Labour win in London?

It's widely said in Labour circles that Labour had a good result in London and that this is part of the surprise non-meltdown in Labour representation at the General Election.

On the face of it, this is true. Have a look at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/3.stm and, sure enough, you can see that the Labour to Conservative swing was a mere 2.5%, with Labour picking up 38 of the 73 seats on offer; Labour won 36.6% of the vote, the Tories 34.5%. This contrasts with a national vote share of 28.1% and 39.6% respectively, in England, or 29% and 36.1% in the UK as a whole.

Let's have a look at the comparable results from 1992, a year chosen because it too delivered a narrow Conservative win, albeit with an overall majority and a higher share of the vote (we may perhaps wish to revisit this election, for it is worth noting that over 14 million people voted Conservative at this election, in contrast with the 9.9 million who did so at the latest election). Nationally, the Conservatives gained 41.9% of the vote (around 6% more than 2010) and Labour 34.4% (more than 5% more than in 2010). The London scores were 45.3% and 37.1% respectively, giving the Tories 48 out of 84 seats.

What are the key trends?

Nationally, the combined two party vote fell from 76.3% to 65.1%; this is old hat, of course, the secular decline of the two party system being well known and documented. In London, the fall was from 82.4% to 71.1%, so in line with the national trend but with less third party support than elsewhere; perhaps not so surprisingly given the historic weakness of the Liberals in London and the absence of any Nationalist interest.

Labour support has (in fact) declined slightly, from 37.1% to 36.6%; this has been masked by the plummeting support for the Conservatives, which has allowed Labour representation to grow very slightly (from 35 to 38, the number of seats allocated to London having fallen from 84 to 73).

Tory support has fallen dramatically. From being significantly more Conservative than the country in 1992, the city has became markedly less so in 2010.

Why should this be? Economically, the London's relative position is little changed. Any Conservative misdemeanors from the 1990s should have been as least as forgotten here as they have been elsewhere. The obvious point is that London's hugely altered demography since the early 90s - and in particular the massive influx of immigrants - is the crucial difference. For multiple reasons, the Conservatives have been unable to attract significant additional support from this quarter. But neither has Labour.

The political changes brought in by New Labour - the mayoralty and assembly - don't seem to have made much difference. It's worth remembering that only one of the three mayoral elections has returned an official Labour candidate (and in that case one very clearly detached from the government) and London voters seem to have shown an admirably independent or ungrateful streak in this regard. The Labour government's fumblings over matters such as the Olympics, the Millennium Dome, Cross-Rail and the Third Runway didn't, in my opinion at least, distinguish them from their predecessors.

Note that this has not translated into increased support for Labour - who have at best maintained what was, after all, a losing position, but have declined less rapidly than the Conservatives. Third parties - the Liberal Democrats mainly - have continued to grow.

It would be superhuman of Labour not to take comfort from what was one of their best performances in a bleak national picture. But the risks are surely on the down side. Many of their traditional supporters - and new supporters for that matter - are highly conservative in their social attitudes. Even if they don't swing to the Conservatives, they have at least three alternatives: the Simon Hughes wing of the LibDems have shown that they can make inroads into white working class support; there is always the BNP for those who can't stomach the immigration; and, perhaps most interestingly, Respect shows what might happen to immigrant voters who feel they have been taken for granted. Their perhaps inevitable implosion under the egregious Galloway can't hide that this could be the most worrying development of all.

A more minor point - and another one worth revisiting - is that London illustrates in microcosm the failing nature of the electoral system. A "pure" proportional system would have given Labour 27 seats (11 fewer than actual) and the Conservatives 25 (3 fewer). The smaller number of voters (for all sorts of reasons) in Labour seats again masks their actual poor overall performance. The prospect of electoral reform should again be a cause for concern on Labour's part. Rising representation based on falling support cannot, after all, be a recipe either for long-term success and is likely to to be accompanied by ever increasing disenchantment on the part of the electorate.

Finally, there is the obvious point is that London's representation is declining. Given that there is no actual sign of significantly falling population, the obvious explanation is that too few of the incomers are entitled to vote to warrant the retention of the London seats. This is an unexpected consequence of the Labour open door on immigration and one which does them no electoral favours. It may be evidence that this is a policy with diminishing returns from a political point of view (and this position seems to be born out by Mr. Balls's recent pronouncements).

Update (belated)

An esteemed friend has pointed out another possible reason for Labour's London outperformance, namely that, since 1991, Labour has greatly improved its middle and upper middle class appeal. Since these classes are more common in London than elsewhere, this is an alternative or supplement to the 'ethnic mix' argument.