Thursday 28 July 2016

[StephenDolan]

Over at the PLB (note, I'm no longer reading it on a daily basis so don't really follow what's happening either ATL or BTL):

This will be the last day I’m writing the Politics live blog for a while. I’m away for much of August and I won’t be back writing the blog until the week beginning Monday 5 September (when the Commons starts sitting again), or possibly the week before.

Stephen Dolan asks BTL about live blogs during August. We’re not planning to run politics blogs every day, but I think there will be blogs on some days, depending on what events are happening and whether reporters are available.

Since it is my last day before the holidays, it is a good moment to thank those of you who comment BTL. Obviously some of the comments are unpleasant or bonkers, but thankfully they are in a minority and overall the comments contribute significantly to the success of the blog. Colleagues at the Guardian recognise that the quality of the debate here BTL is generally fairly high and I frequently learn things from what people have posted. I also appreciate reasoned criticism because I think that helps improve the quality of our journalism.

Have a good summer everyone.

Does that sound more like an Adieu to you than an Au revoir?

Famous at last.

[TobyLatimer]

WUcxKekG.jpg (54.26 KiB) Viewed 9364 times

[RogerOThornhill]

Well (as DAG might put it)


PoliticsHome ‏@politicshome 3m3 minutes ago

BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn wins legal challenge attempting to oust him from the Labour leadership ballot.

OK guys can we just now get on with it and whoever wins have the full support of all other MPs?

[JonnyT1234]

Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.

[Willow904]

Observation:

Owen Smith seems to be getting quite a bit of media attention at the moment and I know a lot of that has to do with him announcing his Leadership policies yesterday but will Jeremy Corbyn be getting the same level of media attention when he does the same??

I found this on Facebook. I had read a brief extract about the Orgreave accusation. This is a longer piece. Not sure if it's hearsay or word for word, but there has been a whisper many of Mr Smith's policies had already been put forward by Corbyn and MacDonnell.

>>>>Orgreave campaigner John Dunn also accused Mr Smith of shamelessly copying policies put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and claiming them as his own.
The event included an announcement by Mr Smith that he would introduce a Ministry of Labour if he led a Labour government — a proposal put forward by Jeremy Corbyn and reported in the Morning Star last year.

Earlier, in his address, Mr Smith shamelessly copied a series of policies which had been declared months earlier by Jeremy Corbyn and his team — and others from progressive group the Institute of Employment Rights (IER).
Mr Corbyn’s office graciously welcomed Mr Smith’s conversion to the Labour leader’s socialist policies.
A spokesperson said: “We are delighted that he has echoed John McDonnell’s call for the reinstatement of a Ministry of Labour, made last month at the IER, and Jeremy Corbyn’s call for a ban on exclusive workforce recruitment from abroad, made during the referendum campaign, among other policies.
“Owen’s speech shows the leadership that Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated in placing economic justice and fairness back at the heart of Labour politics.”
IER director Carolyn Jones said: “We are pleased yet another Labour MP has adopted some of our ideas.”
IER chairman John Hendy QC added: “Our proposals for a Ministry of Labour will provide a voice for 31 million workers at the heart of government.”
When challenged, Mr Smith said that Mr McDonnell’s call for a Ministry of Labour had “passed [him] by.”<<<<<<

If this is true it reinforces my view that Smith is well shifty.
If he was truly passionate about workers' rights he would be involved with the IER,or at least keep up to date with their ideas,and McDonnells proposal for a MoL would not 'have passed him by'.
Maybe Smith needs to spend less time plotting and more time paying attention.C+ Owen,please stop copying.

Some of the things Owen Smith has been accused of copying from Corbyn were in Ed Miliband's manifesto. Indeed, a lot of his ideas and tone were far more similar to Ed than Corbyn. As a fan of continuity, rather than radicalism, I quite like the fact that some of the stronger ideas from 2015 have stuck. People seemed positive about the 2015 manifesto policies, just not Ed and the perception of his being dictated to by the SNP.

