Election begins with Labour odds-on Favourite in Lewisham Deptford

With 30 days to go before the General Election, incumbent Labour MP Joan Ruddock is 1/66 odds-on favourite with Ladbrokes to retain the Lewisham Deptford seat, with her nearest rivals from 2005, the Lib Dems, requiring an 18.72% swing to unseat her.

Of course, that's before the Brockley Central virtual hustings (thanks for all your suggested questions), so it's still all to play for.

62 comments:

Paddyom said...

Oh please no more Labour...the country can't afford it!

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that the choice of government will make the slightest difference to the financial recovery of the country is kidding themselves (or more likely blinded by party loyalty). It's going to take time whoever gets voted in and you can guarantee the other parties would make their own mistakes every bit as much as Labour have made theirs.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the incisive analysis

Tom said...

According to an article in The Economist, Lewisham Deptford is one of only three seats the Green Party is targeting in this year's general election. (The other two are Brighton and Norwich.)

Anonymous said...

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/news.php?ex=0&nid=461

why bother?

The Cat Man said...

After so many years of labour waffling I feel I can no longer breathe outside, its so stuffy...

..Please, lets have a change. Ive never voted conservative before, but seriously considering it this time around.

the owl in the tree said...

You were a Lib Dem supporter last year catman...

Are you doing a tactical vote thingy?

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid it's UKIP or the BNP for me-at least they will look out for the white working class!

fence-sitter said...

The recession was pretty much worldwide, so it's a little simplistic to blame Labour - or at least to think the Tories might have handled things better.

I have no idea how I'll vote, except not Conservative. Hard to imagine Labour's majority being overturned in Lewisham.

I reckon there will be a hung parliament - making the Lib Dems the biggest winners.

Anonymous said...

The link didn't show the local results for the European elections when the Greens did much better.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that it is also a local council election day too. The Greens have 6 councillors to keep (in Brockley and Ladywell) and hopefully more to gain in other wards.

Monkeyboy said...

The new cuddly BNP welcomes all colours now, gay and straight. Did you not get the memo?

Anonymous said...

The BNP are about as cuddly as a punch in the face with a leather glove...

Anonymous said...

Well... it is a tough decision. I'm actually not sure whose face I would like to see on all the political corresponence through my door. I do know who I DON'T want to see ;)

Gemma, Tamora or Joan... hmmmmmmmm

http://www.conservatives.com/People/Prospective_Parliamentary_Candidates/Townsend_Gemma.aspx

http://tamora4deptford.blogspot.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/person/4559/joan-ruddock

Mb said...

The fact that a leading member and MP candidate has been questioned by the police for (alledgedly) plotting to have big nick killed tells you all you need to know

TJ said...

Is it strange that I want labour to win the election as I think the economy is in safer hands with them - but want them to loose Lewisham Deptford because Joan Ruddock does f-all for us?

love detective said...

"I'm afraid it's UKIP or the BNP for me-at least they will look out for the white working class!"

that's what they want you to think (at least the BNP, the UKIP don't even pretend to) - more fool you if you believe them

Hot Gossip- Election special. said...

Darren of the Greens was at the station handing out leaflets. A Labour bod was there too.

Lou Baker said...

Huge amounts of money us Londoners pay in tax currently goes to fund expensive services and benefits for Labour supporting, drug taking, heavy drinking, fried Mars bar eating Scots.

I'll support whichever party promises to spend more of our money on our city. London has been starved of government money under Labour and we mustn't forget that.

Anonymous said...

Lou, be quiet, the grown ups are talking.

The Cat Man said...

Yes, i normally vote lib dems and i do like their policy to spend xbn on a large extension of the railways, but arn't they abit too like labour? I mean, i also care about my heritage and the british identity - what has labour or the lib dems done for that!

Anonymous said...

Here we go, andy's obsesion. How are the Tories going to preserve our identity?

Anonymous said...

