Why are Birmingham and working class London not traditional Labour strongholds

[Philip]

What are the possible reasons for Birmingham and the more 'working class' areas of London not being old school staunch Labour vote areas, unlike similar industrial and working class areas in the North?
I know London has become left wing in recent years, but this is a more modern and liberel branch of the left, helped a lot by the diversity of London. It isn't really 'Labour' in the same way South/West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire & Greater Manchester, Liverpool and the North East are; yet in the 2005 GE the Tories did well in many areas of London, even some of the more working class areas, but at the time the areas of the North mentioned above were safe Labour seats.
Birmingham & the West Midlands area has a heavy industrial past like much of the North, but unlike these northern areas it isn't staunch Labour and hasn't been for a long time as far as I know. Places like Kidderminster, South Wolverhampton, Stourbridge etc are not especially wealthy areas but these are middle ground seats targeted by the Tories at each election.

Is the traditional Labour vote influenced to an extent by whether or not the constituency is in the North, South, or in the Midlands?

 

[yorkie]

What is even meant by 'working class'? I've never liked the term and I don't think it makes a lot of sense either.

The suggestion appears to be that people who do lower paid jobs are 'working class', though amusingly some people link some very well paid jobs as 'working class' while other lesser paid jobs can be classified as 'middle class'. Also what if someone has multiple contracts? Would you judge them by their lowest hourly rate of pay, on the basis that only 'working class' people would do such jobs, or take some sort of average? Would it even go by salary or would it go by categorising jobs based on some traditional values. This idea of categorising people or jobs they do into 'classes' is nonsense in my opinion. Also people on similar salaries may have very very different views on social issues even if they share similar views on economic issues (which is by no means guaranteed). The idea of left vs right is very simplistic and even if it exists at all, it's only one part of the story.

I've no idea what you would categorise me as, but there are many reasons why I wouldn't want to vote Labour anytime soon (prior to 2020 I would have been much more likely to consider it)

 

[Philip]

'Working class' has lots of different connotations, but in this case it means an area where you would expect the majority of people to support a political party which fights for the working person, social justice and implements a tax & spend policy to improve public services, as this party in power would likely be of greater benefit to them than the party which typically taxes less and spends less on public services (ie. traditional Labour vs traditional Conservative).
These areas exist in the South and Midlands, but often they aren't the strong Labour vote areas which similar places in the North are, or have been.

 

[telstarbox]

This doesn't make sense to me. Looking at some 'traditional working class' areas of London where people may have worked in manufacturing and the docks:

West Ham, East Ham and their predecessor seats have been Labour since before WW2
The seats for Poplar / Bow / Bethnal Green have been Labour for about as long
Tottenham has been Labour since 1950 except for 2 years when an MP defected to the Tories
Bermondsey was Labour from 1950 until the 1980s

This Wikipedia map from the 1959 election (which was a landslide for the Conservatives) shows an extensive patch of Labour seats around the Lea and the Thames.



There is a more recent phenomenon of Labour winning 'middle class' seats such as Hammersmith, Putney and Battersea but this is partly explained by these seats having a younger population than the UK average which favours Labour.

 

[Philip]

I highlighted the 2005 election when the Tories made some surprising gains in London, but this wasn't the case for the traditional Labour areas 'up north' - they remained firmly red. And Birmingham/West Midlands seems more intriguing as the Conservatives often do quite well in this region, Telford is a good example as this isn't what you'd describe as a 'typical Tory town'; it's more similar to Skelmersdale than Shrewsbury, but the Tories have held this seat since 2015.

 

[contrex]

I grew up in what was the Norwood constituency in south London. It had been Conservative solidly up until 1945 when Duncan 'Sunken Glands' Sandys lost to Labour. Then it went back to the Conservatives in 1950 under Brigadier Sir John Smyth VC, MC (Bt from 1956), who was by all accounts a very decent fellow. VC near Richebourg L'Avoue in 1915. He held it in 1964 but it went back to Labour in 1966. I vividly remember the General Election of 1970, when I had been 18 for one month. The Conservatives had fielded one Bernard Black, an insurance broker, who couldn't take part because shortly before voting day he had received a prison sentence for fraud. The hurriedly sourced replacement, Peter Temple-Morris, lost by a small margin. He later got in for Leominster in 1974 (and went over to Labour in 2001). The seat remained Labour until the 1987 boundary changes and the seat was split. Part was included in Dulwich and West Norwood which has remained Labour to date. So, in effect, Labour for the last 56 years.

