Barrow & Furness

2015 Result:
Conservative: 17525 (40.5%)
Labour: 18320 (42.3%)
Lib Dem: 1169 (2.7%)
Green: 1061 (2.5%)
UKIP: 5070 (11.7%)
Independent: 130 (0.3%)
MAJORITY: 795 (1.8%)

Category: Ultra-marginal Labour seat

Geography: North West, Cumbria. The whole of the Barrow in Furness council area and part of the South Lakeland council area.

Main population centres: Barrow in Furness, Ulverston, Broughton in Furness.

Profile: The Furness peninsula and the area to the north of it. Barrow itself is an important industrial town, a major deepwater port and shipbuilding town, one of few sites capable of constructing nuclear submarines. It is also important for energy generation, with the Roosecote Power Station, the terminals for the Morecambe Bay gas field, servicing major offshore wind farms in the Irish sea. Note that the town and the council are called Barrow IN Furness, but since 1983 the seat has been called Barrow AND Furness.

Politics: This is a Labour leaning seat, represented by the party for most of the time since the second world war. The exception was 1983-1992 when the Conservatives won the seat, perhaps due to Labour`s then support for nuclear disarmament and the constituency`s connection with submarine building..

Current MP
JOHN WOODCOCK (Labour) Born 1978, Sheffield. Educated at Edinburgh University. Former special advisor to Gordon Brown. First elected as MP for Barrow and Furness in 2010.
Past Results
Con: 16018 (36%)
Lab: 21226 (48%)
LDem: 4424 (10%)
UKIP: 841 (2%)
Oth: 1615 (4%)
MAJ: 5208 (12%)
Con: 11323 (31%)
Lab: 17360 (48%)
LDem: 6130 (17%)
UKIP: 758 (2%)
Oth: 922 (3%)
MAJ: 6037 (17%)
Con: 11835 (30%)
Lab: 21724 (56%)
LDem: 4750 (12%)
UKIP: 711 (2%)
MAJ: 9889 (25%)
Con: 13133 (27%)
Lab: 27630 (57%)
LDem: 4264 (9%)
Oth: 1995 (4%)
MAJ: 14497 (30%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

2015 Candidates
SIMON FELL (Conservative) Born Lancashire. Educated at Warwick University.
JOHN WOODCOCK (Labour) See above.
CLIVE PEAPLE (Liberal Democrat) Retired headteacher.
ROBERT O`HARA (Green) Small businessman and former teacher.
IAN JACKSON (Independent)
Comments - 197 Responses on “Barrow & Furness”
  1. I don’t quite know what will happen to Labour in 2020 yet, as it is clearly still far too early to draw too many conclusions- but I would have guessed that Corbyn will maybe struggle to stop the Tories getting a majority of at least 30, and at the top end of his ambitions will probably be to get a Hung Parliament which would benefit him and the SNP I would have guessed.

  2. It’s just pointless to say that without knowing how Corbyn is going to lead (looking for consensus, or full tilt leftwards?), what the economic situation is going to be in 2020, what will happen with the Euro-referendum, and who will be leading the Tories by then. You seem to be just assuming that none of these things will have a huge impact.

  3. Hence the caveat…

  4. Given that predicting five years ahead is totally meaningless, the caveat is by far the most worthwhile part of your post.

  5. What I’m trying to say is I did say at the beginning of my post that it was way too early to say FOR CERTAIN- that was the caveat.

  6. And just because I didn’t mention any of those things you refer to does not mean I am blissfully unaware of the likelihood of such things maybe happening.

  7. Are you making a prediction or not? Saying that, if Corbyn wins, it’s possible that the best he can do is keeping the Tories to a slightly increased majority, or maybe a hung parliament, or maybe none of these things is hardly telling us much.

  8. Simon – It doesn’t matter how Corbyn leads the party… Whether from the centre-left, left, extreme left

    The English electorate will have already made up their minds about him. He will lose badly. And for those few people who haven’t made up their minds the Tories have plentiful ammunition.

    but then again I may be completely wrong and Britain will leave NATO, abolish our armed forces and hike taxes to 60%

    Even 25% for Labour at the next election would be a disaster and lead to dozens of losses.

  9. ‘The English electorate will have already made up their minds about him. He will lose badly. And for those few people who haven’t made up their minds the Tories have plentiful ammunition.’

