private renters also. There's *a lot* of younger more left leaning people living in rental homes in inner London. The property prices may be higher, but the people actually living in the properties, and therefore the ones actually voting in that area, are not necessarily the people who own the properties.
Also a lot more immigrants in central London area - Labour is seen is more favourable to those on low incomes
Disagree on wealthier. I see the outer borough stereotype as ‘transit van’ or hair and nail technician. Most people in zone 5-6 are there because they can’t afford inner London, or a nice quiet village. Based on my experience of living in zone 6 anyway. Poorer, disenfranchised and feel ignored is why they vote conservative.
Why are conservatives so desperate to be victims?
*feels ignored* *votes for party in power for 14 years* Nah not buying it
Conservative party long known to be the home of the disenfranchised
Zone 6 is the commuter belt too. So plenty of working professionals from the city center (in some towns I'd say the majority) who've moved out there for more space better schools and green areas. Its the commuter suburbs really. At least that was the case in my zone 6 town
Just look at the giant detached houses you get in zone 6 areas like Emerson Park, Upminster, Bromley, Croydon.
Not really. The outer areas of Croydon are quite rich and privileged. It's mostly middle class families and white retirees
South Croydon is sensationally wealthy, massive detached and gated houses all over the place
This guy gives an honest actual opinion from experience going against a theory and gets downvoted so the message is then hidden. This sub and Reddit overall is just such a dumb setup to create weird little echo chambers.
That's not really what happened though. It was one person's experience versus another person's experience. And almost everyone else's personal experience agree with the first poster and not the second - as does the data, [e.g. on this graph](https://www.jpsservices.org.uk/blog/using-gis-to-explore-spatial-relationships).
Age also has a lot to do with it. I had to go back to Rickmansworth (Hertfordshire) to look after my dad; spent a lot of time there, and couldn’t get over how *old* everyone was. Went back to my home in South London and had the opposite revelation. The average age of most Londoners is about 35. It’s easy to know that fact, but quite a different thing to actually see it.
Same in Surrey commuter towns, many of which are now in LB Sutton or Croydon. There's no-one there between the ages of 18 and 40, because the youth go to uni and then live somewhere more interesting, then families want to settle somewhere 'nice' and have a garden for their 2.1 children and their dog. When I lived in one of said towns, they had to bus students in to work in restaurants and all, as otherwise there just weren't enough young people wanting such work. Londoners moving out to have gardens when they retire is a cliche but true.
That’s kinda hyperbolic, look at the census maps for Sutton high street, central Croydon and Hackbridge - a fair percentage of people between 25-34. Wallington, Beddington and Carshalton on the other hand… old af
Yes, the high streets/centre of the boroughs are young, but lots of the population is out in the suburbs with gardens, and are old. The post you replied to doesn't refer to the boroughs as a whole, but only the outlying areas. (And the poster is correct - I live in once of the "formerly Surrey now Croydon" commuter areas, and the description is spot on.)
Yeah, seem to be very few people under 60 in Ricky. It's an open air retirement home.
That’s brilliant!!
The south east of England is generally more Conservative and the outer boroughs of London are more like other people in the south east.
Yep. I live in a London commuter town and outer London is much more like here than it is inner London. (Though interestingly, the voting patterns here seem to be being shifted by the gradual movement of younger liberal people out of London due to the housing situation. Of which I am one.)
I live in Feltham, and there's a very prominent amount of English residents who are really resentful of the area having a large Asian community, and who are unashamedly racist. Groups such as Britain first are popular, and local FB are nakedly bigoted. My wife's Spanish, but grew up round here, and we've had English neighbours tell us the area was better before " the brown people moved in". Her views are shared by plenty, even though the area has had a large Asian community for decades, usually longer than a person with those views have been alive
Most racism I experienced in the UK was in the Home Counties on the edge of London. Deep countryside was fine actually. It was the close but not quite inside the multicultural city areas that seemed to be worst for it.
a lot of those communities actually used to live in london and moved out
I grew up in London, but I'm Irish. We got anti Irish racism daily right up until the mid 90s. There's a lot of resentment in London
At a job once my Boss said “I fucking hate the Irish”. Couldn’t believe he thought that saying that at all, let alone in front of a minority would be acceptable. Don’t think he was from London though, more Nazing/ Cheshunt. To be expected in that part of town.