 

[coppercapped]

What are the possible reasons for Birmingham and the more 'working class' areas of London not being old school staunch Labour vote areas, unlike similar industrial and working class areas in the North?
I know London has become left wing in recent years, but this is a more modern and liberel branch of the left, helped a lot by the diversity of London. It isn't really 'Labour' in the same way South/West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire & Greater Manchester, Liverpool and the North East are; yet in the 2005 GE the Tories did well in many areas of London, even some of the more working class areas, but at the time the areas of the North mentioned above were safe Labour seats.
Birmingham & the West Midlands area has a heavy industrial past like much of the North, but unlike these northern areas it isn't staunch Labour and hasn't been for a long time as far as I know. Places like Kidderminster, South Wolverhampton, Stourbridge etc are not especially wealthy areas but these are middle ground seats targeted by the Tories at each election.

Is the traditional Labour vote influenced to an extent by whether or not the constituency is in the North, South, or in the Midlands?

During the Industrial Revolution neither of these cities had large numbers of workers in factories or mines. The concentration of large numbers of people in each individual mine and factory and the attitudes of enough of the owners made made large scale unionisation both necessary and possible. With a history of trades unionism covering a large percentage of the population and the growth of the parliamentary Labour Party growing out of it old memories die hard.

Birmingham was 'the city of a thousand trades' so the range of trades was vast and each individual employer tended to be smaller than the vast mills in the North West - this diversity made effective trades union organisation much more difficult.

London was always mainly a commercial centre concentrating on shipping, insurance and banking services - although it did have a thriving manufacturing sector a lot of this was small scale such as watchmaking and piano manufacture. London because of its size was never like the smaller northern industrial towns with only a few large employers in each one and so it was much easier for disgruntled employees to vote with their feet and move on.

Now the health warning - the above is a simplification and lots of caveats should be added. But the general outline is true.

 

[Russel]

Because Boris said he'd get Brexit done and a large portion of the working class voted for Brexit, amongst other reasons.

 

[GS250]

The term 'working class' describes a pretty broad section of the electorate:

1) Dave, 45, a self employed plumber brought up on a council estate, didn't do great at school, followed his dad into a trade and now earns £60k, owns a house in Milton Keynes and drives a leased BMW 5 series.

2) Tabitha, 30, school librarian brought up in a leafy part of greater London. Has two degrees and works for the local authority. Earns £30k and shares a house with 2 other friends in Wood Green. Rides a push bike.

3) Pawel, 25, production line worker brought up in a flat in Warsaw. Did okay at school but fancied a life in the UK. Earns minimum wage and shares with 6 others in a semi detached in Harrow. Gets the bus to work.

Which one of those is working class? How is it defined?



.

 

[DC1989]

The term 'working class' describes a pretty broad section of the electorate:

1) Dave, 45, a self employed plumber brought up on a council estate, didn't do great at school, followed his dad into a trade and now earns £60k, owns a house in Milton Keynes and drives a leased BMW 5 series.

2) Tabitha, 30, school librarian brought up in a leafy part of greater London. Has two degrees and works for the local authority. Earns £30k and shares a house with 2 other friends in Wood Green. Rides a push bike.

3) Pawel, 25, production line worker brought up in a flat in Warsaw. Did okay at school but fancied a life in the UK. Earns minimum wage and shares with 6 others in a semi detached in Harrow. Gets the bus to work.

Which ones of those is working class? How is it defined?

I think the term working class has lost most of it's meaning.

In your example Dave would 100% consider himself working class, he probably posts stuff on twitter about how the ULEZ is harming the 'working class' who need a van to get around like himself. He considers Tabitha to be a loony leftie woke maniac and looks down upon Pawel

Intergenerational wealth also muddys the waters, I'm in my 30's and would consider myself and my friends to be working class. Some of my friends have quite elderly parent/s sitting on a £million plus house/s which they will inherit one day in the not too distant future. Right now they are working class - when they get that house and become millionaires (on paper) will they still be?