    That’s right

    Recent history shows us that when opposition parties elect leaders to satisfy their base – although in the case of Corbyn I’m not even sure Labour are doing that – they tend to suffer at the polls, and that’s usually regardless of how poorly the current government is performing

    Notwithstanding the political effects of Falklands War, the first Thatcher government’s domestic policies were deeply unpopular and yet she got back in in a landslide victory against a left-wing Labour Party led by Michael Foot and standing on a political platform almost identical to that Corbyn is advocating today – 32 years later

    Likewise, Duncan Smith’s stint as leader coincided with 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror, where Blair’s approach in backing American military action wherever they deemed it fit – first Afghanistan, then Iraq – was deeply unpopular with voters from all sides of the political divide, and yet IDS was unable to make any headway with the Tories flat lining on 30%.

    If Labour elect Corbyn on Saturday you don’t have to be Einstein to work out they will go the same way – and what should worry Labour most is that goaded by this the Tories might be tempted to pursue policies they wouldn’t otherwise dream of if they had an effective and popular opposition party against them

  10. I’m sorry Tim but what you’ve just posted isn’t correct. Either you’re ignorant or a liar! Corbyn’s policies are not exactly the same as Foot’s in 1983. The 1983 manifesto committed Labour to:

    – Leave the then EEC, Corbyn has said he wants an EU that protects workers rights and is therefore against what some Tories want UK withdrawal from the Social Chapter. Boris Johnson said this is what he wants!
    – Nationalise all FTSE100 companies, Corbyn wants to renationalise the railways and electricity companies. Most European countries have nationalised railways that are more efficient and therefore cost less than ours. Australia, one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world has nationalised electricity companies.

    Also you keep banging on about the Tories bringing in massively right wing policies because of a “weak” opposition under Corbyn but you don’t deny these would be deeply unpopular so would be counter productive. If the Tories did privatise the NHS, one of the policies you suggested they might implement because of a “weak” opposition, a turd on a stick could lead the Labour Party and the Tories would still lose!

    Corbyn is popular with young people and is the only candidate capable of winning seats back in Scotland judging by the evidence presented by the academics on the recent BBC Parliament programme, “Who won the UK General Election and why?” I wouldn’t be so confident of a Tory 2020 win particularly as people haven’t felt their tax credit cuts yet and as Vince Cable said to Andrew Marr on Sunday the economy is only superficially strong.

  11. tim jones,

    The problem for the Tories in the 2000’s in relation to IDS and Iraq was the fact IDS backed military action on the terms that Blair initiated! IDS was clearly out of his depth and even Conservatives were worried about voting for him should he have lasted to 2005. Interestingly IDS seems to have ideological purity at the top of his list when pursuing policies on welfare that will repel middle of the road tory voters.

    Indeed, my observations of the sanctioning policy of jobseekers allowance recipients leads me to believe the sooner IDS is removed from DWP the better.

    Corbyn has a perfect storm coming in the guise of a new recession whose roots are in the far east. If the economy dips into recession who says People’s QE would not be popular, the only downside to it in my opinion would be the fact that in a global market you would experience significant leakage.

    I do think that some of Corbyn’s previous viewpoints on International relations and defence policy are ill advised but then again Britain is not the major player it was even 30 years ago in some respects. The voters who fought in world war 2 have mostly died and the memory of Britain as a great power has diminished. With a second Falkland’s war unlikely I do not believe a watered down Corbyn defence policy would be such a problem as Labour’s defence policy circa 1983.

  12. There’s some minor differences between Corbyn and Foot but they both essentially speak to an increasingly narrow segment of the electorate – way too narrow to get elected

    I’d argue today’s electorate is considerably to the Right of that in 1983 – and the post war ideals of egalitarianism and paternalism are sadly dead. Both rich and poor have become disillusioned with the whole welfare state and ideas like a flat tax and even privatising the health service would have considerably more support than any socialist would dare admit.

    As somebody who personally strongly opposes both ideas it gives me no pleasure in saying in but the British electorate, specifically the English electorate is increasingly Right Wing – another reason why Corbyn would go down so badly

  13. @apollocyclops36 Corbyn’s views of international relations and people of extremist viewpoints he has associated himself with are far, far more than ill advised they are extremely dangerous especially if he becomes leader of the opposition and thus a potential prime minister. These views alone are completely and utterly out of whack with mainstream public opinion and will likely alienate everyone who is not a die hard left winger. The media will not let the public forget this, they only reason they are being quiet at the moment is they are crossing there fingers and hoping Labour sleepwalk over the electoral cliff, its the calm before the media storm beginning this Saturday.