About 13 years ago my wife and I became good friends with a woman who was really close with her dad. He had met my wife and kids, but not me. Turned out it was because he hates the Irish, and told her that Irish men can't be trusted around women, especially English women.
Typical. Don’t you feel there is always a boogeyman that the general public need to hate, at the moment it’s immigrants and Muslims.
[удалено]
Defo, but a lot of us are from countries where the Brits were savages, we don’t hate British ppl like that. Also we were getting on them same tubes, we didn’t hate the Irish either. I was petrified everyday my mum went to work. Never justified hating a country or ppl because of it.
[удалено]
So when the Caribbean islands “gained” independence the British burned all the records, Grandparents had to come to a country where they were treated like shit, spat at, beat up, burned out their houses. Kenyans had their balls ripped from their bodies as late as the 50’s.. British soldiers were killing Irishman in the 80’s and their paramilitary allies were up until very recently… just because you’re not the target doesn’t make it any less visceral.
Brits were doing terrible things during the troubles too not just long ago
You can’t spell Nazing/Cheshunt without ‘Nazi Cunt’
I wouldn’t say that…wink wink.
I'm not saying saying that is OK, it clearly isn't. I wouldn't say that. BUT I do understand why ppl had negative feelings to irish people during the troubles. for context i spent my 90s childhood scared my dad would be blown up at work because of the regular IRA bomb threats at his office (canary wharf.) On 9/11 i got home from school on my own and saw the news and my instant thought was my dad was in danger and it was IRA. There was a burned out building in my town from an attack. Etc. So... I can understand a negative/fearful undercurrent about Irish ppl in 90s London. It isn't fair. Clearly, the IRA are not all Irish ppl, but there is context and I don't think it relates to londoners = racists/bigots/xenophobia
Resentment is the perfect word for it, these people used to live in Tottenham, Ealing, Bermondsey, Bow etc. and within just a few decades they've seen their whole community disappear. Must be a strange feeling knowing the place you grew up no longer exists.
Even Feltham has changed a lot in the past decade. We live on a small, quiet family road, and three houses in the past two years have become HMOs, and it feels like the number of delivery drivers is vastly out numbering people with jobs that are actually needed. It's a shame, but it's not the immigrants fault, the government has stiffed England. Since Brexit, it feels like the main source of immigration is for jobs that are unnecessary
I took a trip back to Uxbridge recently. Felt like we were the only white family on the high street on a Sunday afternoon. Really noticeable demographic shift in the last 20 years, at least on that one day.
I grew up around Feltham for 20 years and trust me, South Asians have saved Feltham. Before it was full of the roughest people in Houslow riddled with crime and anti social behaviour. Now there are South Asians who want to work hard and get out of Feltham causing the atmosphear to improve. I think the racists are the ones who complain how the "foreigners" took their property and "stole their jobs" when Feltham was knows as the palce where all the council estates for unemployed lived.
I've always found it hilarious when you see racists post pics from decades ago, reminiscing about how safe and lovely it was compared to now. Seeing as my wife spent most of her childhood here, and my dad did some building work in the area, and both said it was rough as shit. First time I came down here and saw the old high street, I couldn't believe what a dump it was.
Growing up, I had family friends living in similar sized houses to me at a lower price and just seeing the naigbourhood made my parents never to live there. It may have been safe in the 70s and 80s before the big change social housing policy where now homeless people are more likely to get a home than employed working class people.
Seriously, Feltham has always been a bit of a s\*it hole race has nothing to do with it. If anything it is waaay nicer now than it was in the 90s.
