Havering has hard-core Conservatives, as was demonstrated by Susan Hall trouncing Labour in May, 2024. The General Election result1 was, as the bookies say, ‘a form result’. But was it?
Julia Lopez
In 2019 she had a majority of 23,308. This evaporated to one of 1,943 – a 92% reduction. This is catastrophic but when viewed locally, it accurately reflects the electorate. They vote Conservative and hold their noses. HRA have made the constituency a Tory-free zone. Worse, she is a poor constituency MP with no personal support.
Andrew Rosindell
In 2019 he had a majority of 17,893. This evaporated to one of 1,463 – a 92% reduction. This is catastrophic for a long-standing, hard-working constituency MP. Unlike Hornchurch and Upminster, Andrew’s constituency has a significant number of Conservative councillors. He’s well-known, is an expert campaigner and yet, his result mirrored that of the lack-lustre Julia.
Discussion
Julia and Andrew couldn’t be more different. She’s a political opportunist with a glittering career in the past. He’s an Essex man Tory. Andrew didn’t get a personal vote and Romford had their worst result since 1997.
Havering is changing. In Hornchurch and Upminster, the Reform party, from a standing start, came second. Reform isn’t a political party: They’re a private company owned by Nigel Farage. They’re a PR party tapping into the utter distaste and sense of betrayal that many voters feel about the principal parties. They’re Conservative party ultras who have voters who don’t know what that implies.
HRA are in the same territory. They also reflect the desire for change and have to operate outside their comfort zone. The question is, can they?
Note
1 General Election 2024: Results | The London Borough Of Havering
Politics in Havering 
The libdems coming fifth must be upsetting for them.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
This area is hard-core Tory & that’s why Reform are contenders
LikeLike
Chris you describe Reform Party as a private company owned by Nigel Farage. This is true and has proved a very effective way to protest against an anti-democratic ruling globalist establishment so making it very helpful to democracy.
This is not an ideal situation but has allowed Farage to keep one step ahead of state saboteurs who would use internal party democracy to kill the insurgent party.
Clearly the votes follow Farage and internal democracy would have seen Farage sacked by new members and infiltrators claiming they could do a better job.
In practice is there much difference with Starmer? I mean whilst the Labour Party has officially a more democratic structure than Reform its run by a corporate owned Stalinist who uses control of the bureaucracy to purge all dissent.
For example, Corbyn who was elected twice by the membership as leader and secured more votes in 2017 and 2019 than Labour did in 2024 but was suspended and then re-elected as an Independent (after 40 years as a Labour MP) with far more votes than Starmer got in his constituency. And the conservative’s changed the rules when not electing Sunak as leader!
The issue isn’t whether individual parties are democratic but whether the voting system is democratic to ensure all significant popular opinion gets representation. Once a democratic proportional system is in place all parties will rise or fall on whether they suit and deliver for their members/supporters/voters.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
Reform is a private company and can make policies at the whim of the owner as though policies are a *product*. This implies that the electorate literally don’t know what they are voting for. Farage’s ambiguous *immigration policy* is a case in point. He isn’t anti-immigration. His last statement (which is therefore a policy) said that he approved of immigration in critical areas of the economy. He didn’t say what the key performance indicators are.
LikeLike
A campaign message to stop immigration is not the same as stop all even one person, immigration, but stop immigration conveys the need to greatly reduce immigration.
Saying stop all immigration would invite ridicule as it’s impossible to stop all even one person, immigration and so Farage qualifies he’s anti-immigration message by saying some immigration will continue, so you’re right this doesn’t make him anti-immigrant just anti open door immigration.
This is a sensible view not shared by Labour and Conservative who promote open door immigration and the criminalisation of dissent but clearly resonated with millions of voters who think open door immigration is anti-British.
I doubt few Reform voters thought Farage was proposing an end to all immigration but supported an end to racist open door immigration and so “Farage’s ambiguous message” is what they voted for.
Alas I expect Starmer will, like Camreron, despite promises to the contrary will increase immigration, if only to help build the houses and wind-farms needed by a growing population!
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
Farage makes it up as he goes along as can be seen from the distribution of *officers* in his party. He doesn’t have an immigration policy because he doesn’t have any policies. It’s as the mood takes him
LikeLike
I agree, but Farage gave outlet to anti-immigration feeling which assists democracy, even as Starmer promotes open door immigration and WW3 with Russia.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
So he’s a demagogue. Sees what’s needed to whip up a frenzy an then does it. So it’s actually the opposite of democracy. I have more time for the French woman Le Pen.
LikeLike
Sunak called the election early without telling his Cabinet and party first, whilst 20 points behind in the polls and with about 180 conservative candidates yet to be selected. Also this rush disenfranchised many voters due to problems with voter ID and delivering the postal votes.
Why would he do this? It doesn’t make sense, unless, he called it early as he didn’t want to be a wartime leader as NATO leads us to war with Russia and he wanted time to leave Britain with his £billions before London is vaporised after recommending a return of national service.
None of this was mentioned in the election and Starmer’s first act as PM was to say British weapons can be used to attack Russia. I don’t think promoting WW3 was mentioned in the Labour manifesto or is good for democracy.
Farage said NATO provoked Russia and still are which could lead to a nuclear holocaust. He called for peace negotiations. This “demagogue” spoke essential truths during an election campaign which serves democracy.
I prefer a “demagogue” who promotes peace rather than WW3!
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment.
Farage is worse.
LikeLike
How can Farage be worse, he’s one of 5 Reform MPs who highlights important issues whereas Starmer is a corporate owned PM who has immediately declared war on Russia risking a nuclear holocaust, without warning of his plans in the election campaign and which will undermine any promised improvements to public services.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment
LikeLike