 

[Philip]

During the Industrial Revolution neither of these cities had large numbers of workers in factories or mines. The concentration of large numbers of people in each individual mine and factory and the attitudes of enough of the owners made made large scale unionisation both necessary and possible. With a history of trades unionism covering a large percentage of the population and the growth of the parliamentary Labour Party growing out of it old memories die hard.

Birmingham was 'the city of a thousand trades' so the range of trades was vast and each individual employer tended to be smaller than the vast mills in the North West - this diversity made effective trades union organisation much more difficult.

London was always mainly a commercial centre concentrating on shipping, insurance and banking services - although it did have a thriving manufacturing sector a lot of this was small scale such as watchmaking and piano manufacture. London because of its size was never like the smaller northern industrial towns with only a few large employers in each one and so it was much easier for disgruntled employees to vote with their feet and move on.

Now the health warning - the above is a simplification and lots of caveats should be added. But the general outline is true.

Thanks, makes sense and good reasoning.

The term 'working class' describes a pretty broad section of the electorate:

1) Dave, 45, a self employed plumber brought up on a council estate, didn't do great at school, followed his dad into a trade and now earns £60k, owns a house in Milton Keynes and drives a leased BMW 5 series.

2) Tabitha, 30, school librarian brought up in a leafy part of greater London. Has two degrees and works for the local authority. Earns £30k and shares a house with 2 other friends in Wood Green. Rides a push bike.

3) Pawel, 25, production line worker brought up in a flat in Warsaw. Did okay at school but fancied a life in the UK. Earns minimum wage and shares with 6 others in a semi detached in Harrow. Gets the bus to work.

Which one of those is working class? How is it defined?



.

A lot of people still use the terms 'working class', 'middle class' and 'upper class' flippantly but without meaning it in a derogatory way. The stereotypical 'working class' could mean the person who lives in the '2-up 2-down' terrace in a former industrial northern city. Stereotypical 'middle class' might live in a semi-detached house in a sought-after suburb of the same city (in the case of Manchester, places like Chorlton, Heaton Mersey, Worsley and Cheadle Hulme would often fall into the 'middle class' category).

 

[jfollows]

Thanks, makes sense and good reasoning.


A lot of people still use the terms 'working class', 'middle class' and 'upper class' flippantly but without meaning it in a derogatory way. The stereotypical 'working class' could mean the person who lives in the '2-up 2-down' terrace in a former industrial northern city. Stereotypical 'middle class' might live in a semi-detached house in a sought-after suburb of the same city (in the case of Manchester, places like Chorlton, Heaton Mersey, Worsley and Cheadle Hulme would often fall into the 'middle class' category).

It also changes over time, doesn't it?
My grandfather was a freight guard based at Cheadle Heath (I think) but lived in Cheadle Hulme after moving there from Gorton at some point in the 1950s, lived in a reasonably large terraced house which is definitely "middle class" today but was definitely "working class" when he moved there, as he'd have called himself at the time.
My mother left school at 14 and went to work for a company in Manchester and met my father in the 1950s and would have ended up calling herself "middle class".
But what exactly these terms mean is often what the person using the term wants them to mean I guess.
And now Cheadle Hulme itself is probably much more "middle class" than anything else, but it didn't use to be.

In the past I voted in Hammersmith (early 1980s) and this has changed over time also.

 

[Doppelganger]

The term 'working class' describes a pretty broad section of the electorate:

1) Dave, 45, a self employed plumber brought up on a council estate, didn't do great at school, followed his dad into a trade and now earns £60k, owns a house in Milton Keynes and drives a leased BMW 5 series.

2) Tabitha, 30, school librarian brought up in a leafy part of greater London. Has two degrees and works for the local authority. Earns £30k and shares a house with 2 other friends in Wood Green. Rides a push bike.

3) Pawel, 25, production line worker brought up in a flat in Warsaw. Did okay at school but fancied a life in the UK. Earns minimum wage and shares with 6 others in a semi detached in Harrow. Gets the bus to work.

Which one of those is working class? How is it defined?



.

Paweł can't vote in a UK general election unless he's been naturalised.

Thatcher did a great job of destroying the traditional working class and it's been replaced with call centre and service workers, who have been hoodwinked into believing they are not working class and must therefore vote Tory. This shift has been gradual and this is why the UK is in the position it is in sadly.