Lewisham has been under labour for so long...and it has struggled to thrive. Why are people so scared to try to make a change. Green or lib dem (i am voting conservative for general but locally will be one of these). Please let one of these parties bring out the full potential of lewisham (and hopefully not get sidetracked or lost in all this bureaucracy/expenses pocketing in the process). I think labour has done ok but not good enough.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anybody who thinks that the economy is safer in Labour's hands after they've essentially wrecked it needs their head examined.

Labour MPs have been told not to campaign on Labour's (dismal) record over the past twelve years and that should tell you all you need to know.

They've had twelve long years to get things right and they've failed, failed and failed again while wasting billions of pounds of tax payers' money in the process. I'd rather anybody other than Gordon Brown was running the country.

Sue said...

Nick, you've referred to some of the Ladbroke odds and some of the election results from last time, but not others. Hope you don't mind me adding the rest here, for info.

The Ladbroke odds for Lewisham Deptford as of 3rd April:

Labour 1/66
Green 12/1
LibDem 25/1
TUSC 100/1
Con 100/1

The 2005 general election results:

Labour: 55.6%
Liberal Democrat: 16.8%
Conservative: 12.4%
Green: 11.1%
UKIP: 1.7%
Other: 2.4%

2006 local election results for the constituency:
Labour 37%
Green 27%
Lib Dem 17%
Conservative 12%
Other 7%

2008 GLA list results for Lewisham Deptford:
Labour 39%
Green 20.5%
Conservative 14%
Lib Dem 10%

2009 European Election Results (only available for the whole borough rather than constituency):
Labour 26%
Green 18%
Conservative 16%
Lib Dem 14%
UKIP 9%

maxink said...

Very complete, but I'd add three considerations:

- there is a change of boundary of the Lewisham Deptford constituency that substantially changes the composition and the outlook (i.e. a smaller proportion of elected Green and Labour Councillors, more Libdems);

- people vote (and campaigns) differently for different elections, the GLA or European elections are only relevant to a point for the Council and Parliament elections;

- Nick is right, it's all to be played and debated, and stuff happens, people that are favourite at the start of a campaign can sometime deflate.

Hugh said...

I'm voting Green in the hope the most recent local elections translate to the general. They probably won't but what chance is there of the Lib Dems unseating Joan Ruddock?

If the Greens come second that at least gives them a better place to start from next time.

And no, I don't want the Greens in power.

Anonymous said...

You might as well vote for a carrot.

TJ said...

I'd really like to know who is more likely to unseat Joan Ruddock locally, Green or Lib Dem and I'd vote for them. I would prefer it to be Lib Dem - as on local experience the Green party is too narrowly focussed on environmental issues. I know it is their raison d'etre, but I want a party with a wider scope; and whose answer to local issues is based on what the residents want. All too often the Green answer is influenced by groups like Transition towns or what they think is best for us.

The Greens & the Lib Dems both say they are the best chance - but it looks likely that they will split the vote - what is the clear answer (without spin)? I've seen General Election results that s suggest it is the Lib Dems. But if you look at local elections the Greens come into play.

As for Labour running the economy into the ground - this is a global recession and there are many economists who not only think that G Brown's actions saved us from entering a great depression; but also support their plans for recovery.

drakefell debaser said...

From the Guardian link it is clear that support for Ms Ruddock has declined steadily since 1997 - she lost almost 7000 votes between 97 and 05. If that rate of decline continued from 2005 to now then she may well loose another 5000 and, given Labour are not everyones cup of tea right now she may loose more just off the back of national sentiment.

Wishful thinking maybe, but I shall cross my fingers and toes for that 18.72% swing.

Rewardtheresponsible said...

To anyone considering voting Labour just look at the area you live in - Lewisham. We live in a Labour constituency (with a massive majority) where Labour has been in government for the past decade. And its such a dump (sorry but it is). If you keep voting for Labour then dont come on this blog complaining about things in the future as it will be your fault for allowing these muppets to continue.

Anonymous said...

I'm baffled by the perception that the Greens in Lewisham have been 'narrowly focused on environmental issues'. Living wage, social care, NHS, rail services, education, fuel poverty, jobs... all of these have been high and prominent on their agenda.

fence-sitter said...

