West Bromwich East

2015 Result:
Conservative: 9347 (24.9%)
Labour: 18817 (50.2%)
Lib Dem: 751 (2%)
Green: 628 (1.7%)
UKIP: 7949 (21.2%)
MAJORITY: 9470 (25.3%)

Category: Very safe Labour seat

Geography: West Midlands. Part of the Sandwell council area.

Main population centres: West Bromwich.

Profile: The eastern part of Sandwell, in the centre of the West Midlands conurbation and seperated from Birmingham to the east by the Sandwell Valley country park. This is mostly a gritty, working class area with high unemployment and a significant number of ethnic minority voters (most notably the Sikh community, one of the largest in the country). The south of the seat is made up of West Bromwich itself, to the north east there are some more middle-class areas around Charlmont and Grove Vale while at the far north are a number of large municipal housing developments like Yew Tree and Friar Park.

Politics:


Current MP
TOM WATSON (Labour) Born 1967. Educated at King Charles I School Kidderminster and Hull University. Former National Political Officer for the AEEU. First elected as MP for West Bromwich East in 2001. Government whip 2004-2006, Under-Secretary of state for Defence 2006. Parliamentary secretary at the Cabinet Office 2007-2009. Deputy Chair of the Labour party 2011-2013. Deputy leader of the Labour party since 2015. Watson was seen as a key supporter of Gordon Brown, and resigned from government in September 2006 in order to call on Tony Blair to step down as leader, in what was seen as an abortive Brownite coup. In recent years he has led the criticism of News International over the phone hacking scandal, writing a book on the scandal called Dial M for Murdoch. He served as Labours campaign head under Ed Miliband, but resigned in 2013 during controversy over Unite`s intervention in the Falkirk candidate selection.
Past Results
2010
Con: 10961 (29%)
Lab: 17657 (47%)
LDem: 4993 (13%)
BNP: 2205 (6%)
Oth: 2134 (6%)
MAJ: 6696 (18%)
2005*
Con: 8089 (23%)
Lab: 19741 (56%)
LDem: 4386 (12%)
BNP: 2329 (7%)
Oth: 967 (3%)
MAJ: 11652 (33%)
2001
Con: 8487 (26%)
Lab: 18250 (56%)
LDem: 4507 (14%)
UKIP: 835 (3%)
Oth: 585 (2%)
MAJ: 9763 (30%)
1997
Con: 10126 (24%)
Lab: 23710 (57%)
LDem: 6179 (15%)
MAJ: 13584 (33%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

Demographics
2015 Candidates
OLIVIA SECCOMBE (Conservative)
TOM WATSON (Labour) See above.
FLO CLUCAS (Liberal Democrat) Former teacher. Liverpool councillor 1986-2012, Cheltenham councillor since 2014. Contested Crosby 1992, Liverpool Garston 1997, Knowsley North and Sefton East 2005, Knowsley 2010.
STEVE LATHAM (UKIP)
BARRY LIM (Green)
Links
Comments - 176 Responses on “West Bromwich East”
  1. Tristan – that’s true.

    On the deceased’s relatives – of course, they have a financial interest, as the victims may sue those estates for damages.

    The BBC have been criticised by the Met as their Panorama programme may prevent other victims from coming forward. But BBC News failed top report this.

    Only the BBC would have Brittan’s brother and cousin on for two consecutive days criticising. Of course, to date, 89% of paedophiles charged in the past 5 years have been convicted including BBC national and local radio DJs etc.

    Yes, FS – Soames was hardly subtle and I agree unwise, given that an ex Church of England Bishop jailed last week was simply moved and housed by the Prince of Wales. There are also several Royal Household employees who have been jailed or named etc.

  2. PS. I hear that 2 MPs who stood down in May were questioned by police under caution, yesterday. So this is far from over.

    Although rather than Daily Mail v Watson/Danczuk spats I’d much prefer the CPS to deal with the matter, or for Goddard to hurry up.