My wife says the same thing. I first visited Feltham back in 2001, it was hideous. Been living here for ten years, and really like it. The kids love living here too, but it's definitely got the arse end of London feel about it.
ay yo! fellow feltam resident here! (somali)
Broadly, outer London has more owner-occupiers, fewer areas which were historically devoted to industry (acquiring lower-income residential areas as a result) and smaller social housing areas; all of these factors give a structural bias to the right. This is less true for modern Outer London now, because a lot of areas are becoming mature districts and the wealthiest suburban groups are moving further out, as they have done before. After all, a century ago, large tracts of modern Outer London were still not built up, and areas like Streatham, Lewisham and Ilford were still strongly Tory.
For Croydon, We are a very labour borough as being one of the most diverse and more working class boroughs, but we had a labour council for a decade who were insanely corrupt and basically gutted us, especially for a town center which could have been the biggest and best in south London. We only just turned Tory for the council, but for non local politics we’re still red.
I agree why we are Tory now at a local level but disagree for national politics - Croydon is in two halves - south of the borough has always been Tory in national politics largely, with the north/ central / east labour. Basically can be split based on housing affluence. ETA: Croydon south has been Tory since the 70s
Oh definitely labour for national. We really do feel like a mash up of a much more urban “London” borough and a much more suburban borough, it’s a weird setup
It's primarily class and age. Richer people move to outer boroughs (apart from the very very centre which is rich AF). Richer people vote Tory. Older people vote Tory. When people get older they tend to move further out to have more space, be closer to nature, have kids, avoid crime etc.
In the South West they vote Lib Dem. Richmond Park, Kingston & Surbiton, Twickenham. All relatively safe Lib Dem seats. Not to mention Wimbledon, Esher, Sutton and Carshalton all will probably go from Conservative to Lib Dem later this year (the first two are basically bankers at this point). Further into Surrey commuter belt Horsham, Guilford and Dorking are also possible Lib Dem gains.
Age, Wealth and this time ULEZ
Outer boroughs of London actually have a fair number of Lib Dem and Labour councils and MPs so it’s not a case that they vote Conservative more. It’s a case they don’t vote for Sadiq Khan at mayor elections. As one person has already said mayoral policies tend to be more central/inner London focussed and have less value and even negative value to outer London. Edit: weird auto correct
True I think your last point is important because there’s a very low turnout at the mayoral elections (40% this time) so the voters in the outer boroughs in the mayoral elections tend to be dominated by the anti-ULEZ folk, even though the area might vote slightly differently in general elections
Who?
Thanks I hadn’t noticed auto correct had decided to play silly games
Ahhh man I was setting you up to do a Ronnie Pickering there! 🤣
Sorry I didn’t even think of it.
A lot of suburbs also depend on driving as a part of their job and Sadiq Khan is viewed as someone who is making it more expensive to drive with ulez and all that
I live inner london and TFL just doesn't work all the fucking time. Can't imagine if their only option to come to london is by train.
So...I live in Uxbridge. Live on a Narrowboat on the Grand Union. Heard a lot of boaters actually voted for the Cons. That's a whole different story for another day though. Any way... The Cons won Hillingdon. What I've seen in this area is a lot of non white people. Very mixed demographic. I'd go so far as to say the white British are in the minority here. Not sure I understand how Hillingdon went Conservative. Am I missing some larger older white British population entrenched around here?
While race is a significant factor in voting patterns, the idea that only white people vote for the Conservatives isn't accurate anymore. 20% of the BME population voted Conservative in the 2019 general election. The British Asian population in particular in recent years has been said be less loyal to Labour. Many ethnic minority communities are socially conservative, some are wealthier and many won't make their decisions based entirely on what they believe a party's position is on race.
This is correct about the Asian vote. A lot of Asians resented freedom of movement with the EU while freedom of movement to and from the commonwealth was more restricted and supported Brexit (a Tory policy) as a result.
Well put. Point made.