    I do think left wingers are kidding themselves when they talk about ‘Corbynmania’ and how he is ‘immensely popular’. While this may be true of the Labour base it is far from true of the electorate at large. It also most isn’t true of the PLP who will seek to undermine him at every turn, I guess payback for him defying the whip all those times, what goes around comes around I guess. I wonder what Corbyn will do at PMQs with the loyal support of precious few in the chamber, should be an interesting watch.

  14. I don’t think Corbyn is the ideal candidate, but I think that the mainstream analysis is both lazy and one-sided.

    There are very substantial risks for Labour in opting for what you might call a continuity approach. It should be noted that Labour lost ground both to parties on its left (SNP, Greens) and to the right (UKIP, Tories). They only avoided an absolutely catastrophic result because of the collapse of the Lib Dems. That suggests to me, at least, that the problem is more than just one of exacrly where Labour should position itself ideologically. If they move to the left or right somewhat, but everything else is the same, I don’t think they can expect a radically better result. I can’t see the likes of Burnham coming up with much beyond the same old stuff reheated again.

    I think a lot of the problem is related to the question of what Labour stands for nowadays. Is it just to be broadly like the Tories, but being a bit nicer to people who are struggling, or is it more than that? If so, what is it? Most people could give you a pretty good idea of what the Tories stand for – cutting tax and spending less, sceptical of Europe, pro-business etc. I think they could do much the same for UKIP, the SNP or the Greens, especially if any of those parties are attractive to them. I’m not sure that they could for Labour, and I think there would be much greater variety in those answers that you do get for Labour. I think a lot of the appeal of Corbyn is that he has answers to these sorts of questions. To an extent, Liz Kendall does too, but the Labour Party as a whole doesn’t like her answers. Cooper and Burnham don’t even seem to think that there are issues to be discussed here.

  15. ‘To an extent, Liz Kendall does too, but the Labour Party as a whole doesn’t like her answers.’

    She seems to the only candidate who understands the British electorate and how the Labour Party is perceived by much of it – but as you say she seems to be disliked by those in her party almost as much as Blair or Mandelson as her answers aren’t the ones Labour wants to hear

    She deserves better although I’m not sure the Labour Party does

  16. Well, that leads to a different question, doesn’t it? If the electorate don’t think the same things as you do, are you better to try and persuade them that you are right, or to change your mind to match the electorate? Obviously, in the real world, you need to do a bit of both, but I think that one of the problems the mainstream Labour candidates (including Kendall) have had is that it isn’t clear to most people on which areas they’d seek to lead public opinion rather than moving to match it.

  17. Kendall understands the electorate and how Labour needs to moderate itself for vast swathes of the public for whom Corbyn (outside that echo chamber of his most ardent fans), but she has run such an uninspiring campaign. She sounds like a policy wonk or think tank researcher when she should be conveying New Labour values in ways that are actually understandable and which ordinary people can relate to.

    Those Newsnight focus groups a few weeks ago showed that even if Corbyn (who they all disliked) wasn’t on the ballot she’d have a struggle as they didn’t like her tone despite many talking up Blair. Cooper was the one who they liked most and ironically she is one of the two ‘continuity’ candidates, again suggesting that she’s much, much better at convincing voters than Miliband was.

  18. Of course a big part of the reason Corbyn is doing well is because of the uninspiring campaigns and if truth be told personalities of the other candidates

    Cooper and Burnham are too similar to Milliband – and look certain to go along the same cautious, left-wing direction remembering to criticise New Labour for brownie points from their own side, despite the fact they were both part of it

    Whilst Labour are unlikely to go backwards under either these two they seem unlikely to make any real progress either


    I did respond to your posts last night bit for some reason it’s ‘waiting for moderation’ so watch this space…

  19. Corbyn’s popularity varies considerably across the country. My guess is that Labour goes into the 2020 election under Corbyn they will do badly in Barrow cmpared to other seat (for instance in much of London).

    If the LibDems adopt the plan to replace Trident with a cheaper deterrent, pending mutlilateral disarmament, it will not help them in this seat, where the town more or less depends on bullding Trident and attack submarines.

  20. I can imagine the Tories taking this over the nuclear issue in 2020. Realistically the limits of Liberal aspirations here are probably a held deposit.

  21. Had to laugh at Frederic’s comment. We have been “pending multilateral disarmament” since the 1950s, and we shall be no nearer to it when all of us are dead & buried. Trident is necessary if only not to pile the burden of European defence entirely onto America’s shoulders.