  3. You say that but nevertheless you are happy to spread around, and give credence to, whatever rumours are floating about or whatever Exaro News comes up with.

    If we are serious about people being properly brought to book for historic offences of this kind – and I am sure there such people – then sensationalist politicians and journalists need to butt out and senior police officers need to do their jobs diligently and properly rather than grandstanding and trying to fabricate evidence.

  4. But of course it’s only been the Mail, Harvey Proctor, the BBC or rogue coppers who are attempting to leak info and therefore prevent prosecutions by tarnishing the public with details to prevent Jury trials.

    Exaro has always been very careful not to do that.

    Indeed Proctor’s statement may aid in his downfall but that’s as much as I should say.

    I agree Parliamentary privilege is a last resort and should not be abused, but I suspect in a decade people will be thanking Danczuk et al once we see the full picture.

    Of course 90% of the accused will protest their innocence. So did Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Fred Talbot plus 650 other paedophiles jailed. 32 accused and 8 victims have also committed suicide before sentencing.

  5. Oh pull the other one – if this vast shadowy conspiracy is trying to prevent people being pursued it’s doing a remarkably poor job of it.

  6. “Of course 90% of the accused will protest their innocence. So did Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, Fred Talbot plus 650 other paedophiles jailed. 32 accused and 8 victims have also committed suicide before sentencing.”

    But I’m not sure what the connection is between these people and the “Westminster paedophile ring”…..so why is it even remotely necessary to mention them unless it is deliberately to tar the accused with the same brush in the public mind as those already convicted.

    I’m pretty sure no paedophile politician would have invited Fred Talbot or Stuart Hall to their parties, Clifford maybe, though his tastes were 100% heterosexual so very different from the allegations we are discussing here.

  7. Runnymede – thankfully, no more. That a small clique did a pretty good job throughout the 1970s and 1980s is no longer widely disputed. Of course, most ex MPs/ex-BBC now say it was mere omission rather than malfeasance. That’s for Goddard to determine.

    Misconduct in public office and loss of pension could happen [but even re Hillsborough it’ll be rare]

    Waiting ’til they’re dead satisfies no one.

    HH – My point was we’ve begun on a journey. It’s just a shame those convicted do not yet include an MP or Peer.
    [Not sure the relevance, but I’m not going to list which VIPs socialised with each other, but certainly all of the above did with MPs. But equally that doesn’t equal conspiracy. Rather it says it was allowed too go on]

    The MPs listed were almost all married but that doesn’t mean they were heterosexual. I have nothing against the many not out gay MPs. It’s just a shame that that meant – even more so in the ’70s and ’80s – they were also unlikely to report colleagues abusing ‘little boys’ in the words of Tim Fortescue, as they also used rent boys.

    I agree that a witch hunt would be wrong. The culture in the ’70s and it’s ghosts Ned addressing. If MPs and Peers have nothing to fear, let the truth come forth.

  8. Michael White has just written a very good piece in his Guardian blog on this.

  9. ‘let the truth come forth’

    If the standard bearers of ‘truth’ are going to be people like Tom Watson then forget it.

    Even if we had a perfectly impartial and carefully run investigation going on, we would be most unlikely to get more than a part of the truth given the time that has passed and the nature of the evidence.

    But we don’t have that.

    Instead we have politically and financially motivated individuals stirring things up, the police engaged in fishing trips and vulnerable people being exploited along the way.

    For every bit of truth we may uncover we will also get a hefty dose of falsehood and with it miscarriages of justice and irreparable damage to reputations.

    This investigation is now so tainted by the antics of some of those connected to it that it risks becoming completely discredited.

  10. But you keep repeating that time has elapsed as if that’s also the fault of victims. The very fact it’s taken this long is a failing, but not theirs.

    Many did indeed report the crimes and Statements were taken. The reason we are having the Goddard Inquiry is in part due to so many retired coppers have come forward and said, “I witnessed X”, “we had Y in custody but were called to release him”, “two men from Special Branch arrived and took my file away” and so on.

