Londoners make up almost 13 per cent of the UK population. Although there is a widespread belief that the capital is unrepresentative of ‘middle England’ or ‘middle Britain’, it would be implausible to argue that political change in London has no message for the rest of the country.

In fact, shares of the vote for major parties in general elections show little difference between the pattern in London compared with the country as a whole. Labour and the Conservatives have each generally won 30 to 50 per cent of the votes at both local and national elections, with the Liberal Democrats now running at around 20 per cent (higher than in the 1960s and 1970s). Minor parties wax and wane, but have rarely won many seats.

Victory in London does, therefore, have implications for the rest of the country. However, the radical differences between the make-up of the capital’s population and the ‘average’ for England or Britain suggests that in the longer term it will be possible to test whether or not ethnic minority or migrant populations have had or will have an effect on voting. In London boroughs such as Newham or Brent, international in-migration has had an enormous impact on population make-up. In the city as a whole, over one third of the population is now ‘non-white’ and over a third is overseas-born. It would be surprising – though hugely revealing – if rapid international in-migration into a small area such as London had no impact on local politics.

The London borough elections of 2006 provided an all-out test of support for the main political parties. Traditionally, the capital’s local elections have been highly suggestive of forthcoming change at the national level. The Conservatives’ excellent results in 1968 and 1978 were a precursor of election victories in 1970 and 1979, while Labour’s strong results in 1971 and 1994 were similarly predictive.

Against this background, the significant shift of votes from Labour to the Tories in London in 2006 must be seen as having important political implications. In the context of Labour’s poor showing in the south east of England in the 2005 general election, a four per cent Labour to Conservative swing of votes in 2006 served to underline Labour’s developing vulnerability in the capital. The question is, how deep is the trouble and what would be likely to shift votes back?

Labour lost control of several ‘classic’ marginal boroughs in the 2006 elections. Bexley, Croydon, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham moved straight from Labour to Conservative control. Others, including Brent, Camden and Hounslow shifted from Labour to ‘no overall control’. However, there were swings to Labour – from the Lib Dems – in Lambeth, Islington and Southwark. Some of the ‘core’ vote appears to have returned to Labour in these traditional inner city authorities.

Overall, Labour was reduced to control of just eight boroughs, down from 15 in 2002. The Conservatives now control 14, up from eight. The Liberal Democrats held three boroughs outright (losing Islington but gaining Richmond) in both 2002 and 2006. An early analysis of the votes cast suggests the Conservatives enjoyed their best result in London since 1982, while for Labour it was probably their second worst result since the boroughs were originally created in the mid-1960s.

By any standards, 2006 was a bad result for Labour in London. The big shift of political control across the capital certainly resembled the kind witnessed in past years such as 1968, 1971, 1978 and 1994. For the Conservatives, it reinforced the improving opinion poll message that had been building up for several months.

But it wasn’t a complete wipe out for Labour. It certainly did not resemble 1968 when the Wilson government’s unpopularity reduced the party to control of just three boroughs – even Hackney fell to the Tories. There was some evidence of a return – compared to the 2005 general election – of the party’s core vote in inner London. Turnout was up by six to seven per cent in most boroughs, so even a declining Labour vote share was not as bad as it looked.

Labour’s worst vote share declines occurred in Newham (down by just under 20 per cent of the total vote), Tower Hamlets, Ealing, Lewisham, Hillingdon and Greenwich (each down by more than 10 per cent). The rise of Respect largely explains Tower Hamlets and Newham, while the unpopularity of the West London Tram was an element in the Ealing and Hillingdon results. Lewisham and Greenwich are less easy to explain.

Smaller parties and single issues enjoyed a good year in 2006. Respect, the Greens and the BNP won seats, though their progress was limited to a number of wards in a few boroughs. There was also some evidence of single-issue politics, notably in Islington (parking), Ealing (West London Tram), Lambeth (schools), Enfield (Chase Farm Hospital) and Barking and Dagenham (immigration). The BNP’s successes in Barking and Dagenham imply the government has a great deal more to achieve in the political management of international in-migration than has thus far been attempted.

It is too early to judge whether fragmentation of the vote will continue, though the use of proportional representation in the London Assembly elections might be seen as encouraging new patterns of voting. The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, appear to have reached an electoral ‘glass ceiling’ where they find it hard to get more than 20 per cent of the London vote.

Labour’s 2006 London results do not imply the party is dying out in the capital. But they do suggest London is no longer a ‘Labour city’. Parliamentary seats in boroughs such as Croydon, Ealing, Wandsworth, Harrow and Hillingdon now appear very vulnerable unless there were to be a significant shift in public opinion.

The four per cent swing from Labour to the Conservatives between 2002 and 2006 also suggests the 2008 London mayoral race will be far more open than those in 2000 and 2004. On the basis of ‘first preference’ votes in 2004, Ken Livingstone was just eight percentage points ahead of Steve Norris (by 37 to 29). Despite their shambolic attempt at a primary, it is clear the Conservatives are alert to the importance of having a strong candidate to face Labour in May 2008.

In part, Labour’s 2006 decline in London was part of a wider ‘pendulum effect’ that has been visible in London elections since the modern system was created in 1964/65. Being in office at the national level will eventually erode electoral support in local elections. Labour’s losses in 2005 and 2006 must also have resulted partly from a continuing ‘Iraq effect’ (especially among Guardian and Independent readers) and partly from relatively poor perceptions of public services in the capital.

The Conservatives are generally well equipped to win boroughs – and thus parliamentary seats – from Labour in London because their activist base is still relatively strong in most parts of the capital. Compared with the Tories’ continuing poor showing in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and other parts of the metropolitan north, their London results are excellent. But even in London there is evidence that where the Conservatives have declined to nothing. In Haringey, for instance, there is little chance of a revival. For the Labour party, with its dwindling membership, this lesson is surely one to learn.

The good news for Britain’s democratic system is that London remains politically plural and capable of being won by either of the two major parties. Rich and poor voters alike are willing to change their allegiance in response to perceptions about political parties, leadership, public services and national or local single issues. n a healthy democracy, what more could one ask for?

This article will be published in the November 2006 edition of Progress magazine