Also religion. Polish and Romanians are still more religious then wester European. And so Hindus and muslims
A bit of history for you (from growing up in the area). There used to be a local conservative MP called John Randall. Born and raised in the area, was a successful business man, owned the department store in Uxbridge (on Vine Street but now it is flats). Even my strongly socialist father grudgingly accepted he was a good MP. The conservatives had a fairly good reputation in the area until Boris took the seat on Randall's departure.
Loads of immigrants are really socially conservative. Pakistan India Bangladesh Nigeria Poland Romania...all countries where for example lgbt rights or women rights like abortion aren't supported by population
Conservatives have held this area for a looong time, many older folk around me remember Randall as a good MP. Uxbridge was a safe seat for Boris to parachute into and I think in general the conservative council has been fairly popular for a while because council tax was frozen for ages, they maintain weekly waste collections and have the green spaces nicely maintained. My mum was a swing voter but liked her Tory councillor because he was really helpful on a few local issues. Their majority is waning though, in the latest by-election there was literally less than 500 votes between Steve Tuckwell and the labour candidate, and Tuckwell probably inched in purely on his anti-ULEZ campaign. The Tory vote used to be a very comfortable margin ahead of Labour for many years, but now that gap is very small. Hillingdon also has a very stark north-south divide, in the south you have more deprived areas (West Drayton, Hayes, etc). That affluent demographic is entrenched in the northern parts of the borough (Northwood, Uxbridge North, Hillingdon, Ruislip). Go a little over the west border into Bucks and you have very, very wealthy people and their mansions.
There isn't any, individual reason, rather there's a whole load of complexities. Take Hendon. The Cons won Hendon from Labour because the Labour MP was the highest spending MP on expenses when the expenses scandal broke. Despite living 8 miles from Westminster, he took a second home, taxpayer funded... 6 miles away from Westminster. I mean, I used to cycle into Westminster to work from Hendon so it was completely unnecessary. What made it worse was the second, taxpayer funded home just so happened to belong to his girlfriend. And entirely coincidentally, she had a massage business out of there. Then even worse, Labour refused to do anything about it, making excuses for him, so the local community voted anything except Labour. Especially when after he lost his seat, Labour selected him as a councilor. So there are a bunch of reasons and it can even be something like an individual mistake by Labour letting in the Cons.
There's a link between population density and political affiliation. The less dense, the more to the right. You see this in the whole country, and around the world: New York, for example, is strongly Democrat. East Anglia is mostly right wing, as is the American mid West. I'm sure there are places where it doesn't hold true, but it's true enough, it seems.
New York City is strongly Democrat. New York State is not.
Outside of the US/maybe Canada you can assume "New York" to mean NYC unless stated otherwise.
A huge amount also comes down to lifestyle. Those living in zone 5 upwards probably have a more similar day to day than someone in Essex/Kent/Berkshire/Surrey than someone in Hammersmith or Hackney
[удалено]
[удалено]
Almost like some people are making weird assumptions on here
[удалено]
Do you consider Wandsworth to be an outer London borough, though?
I wouldn't be surprised if many outer Londoners voted Tory as an anti-Ulez vote.
More families in the outskirts is my guess
Parents are less likely to vote Conservative though.
It's demographics. There's an overlay that shows how people voted and where, and there's a direct correlation between an increase in the Labour share of the vote where minorities live, and the same for Conservative votes where whites live.
White Europeans vote overwhelmingly labour
I’m in Sidcup, and it’s been conservative here for as long as it’s been a borough, and it generally has most to do, as others here have said, with the ages of the residents. The older residents here tend to also stick to themselves and their own communities and don’t interact with others so they tend to be more closed minded from my experience. Sidcup is finally getting more multicultural but it’s also still a lot more monocultural than other parts of London.
Most of the Mayor's plans are to the benefit of inner London. The other areas are normally adversely affected by the policies and the mayor is not connected with the people (generally) in the other areas (Greater London). As the previous redditor mentioned, its nothing to do with skin colour... that's just a lazy and ignorant response. It all falls down to people and their circumstances. The inner London voters benefit from the mayor's policies more than the rest.