    I tend not to believe conspiracy theories, merely because the State in the UK isn’t competent enough half of the time. If you don’t believe any MP was involved, you shouldn’t be afraid to hear the answers, however difficult the questions.

  11. I’m in agreement with Lancsobserver. I think the attitude towards the decades long abuse of children at the height of British power by members of this forum to be woefully naïve. Note what the Tory Party’s response was on Leon Brittan’s death… deathly silence.

    This is probably the next massive scandal in the making. It will dwarf MPs expenses by a long, long way and rock the establishment to its core. I really do wonder what happened to the Dicken’s dossier…

  12. As much as I dislike the politics of Watson and Danczuk the public will thank them in years to come.

  13. In the end, this is too big for Commissions, law suits and so on.

    The answer has to be: –

    DON’T VOTE FOR THE,M. OR ANYBODY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM

    I never cease to despair at the very large number of people who treat as minor picadillos sustained actions that have totally ruined many people’s lives.

    PlEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THEM OR THEIR PARTIES.

  14. Lancs – please don’t put words into my mouth. I am not suggesting for a moment that the passage of time is the ‘fault’ of any potential victims. Only that it has occurred, and is a problem.

    My concern here is 100% with due process. If we abandon that, we open the door to injustices just as great as those which are alleged to have occurred in these particular cases – and not only for people touched by these cases but for others in the future also.

    It is not right to have investigation and trial by self-interested politicians and others with partisan intent or financial/self-aggrandising agendas. And it is not right to have the police compounding any errors they have made in the past with new transgressions now. And yet that is what has been happening, it seems.

  15. Is it just me or has Tom Watson lost the plot? I don’t think there are many ways of interpreting his references to “Trotskyists twisting the arms of young members” without concluding he’s off his meds – and I’m no Corbynista.

    He must be working for Portland Communications. You can read about it in the Canary 😉

  16. I thought so as well, there’s unsubstantiated claims and there’s that…

    I seriously wonder how many young Corbyn supporters Watson has ever met.

  17. He must have met hundreds. He had an incredibly professional deputy leadership campaign in which he met thousands upon thousands of members. At least some of them will have been young Corbyn supporters.

    I feel for him though. He has somehow ended up being cast in the role of the glue that holds the party together. Not an easy task.

  18. With the greatest respect to him he’s not doing a great job, he’s been pretty open about wanting Corbyn gone which is hardly endearing him to the Corbyn friendly MP’s and the membership. Had he remained genuinely neutral I’d feel sorry for him but when he’s coming out with drivel like he did in the Guardian?!?!

  19. IMO, Watson is one of the very few potential candidates who could perhaps have defeated Corbyn had he chosen to challenge him.

    The others-

    Alan Johnson
    Harriet Harman
    Margaret Beckett
    Ed Miliband

    For the life of me I cannot understand why the PLP, having decided to try to remove Corbyn, condemned themselves to certain defeat by putting up a total nobody as challenger.

    Watson comes out of all this very badly. Not only does he look like a coward for flunking the challenge himself, but his reputation as a fixer is surely also in tatters.

  20. Why do you think he could have won HH? Has he done the Farron handshake thing in the Labour party?

  21. I think he would have had a far better chance than a plastic nobody like Owen Smith. Just by virtue of his status, respect in the party, mandate as elected deputy leader, exposure of his campaigns on hacking / paedophilia etc etc. That’s not of course to say he would have won but he would have put up a stronger fight.

  22. HH: But, with the exception of Ed Miliband, those candidates are all tainted by their association with Blair. Candidates you personally think would be good leaders do not necessarily hold the same sway over the Jeremy Corbyn brigade.

  23. ‘But, with the exception of Ed Miliband, those candidates are all tainted by their association with Blair’

    For being in his cabinet?

    As much as I might personally dislike Blair and, like most voters, find the way he has conducted himself since leaving office as morally indefensible, is is not worth mentioning that he twice made history in winning not two but three successive election victories for Labour, the first two with a landslide – something Corbyn could never achieve even if he lived for 1,000 years.