[SpinningHugo]

and whoever wins have the full support of all other MPs?

Well, it isn't impossible, but far less likely to happen than in September 2015. Politicians are people and once relationships are broken that is usually that.

(See also this board.)

[JonnyT1234]

and whoever wins have the full support of all other MPs?

Well, it isn't impossible, but far less likely to happen than in September 2015. Politicians are people and once relationships are broken that is usually that.

(See also this board.)

Of course it's possible. But only if it isn't Corbyn. The chasm then will be between the PLP and the members. But the MPs will largely just get on with it once Abbott has had her say on the matter.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

[JonnyT1234]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

Well, it no longer can. Rewriting the rules now is what is more likely to cause problems in future because they'd once again be open to legal challenge.

[SpinningHugo]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

Needs doing sytematically. the rules are the product of lots of changes.

In any event, I am pretty sure that the current leadership have lots of changes to the rules in the pipeline....

[gilsey]

Over in Paris, an EDF board member has resigned shortly before the energy company announce whether it will push on with plans to build a new nuclear plant at Britain’s Hinkley Point.

Gerard Magnin said the project was risky, and would undermine France’s efforts to develop renewable energy technology.

Magnin’s resignation may be a sign that EDF will stick with Hinkley. An announcement is expected later today.

[PorFavor]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

Well, it no longer can. Rewriting the rules now is what is more likely to cause problems in future because they'd once again be open to legal challenge.

Agree on the bits of the rulebook which relate to leadership challenges. But there might be mileage in overhauling the other bits (and double check if there's any possible overlap\knock-on) to ensure other things don't throw up problems. Going forward. In the future.

[JonnyT1234]

Sorry, I was being flippant. Anything that makes the Labour Party democratic and more representative of its membership would be most welcome so an overhaul is definitely due.

(Edit: so long as they aren't fudged like the current ones have been!).

[JonnyT1234]

On that note: people's views on retaining the voting rights of £3/£25 non-members?

With some obvious modifications plus the internal resources to manage it properly, I quite like the principle (of course, I would, seeing as I am more likely to fall into this category). Flawed but also has its positives.

Price could be reduced but weighting changed (e.g. Only worth a third of a full member's vote). Time limit for voting needs increasing from 48 hours, but can see the logic of it being a fixed window. Proof of identity, and ascribing to at least 66% of Labour's principles etc also needs sharpening up.

Thoughts?

[SpinningHugo]

and whoever wins have the full support of all other MPs?

Well, it isn't impossible, but far less likely to happen than in September 2015. Politicians are people and once relationships are broken that is usually that.

(See also this board.)

Of course it's possible. But only if it isn't Corbyn. The chasm then will be between the PLP and the members. But the MPs will largely just get on with it once Abbott has had her say on the matter.

Yeah, but Corbyn is going to win easily (barring his doing something major turning up).

[Lost Soul]

On that note: people's views on retaining the voting rights of £3/£25 non-members?

With some obvious modifications plus the internal resources to manage it properly, I quite like the principle (of course, I would, seeing as I am more likely to fall into this category). Flawed but also has its positives.

Price could be reduced but weighting changed (e.g. Only worth a third of a full member's vote). Time limit for voting needs increasing from 48 hours, but can see the logic of it being a fixed window. Proof of identity, and ascribing to at least 66% of Labour's principles etc also needs sharpening up.

Thoughts?

I thought it was a daft idea. Certainly £3.00 - it's like buying a lottery ticket, there's no commitment needed.
The £25.00 ticket ... well, you might as well join and be a full member if you're interested enough to pay that much.

[Rebecca]

Ha!
Michael Foster has to pay all the costs.

[JonnyT1234]

On that note: people's views on retaining the voting rights of £3/£25 non-members?

With some obvious modifications plus the internal resources to manage it properly, I quite like the principle (of course, I would, seeing as I am more likely to fall into this category). Flawed but also has its positives.