  22. I’ll laugh with you, H. Hemmelig. I was reporting the proposed LibDem policy, not approving of it.

    Mind you, the assumption that we will all be “dead and buried” does suggest that the treaties a generation ago to limit nuclear armaments have had a considerable amount of success. In the 1960s, many people were fearing vaporisation.

  23. Yes your last sentence is very true, indeed the fear of vaporisation lasted well into the early 1980s….if I remember correctly there was renewed fear of nuclear war in the 1980-85 period, with Reagan’s hard line rhetoric worrying many. I vividly recall watching Threads as a terrified schoolboy at around this time. The emergence of Gorbachev is what thawed this in the late 80s and eventually led to the end of the cold war.

  24. ‘with Reagan’s hard line rhetoric worrying many.’

    And that’s all it was – rhetoric

    Although Gorbachev was the catalyst, I think Reagan played a huge part in ending the Cold War – but not in the way he likes to portray it with his tough talk and arms build up, but by actually going over to Russia and holding a host of constructive meetings with Gorbachev and actually listening him

    Reagan was known for trusting his own instincts over that of his advisers. I don’t think Jimmy Carter or George H Bush would have approached it like that

  25. “Yes your last sentence is very true, indeed the fear of vaporisation lasted well into the early 1980s….if I remember correctly there was renewed fear of nuclear war in the 1980-85 period, with Reagan’s hard line rhetoric worrying many. I vividly recall watching Threads as a terrified schoolboy at around this time. The emergence of Gorbachev is what thawed this in the late 80s and eventually led to the end of the cold war.”

    9 weeks at number one in the summer of 1984 for Two Tribes by Frankie Goes To Hollywood: “Mine is the last voice you will ever hear. Don’t be alarmed.” Words read by the same person who did the government’s nuclear meltdown information videos, Patrick Allen.

  26. Unlike many seats where a reduced Lab majority was merely down to Lab>LD in 2005 or Lab>UKIP in 2010/2015, this is the only seat in the NW where the Tory vote increased at every General since ’97. It may go Tory next time even without Corbyn.

  27. I think it’s extremely possible that all but Westmoreland & Lonsdale could go Conservative and remain that way. Barrow will definitely go first, Workington and Copeland could take another election although I wouldn’t be surprised if they fall in 2020.

  28. …In terms of Cumbria seats.

  29. Well Cumbria will be reduced to 5 seats in the next boundary review, something like:

    Carlisle (semi-safe Tory).

    Mid Cumbria (safe Tory)

    Workington and Whitehaven (semi-safe Labour)

    South West Cumbria (Tory marginal)

    Westmorland and Lonsdale (safe Lib Dem)

  30. The politicians of Barrow ought to take careful note of what Osborne has just said about Ministry of Defence responsibility for replacing Trident.

    Too many right-wing Labour politicians, as well as Tory and UKIP ones, seem to assume that Barrow has a god-given right to build bad quality submarines at huge expense to stop this one-horse town foing belly-up.

    The importance and cost of a Trident replacement is such that the Prime Minister and Chancellor can snd should be quite prepared to sacrifice a constituency at the back end of the sticks to ensure that they have a nuclear deterrent (given that that is what they want) delivered on time and to budget and fit for purpose.

    If I were Osborne I would give serious consideration to procuring the trident replacement from a start-up company, arranging for it to be built at somewhere like Cammeel Laird in Birkenhead, or at a new shipyard in the North-East or possibly Cornwall (Falmouth has an excellent harbour).

    Nobody respects politicians who try to browbeat the Government into huge projects that don’t work for political reasons, as successive MPs for Barrow seem to me to have done. They ought instead to promote positive and workable proposals for economic development.

  31. Large numbers of people seem to take the complacent attitude that there is no plausibe target for the nuclear deterrent and not conceivable circumstances in which it could be uses.

    However, we are now havin a suggestion that Middle-eastern terrorists might use a “dirty” nuclear bomb against the West.

    Could I therefore hypotesise that the like enemies against whom the United KIngdom might consider a nuclear stricke (and a pre-emptive one at that) are Syr.

  32. Large numbers of people seem to take the complacent attitude that there is no plausibe target for the nuclear deterrent and not conceivable circumstances in which it could be used.