    It’s hard to fathom the Left’s obsession with wanting to distance themselves as much as they possibly can from Labour’s most successful ever leader – especially as they flat line in the late 20s in the polls.

  24. “But, with the exception of Ed Miliband, those candidates are all tainted by their association with Blair.”

    Certainly not true in Harman’s case. Blair sacked her in 1998.

    “Candidates you personally think would be good leaders do not necessarily hold the same sway over the Jeremy Corbyn brigade.”

    Miliband, Beckett, Harman and Watson have all done well enough in past elections to be elected to the leadership or deputy leadership so they have the popularity at least with older members and the nous to know how to win internal party elections. Johnson also came within a whisker of being elected deputy leader.

  25. Only if the PLP have the brains to wind their necks in. Otherwise they will get the blame, at least amongst the pro-Corbyn supporters.

  26. I think many/most of his supporters feel that he won the leadership fairly and squarely, and he deserves a chance to see what he can do at the 2020 election. If he is relentlessly undermined, they’re going to see an election defeat as not being his fault.

  27. ‘If he is relentlessly undermined, they’re going to see an election defeat as not being his fault.’

    That argument doesn’t cut it with me and is a bit like the Brexiters blaming those who supported Remain if things go tits up after Brexit for not getting behind the country

    Corbyn did win fairly and squarely but when everything points to Labour going down to a huge defeat at the next election, surely that must be foremost in the minds of any Labour supporter

  28. @Tim Jones Without meaning this in a rude way, whether the argument cuts it with you is pretty irrelevant, assuming you aren’t part of the Labour selectorate. At present, pro-Corbyn people appear to make up a majority of that, and unless the moderate part of the party can work out how to break up or outnumber the Corbynite coalition, they’re not going to win a lot of internal party elections, including leadership ones.

    I don’t think Corbyn’s doing a good job, and I don’t think he’ll win the next election, but the PLP’s plan to get rid of him appears to be largely magical thinking and a refusal to engage with any of the reasons why he was elected.

  29. @Max Again, that’s a reasonable position to take, but if you can’t convince a decent proportion of the pro-Corbyn people that you are right, then they will win any subsequent leadership election. Saying that he can’t win elections is fine, but if the PLP have done very little to help him do so, they don’t speak with a whole lot of credibility to his supporters.

  30. IDS won fairly and squarely but the party knew he was a dud leader and ousted him.

    He won with a bigger mandate from his own party than Corbyn – outpolling the brilliant Ken Clarke by almost 2:1.

    The Tories did the right thing by ditching him simply because had they not they probably would have suffered a third successive landslide defeat – and I don’t remember the grassroots who elected him protesting too much – despite having the dislikeable and scarcely more electable Michael Howard forced upon them

    ‘I would argue that electoral defeat goes a long way in wiping away the credibility that a Corbyn-style mandate confers a leader.’
    &
    ‘if you can’t convince a decent proportion of the pro-Corbyn people that you are right, then they will win any subsequent leadership election’

    I can’t help thinking that electoral defeat no matter what the size won’t have any effect on those who have put Corbyn there as if they gave that credence to things like electability they would not have put him there in the first place

  31. This being very political but not, apparently, wanting power is curious. I suppose it’s a kind of ideological purity. Of course, some Tories suffered from it in the recent past – obsession with the EU to the exclusion of anything else and no attempt to appeal to the centre ground.
    It reminds me of Tony Benn who after Labour’s “longest suicide note” election defeat in 1983 said that for the first time however many million it was people had voted for a solidly left-wing programme.

  32. “IDS won fairly and squarely but the party knew he was a dud leader and ousted him.”

    Tory MPs ousted him, not the wider party. If the Tories had the same rules as Labour today, they might not have been able to do so. IDS had a great deal of support amongst the membership right to the very end. He could well have won another members ballot had one been held.