 

[ac6000cw]

During the Industrial Revolution neither of these cities had large numbers of workers in factories or mines. The concentration of large numbers of people in each individual mine and factory and the attitudes of enough of the owners made made large scale unionisation both necessary and possible. With a history of trades unionism covering a large percentage of the population and the growth of the parliamentary Labour Party growing out of it old memories die hard.

Birmingham was 'the city of a thousand trades' so the range of trades was vast and each individual employer tended to be smaller than the vast mills in the North West - this diversity made effective trades union organisation much more difficult.

London was always mainly a commercial centre concentrating on shipping, insurance and banking services - although it did have a thriving manufacturing sector a lot of this was small scale such as watchmaking and piano manufacture. London because of its size was never like the smaller northern industrial towns with only a few large employers in each one and so it was much easier for disgruntled employees to vote with their feet and move on.

Now the health warning - the above is a simplification and lots of caveats should be added. But the general outline is true.

As someone who was born in Stourbridge and grew up in the southern part of the Black Country, has lived in Bradford and Manchester in the past and most recently for a long time in Cambridge - I agree completely with your summary of the differences between the areas. Certainly the southern part of the Black Country where I lived was pretty solidly a Conservative area.

I think the diversity of the businesses around Birmingham and the Black Country has always been a major strength compared to the 'mono-industry' cities in northern England - e.g. the loss of the wool processing industry in Bradford tore the heart out of it (and I don't think it's ever recovered from that - I was having a wander around the city centre a few weeks ago, and honestly I was struggling to think of a good reason why anyone would choose to go shopping there now, versus a decent large town somewhere else, let alone Leeds or Manchester).

I think some people in the UK are weirdly obsessed with which 'class' people are in - you could say I grew up 'working class', then passed the 11+ exam and went to grammer school and university, got a good job in engineering design and became 'middle class', but honestly I don't care about the labels... I normally vote for a centre-ground party like the Liberals (and think we should have PR in General Elections) because that reflects my political leanings.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Quite incredible that the Sparkbrook area of Brum (where my father in law settled from Ireland in the early 1950's) , was up till then , or just before - a Tory area , - but ever since Labour.

Much to do with very significant social , economic and culteral changes. The once solid middle class bits of the area , had decanted to the more attractive suburban outliers , (both private housing and newly built "council" - both being very attractive to aspirants seeking to get out of the "19thC inner housing belt"...

Much the same in say East Ham - once a solid aspirational area , population turned over as base industries disapeared , bomb damage , housing stock got older and so on.

 

[brad465]

What are the possible reasons for Birmingham and the more 'working class' areas of London not being old school staunch Labour vote areas, unlike similar industrial and working class areas in the North?
I know London has become left wing in recent years, but this is a more modern and liberel branch of the left, helped a lot by the diversity of London. It isn't really 'Labour' in the same way South/West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire & Greater Manchester, Liverpool and the North East are; yet in the 2005 GE the Tories did well in many areas of London, even some of the more working class areas, but at the time the areas of the North mentioned above were safe Labour seats.
Birmingham & the West Midlands area has a heavy industrial past like much of the North, but unlike these northern areas it isn't staunch Labour and hasn't been for a long time as far as I know. Places like Kidderminster, South Wolverhampton, Stourbridge etc are not especially wealthy areas but these are middle ground seats targeted by the Tories at each election.

Is the traditional Labour vote influenced to an extent by whether or not the constituency is in the North, South, or in the Midlands?

2019 was an unusual election where the Tories had a broad coalition centred on promises of "Get Brexit done" and "levelling up". Large parts of Birmingham are similar to the so-called red wall, so were prominent Labour in the past but not so much at the moment, although as things stand look set to be strongly Labour again soon, particularly as their reasons for voting Conservative/not voting Labour in 2019 don't really apply now.

As for London I cannot see how "working class" parts of London are not Labour: they have the majority of London seats and the Tory held ones are affluent areas in West, North and SE London (as are some Lib Dem ones).

 

[NorthOxonian]

As for London I cannot see how "working class" parts of London are not Labour: they have the majority of London seats and the Tory held ones are affluent areas in West, North and SE London (as are some Lib Dem ones).

