|
|
|
Brent North
|
|
gain
from Conservative
|
|
Sir Rhodes Boyson
|
|
0 ( 0.0%)
|
|
15,324 (40.1%)
|
|
19,343 (50.7%)
|
|
3,104 ( 8.1%)
|
|
0 ( 0.0%)
|
|
403 ( 1.1%)
|
|
|
|
54,149
|
|
38,174 (70.5%)
|
|
Sir Rhodes Boyson
|
|
Brent North
|
|
10,230 (27.1%)
|
|
21,660 (57.4%)
|
|
11,430 (30.3%)
|
|
3,999 (10.6%)
|
|
0 ( 0.0%)
|
|
624 ( 1.7%)
|
|
|
Conservative
|
|
55,433
|
|
37,713 (68.0%)
|
|
|
-17.3%
|
|
+20.4%
|
|
-2.5%
|
|
+0.0%
|
|
-0.6%
|
|
-2.3%
|
|
+2.5%
|
|
|
|
|
Brent North is curious in that, despite a very substantial non-white vote, this must be viewed as a pretty safe Conservative seat. This is because the overall profile of the area is comfortably middle-class. Even the Asian electorate tends to be well-to-do and successfully upwardly mobile. Although the Conservatives may have particular problems in London relating to both transport and health policy, Labour is most unlikely to gain the 14 per cent swing needed to remove the conspicuous whiskers and Lancastrian tones of Sir Rhodes Boyson from the House of Commons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,658
|
12.38
|
9.03
|
137
|
|
|
259
|
0.88
|
11.17
|
8
|
|
|
1,749
|
5.92
|
11.25
|
53
|
|
|
0
|
0.00
|
14.70
|
0
|
|
|
21,999
|
74.46
|
10.45
|
713
|
|
|
0
|
0.00
|
2.81
|
0
|
|
|
231
|
0.78
|
8.01
|
10
|
|
|
169
|
0.57
|
15.25
|
4
|
|
|
685
|
2.32
|
7.13
|
33
|
|
|
793
|
2.68
|
10.17
|
26
|
|
|