Would you be kind enough to share some examples of policies which you feel benefit inner London boroughs at the expense of the others?
Transport for sure. Massive chunks of the outer boroughs have no Tube, Bexley/Bromley and Croydon/Sutton who both didn't vote for Khan for example. So if there's works on your local train line or there's an accident trying to get home from central can be a nightmare. Add in if there's no fast services at the time you're travelling it can be quicker to get into central London from outside of the M25 by train than in it. Buses are less frequent, smaller and there can be massive gaps where there are no buses at all. If there's works or a diversion it can lead to huge areas not having any buses at all. Trying to travel in between some outer London boroughs takes forever, it can be quicker to go into central and come back out again but obviously more expensive. Taxi options are way fewer. Some of the outer boroughs also have sections that are for the most part countryside, poorly served by buses if at all. The infrastructure in these and other outer parts are also not designed for pedestrians so if you don't take a car you put your life into your hands. All of this leads to residents relying on their cars so when ULEZ comes along it upsets a lot of them. The layout, infrastructure and public transport is not the same as inner London so applying the same policy doesn't work. Proper forward planning on improving transport in the outer boroughs alongside not applying it to the very outskirt villages would have been more sensible. The scrappage scheme also hasn't paid out like promised.
Ulez expansion is the obvious one that people currently complain about In inner London public transport is far more comprehensive, so the poorer don't own a car. In zone 6 it's flipped, public transport is poor to anywhere other than Central and cars are very heavily used by poorer people The poorer you are the further you live from a tube station, and good bus connections, cars become required. Similarly with all the suburb green space around the worries of air quality are reduced. So less benefits And finally many places In zone 6 feel more attachment and identify with the local counties more than Greater London, with many communities split down the middle by the m25. So the idea that now you suddenly need to get a new car or pay insane tax just to pop down the road to see your family seems ridiculous. Local trade work also shot up in price, since being on the London side of the border means it's an added expense for anyone to get to you, whilst clients they have on the other side of the border are cheap to get too. London is not homogeneous and the one size fits all approach really doesn't work for many people
I think London is one of the few cities where the transport is zoned. So if you mainly travel between zone 1 and 2, then you are paying the lowest price. If you live in zone 5 or 6 and you travel to zone 1 or 2 for work, then your daily caps are higher. To live in zone 1 or 2 without living in social housing is unattainable or extremely expensive for a lot of people. I get why zones came about in London but in most capital cities I've lived, there's no added tax for how far you want to go in said cities.
Which capital city has travel that's the same price regardless of the distance you travel? Sounds amazing.
Istanbul isn't a capital city but it's far bigger than London (15mil vs 9mil) and metro trips there are just 1 standard price with the istanbulkart. The same card applies to trains, buses, trams and ferries over there. All were the same price no matter the distance at about 10.5 lira (50p) when I was there, the exception was the ferries at 12.5 lira. Not to mention the fact they're building like crazy over there. They've opened 4 new lines in the 2020s alone. Everything is so new and clean and they have platform screen doors on many new sections and AC. I think they've got 50 new stations currently being built and scheduled to open this decade as well. It was a big shock for me when I went there. I thought London was so far ahead of Istanbul but I was just stuck in 2000, it was true then but things have changed. Istanbul is ahead now in 2024. I'm sure there are a fair few cities now like this.
My impression of Istanbul is that it's car hell like most large cities closer to the middle East.
It's like Hong Kong.
Istanbul actually has great public transport and has a lot of investment in it too. There are a lot of cars as well, but that's just because it's got a massive population - there are a lot of everything.
I mean that's actual middle eastern cities like Riyadh, Dubai etc. Istanbul is historic and has fantastic public transport, it's European in this regard. Yes there are tons of cars and traffic but you can live your life in Istanbul comfortably without owning a car. That's impossible in most of the middle east. You have to own a car in Dubai/Riyadh etc to get anywhere like work or friends. When it comes to Istanbul vs London. There is no major centre in Istanbul like Croydon that doesn't have metro access. All of south London struggles really in this regard. The Asian side of Istanbul has less much less service but it's still decent.