The Greens have been to some extent victims of their own success. They started off as environmental campaigners and were instrumental in making it a mainstream political issue - for which they deserve a lot of credit.

Now that every mainstream party is on the green bandwagon (to varying degrees) I think the Green Party is struggling to differentiate itself from the competition. I'm happy to vote for them for the local council as they seem to have a strong focus on local issues, but I struggle to see the point of voting for them in the general election, except as an anti-Ruddock statement.

Anonymous said...

I'll give you an example of where I think the Greens don't represent the locals. I was at a Broc Soc meeting where the Greens were proposing a vote of residents to change the guidelines of the conservation area to allow environmental iniatives. This was after a transtion towns talk. In fact I think Sue ran a vote on her blog re solar panels, and there was a discussion on this blog. This is where, I see, Greens follow the environmental agenda rather than look at what resident's want. Remember any elected politician are meant to represent the majority.

This is a minor example; I'm sure others can think of more.

Anonymous said...

The Ladywell CPZ immediately springs to mind...

Brockley Nick said...

Anon - two things.

Firstly, I disagree that Councillors are merely here to represent - they are also here to lead and the Greens have been elected by the local population, who cannot be surprised that they might favour solar panels.

Secondly, you assume that the majority would not support solar panels, but where is your evidence for that?

fence-sitter said...

anon@12.18

You're saying the Greens don't represent the locals because they were proposing a 'vote of residents' about an environmental issue? And that by doing so they were ignoring 'what residents want'?

Anonymous said...

OK Fence sitter has a valid point.

Nick, I think most people living in a CA want to live in a CA. They know the guidelines and want them followed. Great if the Greens favour solar panels; but my whole point is that they need to represent all, and in some cases that means conservation. The gain of solar panels in the CA would be minimal, but the Greens were ready to look at changing the guidelines to allow this.

Anonymous said...

The Ladywell CPZ is also a good case in point.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - you may be right. But it's a guess on your part.

Bea said...

The Ladywell CPZ has been mentioned twice now by an Anon (same one or two different Anons hard to know!) but could Anon please explain what the Ladywell CPZ is and how it is relevant, please?

Anonymous said...

CPZs are hardley a defining Green issue. I'm sure you'll find people of varying political hues have pro/anti views depending on their car use patterns or parking issues. Try harder. Also, yes they represent all of us but they sod not campaingn on an independant ticket, they campaingned on a green agenda. If you want representative who never disagrees with anyone you'll get a serial abstained and get nothing acheived. I'm labour but may well vote Green for mayor because I've spoken to dean and find him remarkably practical, realistic and pragmatic - yes I was surprised.

TJ said...

Bea - I think that the CPZ issue (and please anyone correct me) was as follows: CPZ proposed for some streets in Ladywell near to the station; CPZ involves cost to the local residents to park their cars but gives them the ability to do so as the spaces won't be used by commuters; Green party in Ladywell supported the CPZ; residents consulted and CPZ agreed.

However: local business not supportive as it effects those coming to shop; consultation is argued to have been partial and not thorough, with local residents saying they weren't consulted; a petition against the CPZ was not taken into consideration; there was also something dodgy about the % supporting the CPZ - something like the majority of those responded wanted it - but the vast majority did not respond.

The issue being inferred is (perhaps) that the Greens are seen as being anti-cars in general - whereas some think they should be supporting green technology for cars. Or maybe thats just how I see it.

tj said...

Anon - not so sure that things like CPZs aren't an election defining issue - for many, how a party handles itself locally is a clear indicator of how they will vote (note the positve rise in the Green share of the vote and comments on this blog). There are, of course, also local elections happening.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my point was that being pro or anti CPZ is not a touchstone issue for greens? They could well support them or not depending on circumstances whereas on nuclear power they would be anti as a natter of party principle.... I think

Do you want to risk it.. said...

For those wondering about Labour's handling of the economy..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8606499.stm

Bea said...

TJ - thanks for the explanation. Nothing's ever simple is it!!

Paddyom said...

In 2010 English NHS prescriptions prices were frozen at £7.20. In Scotland it's dropped from £4 to £3 and N.I's now free like Wales. Can anyone explain this to me, preferably a Labour advocate?

