1. Migration and politics (particularly voting) in London Tony Travers LSE

2. London’s changing population New Commonwealth/Non White British (%) 1961 3.0 1971 7.8 198114.3 199116.2 200142.0 201155.1 Note: 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 = New Commonwealth; 2001 and 2011 = Non White British

3. 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

4. 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

5. Voter registration varies by ethnic group, UK

6. Vote choice by ethnic group, 2010 General 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

7. 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)

8. Voting, socio-economic group and ethnicity

9. 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

10. London’s changing population New Commonwealth/Non White British (%) 1961 3.0 1971 7.8 198114.3 199116.2 200142.0 201155.1 Note: 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 = New Commonwealth; 2001 and 2011 = Non White British

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

12. Minority population: Haringey

13. Haringey vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

14. Minority population: Croydon

15. Croydon vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

16. Minority population: Redbridge

17. Redbridge vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

18. Minority population, Tower Hamlets

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

20. Minority population: Westminster

21. Westminster’s population Total 219396 (Census 2011) of which: UK-born102407 Non UK-born116989 of which: EU Accession 6031 Rest of Europe 7830 Africa14909 Middle East & Asia36725 Central & Southern Americas 6790 US, Canada, ‘old’ EU etc44704

22. Westminster vote share compared to London vote share – LB elections

23. 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

24. 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

25. Migration and politics (particularly voting) in London Tony Travers LSE