  33. Well yes, kind of picks up on my previous point. There were clearly some Tories who didn’t want to win.

  34. It’s clear that the rule forcing a Tory leader to stand down if he/she has lost a vote of confidence is a very sensible one, and it is simply inexplicable that Labour don’t also have this.

  35. “If the Tories hadn’t ditched IDS then the LDs’ decapitation strategy may have been more effective.”

    If the Tories had gone into the 2005 election with IDS as leader I think they would still have marginally improved their seat total, though probably with some losses to the Lib Dems as you say. The Lib Dems were most of the reason for Blair’s reduced majority in any case, helping the Tories win some Labour seats by default.

    Youngsters perhaps don’t recall how widely disliked Michael Howard was, though not derided like IDS, which I suppose would have been electorally more damaging. For a good feel of how Howard was viewed at the time, check out this excellent Rory Bremner sketch from just after the 2005 election.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH2qct8_j0

  36. Saying pro-Corbyn people don’t want power is part of the deliberate refusal to try to understand why Corbyn easily defeated three mainstream candidates that were all seen as well qualified to run for the leadership. It’s just a lazy way of saying “these people are all a bit mad, and we can ignore them and carry on with business as usual”.

  37. With the exception of Simon we are once again witnessing a group of people who neither support Corbyn or even the Labour party claiming to understand the thought process of Corbyn’s supporters. There are actually a couple of Corbynista’s on here rather than conjuring up your own conclusions based on what the media says why don’t you try asking us?

  38. Whatever their mindset, if Corbynistas think that having Corbyn as leader will win them an election – which has to be the point of democratic politics – they are as delusional and stupid as those Tories who thought the same of IDS

    But I don’t happen for one minute think either of these groups are stupid so I would hazard a guess that it must be about ideological purity

    But why don’t Simon and Rivers tell us what did motivate them?

  39. I’m not a Labour voter or a Corbynista.

  40. Talking to Rivers or Matt would probably be more enlightening than me speculating on Corbyn supporters’ motivations.

  41. Tim
    To answer your question Corbyn supporters break down into the following categories in my experience. First of all note not a single one of these groups is not interested in winning elections, more on that in each individual group though.

    First their is a tiny group of the shall we call them “Corbyn Cultists” these are the people that admire JC and everything about him, both polices and the man himself. This is the one group where the stereotypes and lazy presumptions made by the media have some truth to them, these people believe that JC’s presentational style, that holding mass rallies and appealing to peoples better nature is enough to win an election. They are very enthusiastic but also very naïve which is to be expected since most are very young and very new to politics. As I said though this group is tiny and it does want to win. If JC loses a GE this group will almost certainly dissolve into the other categories.

    Second group are the Corbyn realists, these people believe that while JC can win an election we’re currently not doing enough to win one. These people claim that JC and his team are obviously new to all this, have had to put out a barrage of internal fires and that given enough time to learn and refine themselves they could potentially cut through to the wider public. They are also firmly of the opinion that while JC is far FAR from perfect he isn’t that much worse than the likes of Owen Smith so as it is theyre happy to stick with him.

    Third group is the “reformists” and I consider myself to be somewhere in-between this group and the fourth group which I will explain in a moment. The “reformist” group is the one group where the claims of not wanting to win an election probably originate. They very much do but are pragmatic enough to admit that from the position we are in that’s going to be an uphill struggle so they’re playing the long game. I actually had a lengthy discussion with a local councillor who I would deem to be in this group and his response was to the effect of gradually changing public perceptions, waiting for the Tories to inevitably implode then striking when JC’s message is at its most potent. He also happens to think the next election is a write off (save unforeseen circumstances) and in the interim we need to reform the party, get it united on an anti austerity platform and come 2025 we’ll be in strong contention. For them JC is the means to make the party stronger in the long term rather than bowing to the moderates short term electioneering that has long term ramifications.