Anonymous said...

@Paddyom: That's devolution.

Brockley Nick said...

And the Barnett Forumula for redistributing national wealth across the UK, which was created in 1978 and survived 17 years of Tory rule...

Paddyom said...

Ill take your word for it Anon, feels anti-English to me.

Anonymous said...

Feel free to move to Scotland or Wales then, where average salaries are much lower, there is no 24 hour transport network, water doesn't come in bottles...

there's always one said...

oh please....

Pete said...

Government spending has been devolved in Scotland, Wales and NI. They have chosen to spend some of their tax revenue on reducing or removing prescription charges. This means that they are spending less elsewhere.

That's what governments do. Playing devil's advocate why should someone who is healthy such as me and never requires prescriptions subsidise your prescription expenses?

Anonymous said...

Of course when you're 75 the situation may be reversed....

Anonymous said...

Labour have run the economy into the ground! Our debt situation is almost as bad as Greece's, we've got a bloated public sector which is completely unsustainable (to keep the unemployment figures down), the entire income tax take is insufficient to cover the welfare bill, there's a massive public sector pension time bomb which Labour have failed to deal with, meanwhile one of Gordon Brown's first actions as Chancellor was to withdraw a tax credit which has cost personal pensions £150bn and counting. Need I go on? (Because I can, and for a very long time.)

But that's all okay because Gordon Brown bailed out the banks (a total no brainer)and is now trying to spend his way out of a recession caused at least in part by the UK living beyond its means.

It may come as a shock to some, but at some point someone will have to pay the massive bills he's running up.

Charles Martel said...

Anonymous

8 April 2010 23:46
Well said, but you're wasting your breath with this lot- they're all voting Green round here.

fence-sitter said...

It wouldn't have been much/any better under a Conservative government. It may have been worse, given that they were even less keen on regulation of the financial sector than Labour.

If the Labour government had been as prudent as hindsight tells us they should have been, they would long since have been voted out of office. It's one of the drawbacks of democracy and maximum government terms that the party in power can only ever think in the short to medium term, and do what will please the electorate in that time-frame. We are victims of our own collective greed. We've come off the rails now, in part because of problems imported from elsewhere (CDOs from the US, for example) - so have a lot of other countries, and I don't think a government of any other colour would have kept us out of trouble much longer.

Mb said...

Do you not remember the '80's? Deregulation was unleashed by thatcher, yes labour were seduced by it - as we're most. No one made people borrow against their house to buy a car, a bit of personal responsibility is called for.

shardeloes inhabitant said...

Don't know which way to vote? Then these sites might be of interest.

Find out what your local MP has been up to in the last term and how they voted on key issues:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/:

website to help you decide which party to vote for in the 2010 general election http://voteonpolicies.com

Minority interest or the more liberal among visit: http://mygayvote.co.uk/

laptop pundit. said...

I know where to vote. As unappetising as the prospect of 5 years of Gordon Brown & New Labour maybe. It's lot less ghastly than "Dave" from Eton and Gideon Osbourne in charge.

Tory policies are eye catching but I've found I really don't like what I see when I look closer.

Tory have emphasised that government spending HAS to be cut, because the country has a massive debt so a freeze on recruitment in the public sector. This means less chance of a job in you're under or unemployed. If you are employed in the public sector, you're likely to end up doing the jobs of two possible threee people.
This could mean increased efficiency more likely to mean poorer quality service.

But this is worth it because the country has a massive structural deficit and austerity is not an option it is mandatory. Fine. However I then note that from somewhere 550 million is to found to support not industry or enterprise but marriage and civil partnerships. Frankly, I find this weird. I am married and I will possibly benefit from the plan but I DO NOT NEED government 'support' for my marriage in terms of tiny tax breaks.

The biggest strain on marriage is lack of employment, proper money coming in and if the Tories really want to support marriage, families and relationships, the emphasis should be on a flowing labour market. So people aren't scared to stay in jobs that frustrate, stress and drain them, because they fear they may not get hired again.

Brockley Central Label Cloud