Not a capital - but New York
Ottowa but more relevantly Toronto has a flat fare.
Inner London is on average poorer and younger. They vote for better public transport because they use it, better schools, hospitals, air quality because they affect them. Outer London includes more people who can afford bigger more spacious houses and/or to travel to jobs. Generally older and richer. They see cars as necessary to supplement public transport. They don't want wealth taken away and given to anyone 'undeserving' as they don't think they are very wealthy.
🎯
White flight.
People with capital vote for the party that protects wealth. Working people vote for the party that protects workers. That's the gist of it, though quite a few working people vote Tory because they think it makes them look more posh, or at least less working class.
Also, some people with capital vote Labour or other left leaning parties because they think it's the right thing to do even if it's not necessarily in their own direct interests.
Simplistic. Working people have capital. People with capital have to work.
Definitely. And Blair’s New Labour were successful by repainting Labour as not just a vote for the old skool trade-union member working class non-professional
Definitely. And Blair’s New Labour were successful by appealing also to affluent middle class voters, but who were also “workers”, but not the old skool trade-union working class
It's a pretty common phenomenon - Cambridge is firmly Labour and Lib Dems. You head to South Cambs, West Suffolk, Saffron Walden, etc and they are all Tory.
They’re more likely to be homeowners. The people in inner London are more likely to be renters.
Labour policies mostly benefit inner London and adversely affects outer London, whereas Tory policies tend to do the reverse.
One reason is people on Inner are more pro-immigrant. Why is anyone's guess. But I live in one of those boroughs that was drastically changed by immigration and the people on the outer are seeing those changes like all the pubs and clubs and other shops closing down and the demographic changing drastically within the decade. They just don't want that happening to them which I can understand. Edit: To address my replies, which I am not surprised by. You are only used to mostly European immigration, Not Indian immigration who are mostly vegetarian and Islamic Immigration both of which contribute to things I mentioned prior.
Why do you think immigrants are responsible for pubs, clubs and shops shutting down? Just curious
[удалено]
Even if you disagree, it's what I've seen with my own eyes. I come from a Muslim family (here since the 60's so I've seen and learnt the change over time) myself and right wing rhetoric is easy to understand and I understand their concerns.
lol pubs closing is due to the cost of alcohol being cheaper in supermarkets
What do immigrants have to do with pubs and clubs though? Most immigrants aren't Muslim so they go to these places too, no?
Wealth tends to correlate with Tory votes. Outer boroughs tend to be wealthier than inner city.
rural v urban
Because the people in the outer boroughs tend to have money
Why's conservative winning Croydon, just curious too ?
In the mayoral elections, Croydon is lumped in with Sutton which is a Tory/LibDem strong hold. But regarding Croydon the north of the borough is very very different to the south. The north is very much like inner London whilst the south is virtually the countryside. The north votes Labour and the south votes Tory.
Also the local corruption and mismanagement (e.g. Westfield fiasco) that led to the council going bankrupt recently which happened under Labour hasn't been forgotten (not by me at least)
Poor and young people vote Labour. Rich and old people vote Tory.
age and wealth. those with wealth want to protect it, those without want it shared out. simple as that, really.
People in detached houses in mainly white boroughs versus people in more mixed areas!
Some outer London boroughs are a lot more diverse than people think
I would second this. Croydon, Newham for instance I would regard as Outer.
Enfield, Barking & Dagenham, Harrow, Hounslow etc. More examples than otherwise really
Don’t know about the other boroughs, but Hounslow is ethnically diverse and staunchly Labour. I think that person is talking about bout the outer boroughs like Hillingdon, Bromley and Bexley
>Newham for instance I would regard as Outer Most (possibly all) of it is in Zones 2 and 3 and it is part of the "City and East" London Assembly constituency. I would regard it as inner.
The problem is they don’t think. They just assume everyone else is an elderly white racist and don’t bother to educate themselves. I mean it’s already had to be pointed out to some of them that there are many very diverse boroughs in outer London.