    However, we are now having a suggestion that Middle-eastern terrorists might use a “dirty” nuclear bomb against the West.
    Could I therefore hypothesise that the likely enemies against whom the United KIngdom might consider a nuclear stricke (and a pre-emptive one at that) are Syria, Iraq and (in plausble scenarios) Iran and Saudi Arabia. The difficulties the UK has in attacking these areas by conventional means could increase the temptation to use nuclear weapons.

    Can I point out that the the occasion to use nuclear weapons did arise, it is 100% essential that they should work, but that it is far from clear that we should have confidence in the builders of our curretnt nuclear weapons to have given a system that works this reliably.

    I cannot emphasise strongly enough that I for one would be utterly horrified if the UK used nuclear weapons, and expect that the vast majority of people would feel the same. However, the extremissm of current terrorists is such that we should not rule anything out absolutely.

    One importaqnt implication of this comment is that the UK needs to have effective conventional weapons with which we could deal with such scenarios, At oresent we fall far short in relation to such investment.

  33. In the third paragraph of my revious post I importantly left out the word “if”. My apologies.

  34. surely if Corbyn manages to survive till 2020 this seat and probably copeland as well must be a writeoff because of the Nuclear issue?

  35. If Corbyn is Labour leader in 2020 a fair few seats in the North would be a write-off for Labour even without the nuclear issue. Corby is the candidate of London and of middle class university seats.

  36. Unless the local MPs can defy the party line and make that properly understood. Jack Cunningham held Copeland all the way through the 80s.

  37. True. Although what’s worse/different from then is that a chunk of Labour voters have now realised that Labour is no longer ‘the working class’ Party.

    It may be due to Kinnock then compared with Corbyn now, or now that they have the option of voting UKIP or just staying at home (turnout being lower now than the ’80s).

    It really is remarkable how the Stoke seats and some in Yorkshire and Derbyshire will be listed as targets/defensive seats in 2020, when compared with the outcomes in those constituencies 25 – 30 years ago.

  38. Lancs Observer, it is not so remarkable that Labour are looking vulnerable in Stoke seats, and perhaps some in Yorkshire and Derbyshire, if one looks at how the party seems to have assumed, and may well still assume, they have a God-given right to win there.

  39. It is outrageous that Cameron has announced that the price of the replacement submarines for Trident has risen from £25 billion to £31 billion.

    The defence establishment assume time and time again that they can get away with pushing up the prices, and then delivering a bad quality product late. It is actually the repeatedly disgraceful quality of Britain’s weaponry which is the worst of these three scandals.

    Cameron must make 100% clear immediately that the £31 billion is an absoutely cash limited sum. If the manufacturers cannot keep within this limit they will have either to cut the number of submarines or produce a cheaper product, such as submarine launched cruise missiles. Also, the senior managers involved will never work for the Government in any capactity again and will have to hand over their pensions as compensation.

    If the current Trident submarines are anything as like as bad as I think,their builders should not be allowed even to tender for their replacements.

    It is essential that the Government puts its foot down on this project right from the start..

  40. I now see that one of the reasons the Government is giving for new delays to the Trident replacement, and for increases in its cost, is increased complexity in the project.

    Could I point out that complexity is in itself a major defect in a military project? If each critical part has a one in a million chance of failing that may sound fine, but if there are a million parts in a submarine and its Trident missiles then the chance of the submarine and/or its missiles failing on the day is much greater than one in a million.

    World War II battleships may have had their faults, but at least they were comparatively simple. Essentially they had big cones filled with explosive sitting on top of several hundredweight of propellant. When the time came, somebody put a match to the propellant.

    Can voters, particularly in one industry towns like Barrow, find their way to look at the realities of projects rather than just their symbolic values?

  41. They probably look no further than the effects on their own livelihoods and that of the community (which is understandable). As one resident of the area told me recently “Barrow is made up of engineers and chavs; if Trident goes we’ll just be left with the chavs.”

  42. There is an interestiing article in today’s “Independent on Sunday” title “Underwater drones could scupper the Trident nuclear programme (27 December 2015, page 5). It is transparently based on a report by the British American Security Information Council.(Basic).

    the report says that there are rapid advances in detection systems as a result of which even silent submarines will be detectable underwater. There is also a revolution in undersea drone technology as a result of which “swarms” of undersea drones, much cheaper and more effective than the current nuclear submarines, can be produuced.

    There are major concerns about the expenditure of over £30 billion on submarines unlikely to enter service until the 2030s which will cause military instabiltiy which being very likely to be uselss by the time it is buit, if indeed it would not already be obsilete if it were introduced tomorrow.