    Fourth group is the Corbyn sceptics and as I said I feel I’m a mix between this group and the reformists. Truth be told this group doesn’t believe JC can win an election (or rather he could but if we won it would be in spite of JC not because of him) They are wholly united behind JC’s politics but acknowledge he lacks some of the vital leadership qualities and has some skeletons in his closet that pose some serious pitfalls. They continue to support him at present because they strongly believe that given the correct circumstances and leader Labour can win on a strongly socialist anti austerity platform. They hold out hope that JC will be replaced at some point (either before the next election of after) with a more media savvy Corbynista or soft leftie who embraces JC’s program. Why are these people not supporting Owen Smith then you might ask, mainly two reasons, one he’s not seen as an improvement and second he’s not trusted, Smith’s backers are well known, they’re the people who though Milliband was too left wing and this group doesn’t believe for a second that if Smith wins he’ll stick to even half his pledges hence for the time being they’re staying with JC.

    Finally the last group and its by far the largest because its not really a group at all, more a strong theme that permeates all the other groups. That is good old fashioned socialists. People who’s opinion of JC is irrelevant (some love him, some like him some hate him) but all agree 100% with his policies and are sick of having their views elbowed out of political discourse. For them JC is just the present figurehead for their beliefs and until the establishment (the Lab party establishment in particular) start taking them seriously they will continue to support whoever best represents their views. The Lab parties response to call them idiots, Trots, entryists and try to disenfranchise them by blocking their right to vote and now talking about bringing back the electoral college just makes them more hard-line. This group is of the frim belief (and I happen to agree) that an anti austerity manifesto is not only capable of winning an election but at present is Labs BEST chance of winning an election.

  42. Thanks for the in-depth response Rivers – I certainly had no idea there were so many various factions of Corbynistas

    The one thing all those various groups seemed to have overlooked is the hostility of the press, who hold far more clout with the country at large than any of our various political parties

    There is no way someone like Rupert Murdoch or Paul Dacre would tolerate even the possibility of a Corbyn premiership. They wouldn’t – and they would do anything within their considerable power to make sure it didn’t happen – meaning Corbyn hasn’t really a chance

    You saw how The Mail went for Ed Miliband;’s Dad, who actually faught for his country against the forces the Mail were hailing 10 years earlier (The Nazis – one of the most evil political organisations the world has ever known)

    So even if one thought Corbyn would make a good PM – the chances of it are so remote, largely thanks to things entirely outside his or the Labour Party’s control

    Anti-austerity is more popular as a slogan than a collective set of policies although poll after poll show it’s not Corbyn’s economic beliefs that make him unelectable – but his views of foreign policy, national security and his inability to lead and inspire

    I could never vote for him but I do have a great deal of human sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn – he’s a decent man who is up against a lot of people from all political angles who are anything but, but even if I were minded to vote for him, I would have concluded long ago that he has absolutely no chance of winning – not in 2020 or any year thereafter

    for me that view is inescapable – no matter what political alignement you subscribe to

  43. Its all becoming rather reminiscent of the Judean People’s Front vs the People’s Front of Judea.

  44. Thanks for the in-depth response Rivers – I certainly had no idea there were so many various factions of Corbynistas

    The one thing all those various groups seemed to have overlooked is the hostility of the press, who hold far more clout with the country at large than any of our various political parties

    You saw how The Mail went for Ed Miliband;’s Dad, who actually faught for his country against the Nazis – one of the most evil political organisations the world has ever known

    So even if one thought Corbyn would make a good PM – the chances of it are so remote, largely thanks to things entirely outside his or the Labour Party’s control

    Anti-austerity is more popular as a slogan than a collective set of policies although poll after poll show it’s not Corbyn’s economic beliefs that make him unelectable – but his views of foreign policy, national security and his inability to lead and inspire

    I could never vote for him but I do have a great deal of human sympathy for Jeremy Corbyn – he’s a decent man who is up against a lot of people from all political angles who are anything but, but even if I were minded to vote for him, I would have concluded long ago that he has absolutely no chance of winning – not in 2020 or any year thereafter

    For me that view is inescapable – no matter what political alignment you subscribe to

    My first response got deleted by ther editor – which tends to happen when I make pertinent points

  45. Just to let you know Rivers that I gave responded to your in-depth response but my post has unfortunately been deleted by the powers that be – presumably to make you think I’m a rude bastard who like so many others on here doesn’t have a courtesy to reply when a poster gives a detailed answer – like yours

  46. Tim
    Understood and don’t worry about it I’ve been there before as well, if you find the time or can be bothered to repeat the post at some point great if not I understand.