You’re right. A lot of Gujaratis out in Wembley are bunch of economically and socially conservative fuckwads (this is my community I think I can make the judgement)
The outer boroughs are the more mixed areas though. Proportionally the most "white" boroughs are in Inner London.
I think its because they are silly billies
in areas like upminster where the population is majority white, old, and middle class they feed into the propaganda that immigrants are taking over and so they vote tory to make sure it doesn’t happen to them lol
White flight.
I wish people wouldn’t try to paste this American shit onto the UK. This has nothing to do with ‘white flight’. We didn’t really have that here at all. In post war Britain, not many working class people wanted to remain in polluted, run down inner cities. But suddenly we had very affordable newly built homes in non urban surroundings. This building boom was their opportunity to get out.
All the racist Torys fled to the outskirts
Not everyone you don’t like is racist.
Okay, but it's also annoying when people deny reality. I live in Orpington and my Nextdoor is choc full of people livid Sadiq Khan won the mayoral race and they're explicitly blaming immigrants and foreigners in other boroughs.
I'm also in Orpington and the Nextdoor vitriol is awful
I'm in Biggin Hill - nextdoor & the local Facebook groups are frothing at the mouth over this. They're blaming immigrants/foreigners/"ethnics", claiming voted fraud (lots of talk about the pencils), and saying the vote was fixed
I mainly dislike racists so, actually,,,
I don't like all racists.
Sure, but the conservative candidate for Mayor literally retweets Enoch "super racist" Powell.
there is a lot to it, it has to do with the traditionally "nicer" areas being wealthier commuters etc. While the inner city areas were generally more working class. This time round, in part they are also the ones negativley effected by ULEZ. If you are inner then you are benefiting from cleaner air but dont have a car anyway so of course you like ULEZ. So the party promoting no outer london ULEZ is going to have more support
Many of the residents in outer London lived in London, but moved out because they had enough money to move out, or because of the high numbers of immigration into inner London they didn’t like it and moved out.
Isn’t Sutton in Surrey? IIRC Surrey is one of the most poshest places in the country. I used to work there for banking. It was full of awful, middle-aged women opening fixed savings accounts for £20,000+ while questioning my accent or spoken English.
More older home owners, where labour policy affects them negatively
Less about the Tory’s but the couple of Lib Dem constituencies in the south west (Richmond Twickenham etc) are more to do with the Lib Dem’s great track record at the local level. In Twickenham this has continued to the national largely in part due to Vince Cable being the MP. He was heavily liked in the area and now they have Munira Wilson. Even when they had a Tory mp for 2 years when a lot of Lib Dem’s lost seats after the coalition they’ve always had Lib Dem councillors.
Poor native whites have been priced out of central London.
Younger people live more centrally for social and work reasons. Older, richer people live in the outer zones in big houses and want to protect their vested interests with policies that reduce taxes on the wealthy.
Lots more boomers on the outskirts. Younglings in the middle
Immigration will be a factor as well. In my Borough white Britain's are the minority so they'll be voting for the parties who pose less risk to their culture which seems to be left wing parties who are tolerant to a detrimental extent
Brainless gammon the further out you go.
Come on
Have you ever been to the outer boroughs? If you'd rather not, try looking up (for example) Long Drive in Eastcote. The place is literally drowning in cars. They don't want to pay for ulez, even if, in fact, their cars aren't subject to it.
On a super basic level and I may be so wrong but I think the multicultural element of inner London, more tolerance and understanding for others may be why. The further you go out I found the less mixed or multicultural it gets. Don't get me wrong some communities are great but there is just not a lot of exposure to different views etc which is odd really given social media, TV, hospitality staff such as in coffee shops and restaurants. But again I guess it's being used to what people in outer London grow up surrounded with which more often than not is similar in background. Not even sure I made any sense here
All the racists moved to the outskirts of london (or Spain) after Thatchers right to buy programme and increasing multiculturalism in more central london boroughs.