The former Labour leader clinched a victory with more than 24,000 votes, compared to Labour candidate Praful Nargund who won more than 16,000.
It will come as a huge relief to Mr Corbyn, who has represented the north London constituency for 40 years.
Speaking at the count, he said: “I want to place on record my enormous thanks to the people of Islington North for electing me for the 11th time.”
He added: "We have shown what kinder, gentler and more sensible, more inclusive politics can bring about.
“I couldn’t be more proud of my constituency than I am tonight and proud of our team that brought this result. Thank you very much Islington North for the result we have achieved tonight.”
Islington North was on a knife edge, with the earlier general election exit poll saying that it was too close to call.
A highly personal vote after representing the constituency for over 4 decades, it’s no real surprise that Corbyn retained. It’s also extremely unlikely he will vote against Labour on the vast majority of the programme.
Compare that to Chingford, where Shaheen insisted on running as an independent after being deselected (fairly or not doesn’t really matter), and having never actually won an election (let alone 40 years worth), and split the vote so much that the architect of food poverty in the UK, Iain Duncan Smith, managed to cling on to his seat.
Her ego got in the way of removing a proven sabateur from Parliament, that is unforgivable.
Alternatively, Starmer’s factionalism handed IDS the seat. Despite her strong grassroot support, they still tried to gamble so they wouldn’t have another Corbynist in the backbenches.
Well, this is clearly not correct, because - unlike Corbyn where this is absolutely correct - she has never been elected, and has now lost twice.
Do I think it’s fair what happened? No, I don’t.
But goal #1 is to remove the Tories from Parliament. If you are not best placed to do that - and coming third proves she wasn’t - you need to put your ego aside and let someone else do it.
Again, is that fair? No, it isn’t.
She only started standing as an independent on the 5 June, less than a month from the election, and got only 78 less votes than Labour. Regardless of what you think of her, that’s impressive and it’s clear if Labour hadn’t deselected her, they would’ve won.
Coming third does not make it clear she would have won.
Corbyn winning does make it clear he would win, because, he did win.
Corbyn is - rightly - more popular than Labour in his constituency. She isn’t, and wasn’t.
How do you simultaneously hold the positions that she split the vote but wouldn’t have won if she was the Labour candidate? If she was the Labour candidate, the vote wouldn’t have been split.
Because I’m talking about people voting for her specifically, instead of Labour as a party.
She may well have been elected it she had still been the Labour candidate, but she wasn’t. Infact she got less votes than the person who was the Labour candidate.
After she was deselected, she chose to run herself. She chose to prioritise trying to prove Labour wrong instead of getting rid of IDS.
If she had won - like Corbyn - it would prove that she didn’t need to wear a Labour rosette to win. But she didn’t, so she does need it.
So all she has achieved in that is maintaining one of the worst Tories there is. The result matters, and she enabled that.
This assumes that the people that voted for Shaheen would’ve voted Labour if she didn’t stand. IDS got 35% of the vote, so Labour (who got 25%) would’ve needed just under half of Shaheen’s 25% to win. I’m sure some would have switched to Labour, but 40%? Do you think the kind of voter that would vote for Shaheen directly wouldn’t vote Green out of protest of what happened to her?
Every other seat in the country - bar Islington North and Corbyn - shows extensive tactical voting to unseat the Tories, so, yes I do absolutely expect that at least 40% would have held their nose.
Do I think what happened to her was fair? No, I don’t. But running out of spite sure is a very individualist approach to a political philosophy defined by the needs of the many outweighing the few.
deleted by creator