The only arguably working class London seats which are Conservative are the ones in the far east. Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Bexleyheath and Crayford. But these are areas which are more culturally than economically middle class - much of the population there might work in the trades and have parents or grandparents from inner London, but probably own their own home and have a pretty healthy salary. And in the case of Romford in particular, they have traditionally voted Labour quite a lot and have only really shifted right in the last couple of decades.

There's also Dagenham and Rainham, which Labour barely clung on to, and which is a genuinely working class seat with a lot of poverty - but that's always been Labour and is no different in that regard to equally working class seats in other big cities. It is very much London in name only - despite being quite diverse nowadays you'd never describe it as a metropolitan liberal area!

 

[Bevan Price]

Although not a massive influence, there were areas in the North (and elsewhere) where the old Liberal Party used to get fairly good support; not enough to win a lot of seats themselves, but sometimes enough to stop Labour (or Conservative) from winning seats that people might expect them to win.

 

[Revilo]

London is trending much more strongly to the left that the rest of the country. But the working class tend to be socially conservative. In years gone past they would have been largely Labour, but Mrs Thatcher converted a lot to the Conservatives because she opened their eyes to the free market’s benefits over tired and outdated socialism. Then Brexit (and Labour’s transformation to a party for only the liberal elite and woke loonies) converted many more.

 

[Iskra]

Labour’s transformation to a party for only the liberal elite and woke loonies)

This, Labour no longer represents (or provides economically realistic policies for) the worker- the people the party was founded for.

Also, regarding Birmingham- it has a strong Liberal History due to Joseph Chamberlain's success. Labour and Liberals sharing support, makes it easier for the Tories to get in.

 

[GS250]

I think the term working class has lost most of it's meaning.

In your example Dave would 100% consider himself working class, he probably posts stuff on twitter about how the ULEZ is harming the 'working class' who need a van to get around like himself. He considers Tabitha to be a loony leftie woke maniac and looks down upon Pawel

Intergenerational wealth also muddys the waters, I'm in my 30's and would consider myself and my friends to be working class. Some of my friends have quite elderly parent/s sitting on a £million plus house/s which they will inherit one day in the not too distant future. Right now they are working class - when they get that house and become millionaires (on paper) will they still be?

I think you've analysed that quite well. Not so sure Dave would look down at our Pawel though. He'd possibly not be enthusiastic about his presence in the UK but I think he'd have a beer with him.

Tabitha would definitely look down on Dave though. She definitely wouldn't go to a Wetherspoons in spite of being a woman of the 'people'. She loves the idea of using Pawal as some kind of victim but is alarmed at his social views which are pretty conservative.

Old Pawal scratches his head wondering what kind of electorate he's decided to live with!

 

[telstarbox]

The only arguably working class London seats which are Conservative are the ones in the far east. Romford, Hornchurch and Upminster, Bexleyheath and Crayford. But these are areas which are more culturally than economically middle class - much of the population there might work in the trades and have parents or grandparents from inner London, but probably own their own home and have a pretty healthy salary. And in the case of Romford in particular, they have traditionally voted Labour quite a lot and have only really shifted right in the last couple of decades.

Yes - in the seats you mentioned the modal house type is an owned semi or detached house (maybe with a driveway) whereas in Tower Hamlets or Lewisham it would be a rented flat, and there are notable differences in ethnicity too. Very different areas culturally but only a few miles apart.

 

[DC1989]

Considering only 11% (!!!) Of under 50s plan to vote conservative I think we've gone full circle in labour being a party for the working class

 

[jfollows]

Considering only 11% (!!!) Of under 50s plan to vote conservative I think we've gone full circle in labour being a party for the working class

Yes, it's an interesting statistic - compare with the 1980s when I was in my 20s and it was definitely the case that many younger voters voted Conservative then, myself included, it was the party "of the future" and its message was about how to improve things for us and for our children.
Contrast with today, Conservatives are the party of old people, there to preserve the status quo, to be insular and inward-looking. Not surprising that younger voters don't see an attractive message. As someone now older than 60 I'm increasingly becoming the exception in agreeing with them and not voting Conservative either.

