Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LeftishBrit

(41,203 posts)
3. No; I think he is taking a good job that was offered to him
Sat Jan 21, 2017, 03:50 PM
Jan 2017

Being Director of the Victoria and Albert carries a salary of at least £140,000, compared with £75,000 for an MP, and is more secure: although Stoke on Trent Central has so far always returned Labour MPs, the majority hasn't always been huge. And, if the boundary changes go ahead, his is one of the seats that could be abolished or seriously altered. Hunt is unlikely to have a senior cabinet post in the near future, so he may well have decided that he'd prefer a bird in the hand to two in the bush. ETA: his original career was as a historian, so this move makes a certain amount of sense.

I am slightly worried about the constituency, given that UKIP are putting in a huge effort there, and that the turnout in that particular constituency tends to be fairly low even in General Elections, and is likely to be much lower in a by-election. Low turnouts sometimes favour UKIP. I hope we can dodge that bullet.

Is Hunt hoping to embarrass Corbyn by causing a by-election in which Labour loses ground? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #1
Hunt & Reed could hurt Corbyn more by staying on and fighting. T_i_B Jan 2017 #2
Well, you've got me a little confused here. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #4
Had he campaigned harder for Remain RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #7
In the case of Stoke... T_i_B Jan 2017 #8
Looks like the Tories are throwing in the anvil in Stoke RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #9
If Copeland's going to be lost under Corbyn, it would be lost under any leader. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #10
And when was the last time you were in Keswick? T_i_B Jan 2017 #11
Never claimed I had been. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #12
It's traditionally a safe Labour seat T_i_B Jan 2017 #14
Labour should be offering policies(Corbyn probably will)to retrain these people in non-lethal work. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #17
Danger can be averted. T_i_B Jan 2017 #18
I think we need a bit of realism about the timeline here muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #21
I stand corrected on chronology. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #23
Anti-Corbyn feeling seems to be the exact problem muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #25
As your link indicates, an anti-Corbyn (therefore presumably right-wing)candidate was selected. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #26
Yes, she was selected last Thursday evening, 24 hours before the Telegraph story was published muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #27
It should be noted that Labour held the seat in 1983 and 1987 Ken Burch Jan 2017 #28
Jamie Reed wasn't yet born when the Windscale fire took place, so he couldn't have helped to cover LeftishBrit Jan 2017 #22
Ok, Jamie didn't personally cover up Windscale. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #24
No; I think he is taking a good job that was offered to him LeftishBrit Jan 2017 #3
I think the proposed boundary chages have played their part. T_i_B Jan 2017 #5
You make it sound as if it would be intrinsically unjust to deny him a nomination. Ken Burch Jan 2017 #13
Wrong T_i_B Jan 2017 #15
If it's the Tories doing the boundary reductions, why bring "Corbyn loyalists" into it, then? Ken Burch Jan 2017 #16
Because Momentum are going to be very active in the selection process T_i_B Jan 2017 #19
Isn't it at least as legitimate for Momentum to try and get people it supports nominated... Ken Burch Jan 2017 #20
The seat is due to go with the boundary review RogueTrooper Jan 2017 #6
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»United Kingdom»Labour's Tristram Hunt qu...»Reply #3