    All of this in line with previous posts I have made on this thread.

    Basic are concerned abouth the lack of informed public debate about Trident.. Let’s help to put this right.

    Finally, Paul D suggest that the electors here probably look no further than the effect on their own livelihoods. He is almost certainly right. But the good (????) people of Barrow need to realise that they are considerably less relevant to the modern economy than a buch of coal miners. The chances that politicians will spend in excess of £30 billions bailing out a single constituency are probably about zero.

  43. But it isn’t only about bailing out a single constituency, even if you don’t believe Trident is an effective deterrent (I do as it happens but can appreciate the contrary argument). Electorally telling the voters of middle England that you want to weaken Britain’s defences is suicide.

  44. I believe that replacing Trident with anything approaching like-for-like would massively weaken Britain’s defences, for the reasons stated in the IoS article. If it ever came to the crunch, it would be like fighting the Battle of Britain with First World War biplanes, and spending in excess of £30 billion for the “privilege” of doing so.

    Another analogy would be the expenditure of huge amounts of money by the French on the Maginot line. This was proved in 1940 to be a complete waste of money. The Germans not only outflanked the Line but also proved their guns could pierce the armour of the French forts.

    By the way, it is not just whether Trident is an effective deterrrent now (I personally suspect that it is not, but we are hardly likely to be told). It is whether Trident will still be an effective deterrent in the 2030s, and indeed 2050s. I think this exceedingly unlikely.

  45. The maginot line was a big success. The problem was the strategy to not continue the line to the sea was a gigantic failure.

  46. I agree that the Maginot line would have been a formidable obstacle if extended to the sea.

    However,I understand that the Germans did, after they had effectively won the batle, allso breach the Maginot Line by direct assault, morfe or less as an exercise. They also took the forts in Belgium at Eban Emmal by a daring parachute landing.

    The lesson, not learned with Trident, is not to invest in hugely expensive and inflexible weapons systems that can be made obsolete almost overnight by technologically more advanced weapon systems.

    By the way, does the UK have a defence system that could prevent our country being attakced by B2 bombers in the event of the US turning hostile?

  47. Labour adopting a policy in favour of trident renewal wouldn’t just be case of them saving this seat. As I’ve mentioned before, as far as Labour are concerned trident is seen by the electorate as a test of their soundness on national security in general. Coming out against it raises doubts about their competence in that area that go far beyond the narrow issue of the nuclear deterrent.

    In my view it’s something they simply cannot afford to do, irrespective of how the party views the pros and cons of trident.

  48. I think the damage is already done.

    Even if Labour somehow manage to come back out in favour of Trident it will take them many years to undo the reputation they’ve put on themselves on defence over the past half year. The experience of Kinnock shows that the mistrust rubs off on the next leader as well even if he does not share the unilateralist views of his predecessor.

  49. To be honest I think this has to be seen in the context of wider Labour party divisions and has to be debated in an open way to minimise the internal divisions and political capital SNP and the Tories will try and make from it.

    It’s also good to see pro trident Andy Burnham being honest about this.

    If the ‘damage is indeed done’ then a debate won’t do any further damage as Trident is certain to go through anyway even if every single Labour MP voted against trident.

    I’m still not convinced Trident is important as the economy and other issues but I admit Corbyn may well come undone on his wackier ideas on NATO and the Falklands which is more likely to be his undoing pre 2020.

    I think the idea that things would be hunky dory if Labour had simply elected a pro trident leader in September is a bit naive as well, even in Scotland Kezia Dugdale and Ian Murray would still hold diametrically opposed views.

    I should add that I don’t think it’s worth labour tearing itself apart over even though I’m leaning towards a rejection of trident.

    I agree Barrow may well be almost certainly be lost now in 2020 now anyway.

  50. The issue isn’t Trident per se – many people across the political spectrum are sceptical of it. It is the fact that with Corbyn & McDonnell the issue is a proxy for their wider views on defence & terrorism. Of course it wouldn’t all be hunky dory with a pro Trident leader but it would be hunkier and dorier than under Corbyn.

    After Corbyn has gone the party will have to spend the best part of a decade trying to persuade the public it wouldn’t get rid of nuclear weapons unilaterally, give back the Falklands, talk to IS, support the IRA etc etc etc. That’s even if the next leader wants to do that…..if they are a Corbyn protégé they won’t.

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)