 

[Doppelganger]

Yes, it's an interesting statistic - compare with the 1980s when I was in my 20s and it was definitely the case that many younger voters voted Conservative then, myself included, it was the party "of the future" and its message was about how to improve things for us and for our children.
Contrast with today, Conservatives are the party of old people, there to preserve the status quo, to be insular and inward-looking. Not surprising that younger voters don't see an attractive message. As someone now older than 60 I'm increasingly becoming the exception in agreeing with them and not voting Conservative either.

And how did that turn out?

The Tories of the 80s destroyed so much industry and thus community, and so many of current issues can be laid firmly at their door.

Voting Conservative then, as it is now, is the party of the selfish individual. We're now seeing some of those older voters suddenly realising this, but funnily it is for their continued selfish reasons as communities have been decimated by lack of spending and the NHS is on its knees...

 

[Typhoon]

Quite incredible that the Sparkbrook area of Brum (where my father in law settled from Ireland in the early 1950's) , was up till then , or just before - a Tory area , - but ever since Labour.

Much to do with very significant social , economic and culteral changes. The once solid middle class bits of the area , had decanted to the more attractive suburban outliers , (both private housing and newly built "council" - both being very attractive to aspirants seeking to get out of the "19thC inner housing belt"...

Much the same in say East Ham - once a solid aspirational area , population turned over as base industries disapeared , bomb damage , housing stock got older and so on.

For example, my grandmother was in service in Birmingham prior to WW1, the housing where she was a servant at one time are now largely HMOs (Houses of Multiple Occupation), They would have been occupied by the well-to-do who often had large or largish families, partly down to child mortality. Gradually, as car ownership grew (and the need for larger homes shrank), they will have moved to the suburbs, beyond the Sparkbrook's to Acocks Green. then Hall Green. then Olton, for example. Even when there was no direct bomb damage, just having factories close by was enough for them to move. I have no idea what it was like in Birmingham but living in an industrial area on the Thames during the fifties and early sixties, many that could move away from the smog did.
Another factor was that when I was growing up, older people, in retirement, stayed put, in the homes that they lived in for decades. Now the tendency is to move, to the shires, and older people tend to vote Conservative! Their places in the inner cities being taken by those more likely to vote Labour or LibDem (or passively abstain).

 

[jfollows]

Considering only 11% (!!!) Of under 50s plan to vote conservative I think we've gone full circle in labour being a party for the working class

My point, though, should be that the party that captures the votes of the 18 year old voters has them for life .... it's a generalisation, of course, but the Conservatives managed it in the 1980s and those voters are now 60+ and predominantly still voting Conservative, whereas today's 18 year old voters are Labour voters, so in the longer term the Conservatives are stuffed, regardless of "working class" or "middle class" unless some kind of seismic shift changes entrenched voting patterns which is unlikely. I'm the exception to the generalisation, but there's always going to be some. The other current statistic is that people with "higher" education qualifications are more likely to vote Labour than Conservative, this also isn't "class"-based, and if the fact that more people attain academic qualifications today than did ten or twenty years ago feeds through into more votes for Labour, then the Conservatives are doubly-stuffed. They will presumably carry on trying to bribe older people until they can't do so any more, because what other choice do they have? Trying to appeal to 18 year old voters again won't happen in a hurry.

 

[Philip]

The Tories could could elect a leader who revolutionizes the party in the same way that John Smith and Tony Blair did for Labour in the 1990s, to the point where a lot of younger people and liberal/'modern' Labour voters swing towards the Conservatives.

 

[jfollows]

The Tories could could elect a leader who revolutionizes the party in the same way that John Smith and Tony Blair did for Labour in the 1990s, to the point where a lot of younger people and liberal/'modern' Labour voters swing towards the Conservatives.

I don't disagree, they could and probably should.
But the current electorate voted for Liz Truss because she bribed them with things they wanted to hear, and by "electorate" I mean Conservative party membership which is overwhelmingly white and old and male.
So I don't see it happening soon. Probably most likely if the rules for election of the leader are tilted back in favour of the MPs away from the party at large.

 

[Richardr]

Class, for what it is worth which is not much these days, is no longer much of a determinant of who someone will vote for. Age and level of education are more important. Most graduates and, as stated above, most people under 50 will vote for Labour, both by some margin. On the other hand, the older one is, the more likely one is to vote, and the Conservatives have most of this older vote. Home ownership is another determinant.