Migration and politics (particularly voting) in London

Tony TraversLSE

London’s changing population

New Commonwealth/Non White British (%)1961 3.01971 7.81981 14.31991 16.22001 42.02011 55.1

Note: 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 = New Commonwealth; 2001 and 2011 = Non White British

Change in the nature of ‘minority ethnic’ status

• In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, migration from the New Commonwealth was seen as broadly synonymous with ‘ethnic minority’ status

• Largely the Caribbean, India and Pakistan

• By the 1990s, many of the earlier migrants had families who were born in the UK

• Later in the 1990s, a new wave of immigration included many people from Europe, North America, Latin America who are now, along with many earlier migrants, defined as ‘Non White British’

• ‘Non White British’ is an only partly helpful measure

Minority ethnic status and migration cannot be separated to assess voting effects of migration

alone • British Election Study allows a relatively detailed

examination of how different ethnic and national groups vote

• No ‘London only’ analysis, but given London’s importance within the GB statistics, the national results are likely to be helpful

• Registration and voting behaviour by ‘ethnic group’ differs substantially

Voter registration varies by ethnic group, UK

Vote choice by ethnic group, 2010General Election, UK

Taken from: 'Ethnic Heterogeneity in the Social Bases of Voting at the 2010 General Election', by Anthony Heath et al, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties

Minority ethnic voting effects associated with General Election 2010• Age, education, social class etc are not strong

predictors of turnout levels among minorities (as they are for the White British population)

• Minority ethnic effects on voter choice are much greater than for class, housing tenure or religion

• Council housing occupation not associated with stronger Labour voting among minorities

• Small business owners etc not associated with stronger Conservative voting among minorities

(Source: ‘Ethnic Heterogeneity in the Social Bases of Voting at the 2010 British General Election’, Anthony F Heath et al, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, Routledge, 2014)

Voting, socio-economic group and ethnicity

London voting effects• The BES analysis suggests that migration (or, at least,

minority ethnic status) will be associated with different registration and voting patterns

• ‘White’ voters are more likely to vote and more likely to vote Conservative

• ‘Other White’ are significantly more likely to vote Conservative

• Most other ethnic and national groups are less likely to vote but much more likely to vote Labour

• Liberal Democrats appear to do relatively well among ‘Pakistani’ voters

London’s changing population

New Commonwealth/Non White British (%)1961 3.01971 7.81981 14.31991 16.22001 42.02011 55.1

Note: 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 = New Commonwealth; 2001 and 2011 = Non White British

Difference between London vote share and GB vote share, 1955-2010

Minority population: Haringey

Haringey vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

Minority population: Croydon

Croydon vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

Minority population: Redbridge

Redbridge vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

Minority population, Tower Hamlets

Tower Hamlets vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

Minority population: Westminster

Westminster’s populationTotal 219396 (Census 2011)

of which:

UK-born 102407Non UK-born 116989

of which:

EU Accession 6031Rest of Europe 7830Africa 14909Middle East & Asia 36725Central & Southern

Americas 6790

US, Canada, ‘old’ EU etc 44704

Westminster vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

Conclusions - 1

• The Conservatives and Labour are in long-term decline in London as throughout the country

• The London electorate, in common with many other aspects of the city, have been affected by migration

• Some national evidence about the effects of minority ethnic status on voting

• Within London, there must have been an impact which, overall, is likely to have helped Labour (thus far)

• Minorities are less likely than WB to register to vote

Conclusions - 2

• New migrant groups appear to have different voting propensities from existing residents,

• There are very different underlying patterns of voting change from borough to borough

• Con to Lab; Lab to Con; Lab to LD; LD to Lab

• Any short-term impacts of migration may weaken as minority groups establish themselves over time

• Voting for ‘extreme’ parties may occur where migrants are new to the borough, but not once they are established

Migration and politics (particularly voting) in London

Tony TraversLSE