This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/05/buying-new-house-voting-tory

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Buying a nice new house? You might end up voting Tory Buying a nice new house? You might end up voting Tory
(about 4 hours later)
In the aftermath of George W Bush's shocking, baffling victory in the 2004 presidential elections, a lot of map-making and geography was invoked as an explanation. Possibly more useful than the usual "red state/blue state" map was the statistic that the further away you lived from a fellow human being (your own family aside), the more likely you were to vote Republican.In the aftermath of George W Bush's shocking, baffling victory in the 2004 presidential elections, a lot of map-making and geography was invoked as an explanation. Possibly more useful than the usual "red state/blue state" map was the statistic that the further away you lived from a fellow human being (your own family aside), the more likely you were to vote Republican.
Similarly, a report by the University of Southampton argues that those who move to Conservative-voting areas will, in the fullness of time – even if they were Labour voters beforehand – come to share the political outlook of their community.Similarly, a report by the University of Southampton argues that those who move to Conservative-voting areas will, in the fullness of time – even if they were Labour voters beforehand – come to share the political outlook of their community.
Like the heartlands of the Republican party, the most reliably Conservative areas are not known for their teeming human density and vibrant street life. So can places turn you into a Tory?Like the heartlands of the Republican party, the most reliably Conservative areas are not known for their teeming human density and vibrant street life. So can places turn you into a Tory?
Many have made the assumption that more salubrious places lead to more conservative politics – that's why the American developer Levitt thought that "no man who owns his own home and lot can be a communist", and that's why Neville Chamberlain believed that leafy, low-density interwar cottage estates would be a bulwark against "Bolshevism".Many have made the assumption that more salubrious places lead to more conservative politics – that's why the American developer Levitt thought that "no man who owns his own home and lot can be a communist", and that's why Neville Chamberlain believed that leafy, low-density interwar cottage estates would be a bulwark against "Bolshevism".
Even so, the cart is before the horse. To argue that suburban and rural areas vote Tory is only mainly true (do the villages of South Wales and County Durham? Does the Scottish Highlands?), while there are a lot of very urban places that reliably trot out and vote Conservative, such as the extremely high-density London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There are even, occasionally, areas that are both urban and poor, and still tend to vote Tory, such as Portsmouth, Plymouth or Medway, although they're often Tory marginals rather than the heartlands. It's simpler than that: when people become upwardly mobile, this often entails moving to richer areas, where, funnily enough, richer people tend to vote for their own interests.Even so, the cart is before the horse. To argue that suburban and rural areas vote Tory is only mainly true (do the villages of South Wales and County Durham? Does the Scottish Highlands?), while there are a lot of very urban places that reliably trot out and vote Conservative, such as the extremely high-density London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. There are even, occasionally, areas that are both urban and poor, and still tend to vote Tory, such as Portsmouth, Plymouth or Medway, although they're often Tory marginals rather than the heartlands. It's simpler than that: when people become upwardly mobile, this often entails moving to richer areas, where, funnily enough, richer people tend to vote for their own interests.
The report is based on a survey of Britons who moved house between 1991 and 2008. There is apparently no reverse correlation, because people moving to "Labour areas" tend to be Labour voters already.The report is based on a survey of Britons who moved house between 1991 and 2008. There is apparently no reverse correlation, because people moving to "Labour areas" tend to be Labour voters already.
According to the researchers in Southampton – itself a city with two Labour MPs (in the dockside inner city) and one Tory (in the green suburbs, where the university happens to be) – the results tell a story of "social pressure", where moving to some Stepford-like place in the home counties, where you will regularly encounter a close-knit network of conformist locals, has the effect of dragging you rightwards. It would be interesting to see if carrying on the survey past 2008 would make any significant difference to the results, especially in those formerly "poor areas" that became what the defenders of the bedroom tax implicitly insist are "rich areas" – that is, does gentrification change voting patterns?According to the researchers in Southampton – itself a city with two Labour MPs (in the dockside inner city) and one Tory (in the green suburbs, where the university happens to be) – the results tell a story of "social pressure", where moving to some Stepford-like place in the home counties, where you will regularly encounter a close-knit network of conformist locals, has the effect of dragging you rightwards. It would be interesting to see if carrying on the survey past 2008 would make any significant difference to the results, especially in those formerly "poor areas" that became what the defenders of the bedroom tax implicitly insist are "rich areas" – that is, does gentrification change voting patterns?
If you compare the map of the London mayoral elections in 2004 and then in 2008, Boris Johnson came to power via a "zone 5 strategy" that especially targeted outer-suburban, traditionally Tory areas, trying to woo them via attacks on the congestion charge. In 2004, first-preference voters for Johnson dominated in middle-class Hillingdon, Barnet, Enfield, Havering, Bromley, Bexley and Sutton, as well as the partly upper-class inner-city areas of Fulham, Chelsea, and Westminster. By 2008, this had changed, and Johnson had taken the majority of first preferences in some inner-city boroughs – Greenwich, Wandsworth – and some inner-suburban districts along with them. If you compare the map of the London mayoral elections in 2004 and then in 2008, Boris Johnson came to power via a "zone 5 strategy" that especially targeted outer-suburban, traditionally Tory areas, trying to woo them via attacks on the congestion charge. In 2004, first-preference voters for the Conservative candidate, Steven Norris, dominated in middle-class Hillingdon, Barnet, Enfield, Havering, Bromley, Bexley and Sutton, as well as the partly upper-class inner-city areas of Fulham, Chelsea, and Westminster. By 2008, this had changed, and Johnson had taken the majority of first preferences in some inner-city boroughs – Greenwich, Wandsworth – and some inner-suburban districts along with them.
The river Thames in both those boroughs has been dominated in recent years by developments aimed explicitly at the sort of people – executives, bankers, lawyers – who have, historically, tended to vote Conservative, no matter how much Labour recently have tried to woo them. This could be explained by Johnson's ability to sway people who don't see themselves as Conservatives, or it could be showing that certain high-density, inner-urban areas are very Conservative indeed. The sort who hide behind gates and heavy security, who live near to, but fundamentally apart from, their much poorer neighbours.The river Thames in both those boroughs has been dominated in recent years by developments aimed explicitly at the sort of people – executives, bankers, lawyers – who have, historically, tended to vote Conservative, no matter how much Labour recently have tried to woo them. This could be explained by Johnson's ability to sway people who don't see themselves as Conservatives, or it could be showing that certain high-density, inner-urban areas are very Conservative indeed. The sort who hide behind gates and heavy security, who live near to, but fundamentally apart from, their much poorer neighbours.
Ironically, Ken Livingstone's policy of letting developers build high-density and tall (in exchange for a minuscule trickle of "social" housing) may have helped turf him out of power, a possibility that Labour might do well to ponder.Ironically, Ken Livingstone's policy of letting developers build high-density and tall (in exchange for a minuscule trickle of "social" housing) may have helped turf him out of power, a possibility that Labour might do well to ponder.