  47. I voted for IDS in 2001 because I didn’t want Clarke leading the Tories (given all the talk at the time was about the UK signing up to the Euro). By 2005 I’d had enough of losing and would have voted for Clarke had he made the final 2. As it was I voted for Cameron as I thought him more electable, even though I think Davis performed far better at the hustings. Had I been picking a PM I’d have gone for Davis but I felt Cameron was more likely to win an election as Leader of the Opposition.

  48. I voted for Clarke but nevertheless I think I might have lived to regret it if he won. He would have been a bad leader who could easily have caused the Tory party to formally split.

    Youngster that you are, you will not be aware that in 1997 there was a serious proposal by some in New Labour to get Clarke to defect and allow him to continue as chancellor. Even then, Brown was far from popular with many in his own party who (rightly) feared that he would end up being a bad chancellor who would end up ruining Labour for years after his time in office.

    Though Blair was reportedly keen, it didn’t happen in the end. I often think it would have been good for both the country and Clarke himself if it had. Like myself, Clarke just isn’t a Tory in any real sense by current standards and he should perhaps have acted on that a long time ago.

  49. @rivers10 the problem with the argument that the councillor you were speaking to used about using Corbyn to reform the party and writing off the next election instead focussing on 2025 is that Corbyn is so awful/unsuited to be prime minister that you run the serious risk of the Tories obliterating you at the next election by 15+% (not saying it will happen it is now possible whereas it wouldn’t have been with Burnham or Cooper as leader) . This would be such a crushing defeat that 2025 would probably be a write of too and it could be well into the 2030s before you are in a position to challenge for power again.

    Even worse (from your point of view) if Corbyn gets crushed in 2020 then the Labour membership mad with rage (blaming everone except themselves) elect someone as leader with an equally terrible back story and no leadership qualities which could well cause Labour to be reduced to a far left rump third party while a new socially democratic party rises to fill the void vacated in the centre left and becomes the main opposition to the Tories.

  50. Pepps
    Re the first point its a definite possibility BUT I fervently believe that Labs core vote is robust enough and with the Tories (despite all the fellava often spoke about them) not exactly loved by the electorate these days thus so long as the party united the absolute worst case scenario is another stagnant election were we don’t gain any ground perhaps lose a little bit. I’ve maintained this since day one that all the prophetic talk about Lab being reduced to less than 100 seats is plain silly. As I have said to you before people predicted Lab would fall to the high teens, that clearly didn’t happen so all the doom saying over the Tories winning a 200 seat majority I just shrug off, I’ll believe it when I see it. This leads onto the possible successor party eclipsing Labour, who? No candidates lining up to usurp Labour as of yet. For all the talk the Lib Dem fight back has been at best anaemic, UKIP are in just as much a state as Labour are and all bar the most ridiculous of pundits are admitting that a Lab split would see whoever kept the Lab brand name (which would almost certainly be Corbyn) would end up by far the bigger party.

    As for Corbyn’s potential successor’s who (in your mind) is worse than Corbyn? Most of the potentially worse people (the Kelvin Hopkins of the world) will probably retire after the next election and it wouldn’t take too much of an argument to say to the membership we need new blood, a younger Corbynista (Lewis, Rayner, Long-Bailey or perhaps someone totally new) of which even those you may not like I think its fair to say all are probably in with a better shout than Corbyn is. Despite what some seem to think the membership aren’t intentionally trying to pick the worst person for the job, I know for a fact that if he adopted Corbyn’s polices Jarvis would be welcomed pretty much unanimously by the party membership. Thus saying the membership will pick somebody worse is predicated on not much.

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)