Price could be reduced but weighting changed (e.g. Only worth a third of a full member's vote). Time limit for voting needs increasing from 48 hours, but can see the logic of it being a fixed window. Proof of identity, and ascribing to at least 66% of Labour's principles etc also needs sharpening up.

Thoughts?

I thought it was a daft idea. Certainly £3.00 - it's like buying a lottery ticket, there's no commitment needed.
The £25.00 ticket ... well, you might as well join and be a full member if you're interested enough to pay that much.

The way it was initially set up. You're right, but £25 doesn't encourage any participation from people on low incomes.

What if the non-member votes were weighted down, as I suggested? Could even be more extreme - a tenth of a full member's vote.

The pros of it, by the way, are that it encourages mass participation in democracy in a manner that has real impact. It permits people like me who subscribe to Labour's principles but don't believe the PLP actually do to take part. There's also a lot of overlap between eg SNP, Green Party or Lib Dem members/voters and aspects of the Labour Party and I don't see why those overlaps shouldn't be given the opportunity to be strengthened rather than diminished. Especially while we're always going to be under this ludicrous FPTP system for parliament that otherwise would disenfranchise millions of voters unless they're given a say in the direction of the opposition to government.

Clearly there are lots of negatives to it too, but many of the ones that have manifested themselves could be mitigated to a lesser or greater extent.

[TR'sGhost]

Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.

It was, and is, already the case.

The full judgement is here - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... 160728.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Foskett J makes it pretty clear that in his judgement the rules mean what they say, which is that an incumbent leader needs no nominations to be included in a leadership election, only the challenger does.

Foster's people seem to have been making a very strange argument, including basically de-constructing the English language and trying to re-construct it to mean something it doesn't and also arguing that an awful lot should be kind of assumed to be included in the rules because earlier, quite different, rules said something else because....... erm.....

No doubt Foster will seek leave to appeal, after all he's rich man looking for a political party to buy.

[tinyclanger2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 60146.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Men in Iran are wearing hijabs in a show of solidarity with women across the country who are forced to cover their heads in public.

Over the last week, a number of men have appeared in photos wearing a hijab with their wife or female relative next to them who have their hair uncovered.
The images come in response to a call by Masih Alinejad, an Iranian activist and journalist living in New York, who urged men to support her campaign against enforced hijab.

Would be great to show solidarity with things like this.


edited to make link clickable (sorry Refitman!)

[TR'sGhost]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

Needs doing sytematically. the rules are the product of lots of changes.

In any event, I am pretty sure that the current leadership have lots of changes to the rules in the pipeline....

I do so appreciate your revealing little snippets from your privileged inside track knowledge of what Jeremy Corbyn secretly thinks Hugo.

It says so much about you.

[PorFavor]

Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.

It was, and is, already the case.

The full judgement is here - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... 160728.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Foskett J makes it pretty clear that in his judgement the rules mean what they say, which is that an incumbent leader needs no nominations to be included in a leadership election, only the challenger does.

Foster's people seem to have been making a very strange argument, including basically de-constructing the English language and trying to re-construct it to mean something it doesn't and also arguing that an awful lot should be kind of assumed to be included in the rules because earlier, quite different, rules said something else because....... erm.....

No doubt Foster will seek leave to appeal, after all he's rich man looking for a political party to buy.

I read (Guardian?) that he doesn't intend to appeal.

[SpinningHugo]

Plenty of this kind of thing in the SNP/Ukip social media world as well of course, but this reflects my perception

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/jer ... noid-style" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Though the author doesn't know what 'disinterest' means and the last bit becomes standard anti-Corbyn fare.)

[fedup59]

Great that Foster lost. What I'd really like to hear now is a vocal commitment from the PLP to honour the democratic mandate of whoever wins and collectively do their jobs.

Then they can rightly claim their place as Labour party MPs representing the interests of their constituencies.

My main thought in that is that trust is a key factor for healing divisions and I think it has been badly bruised, if not broken completely, over the past few weeks.

Afternoon all

[TR'sGhost]

Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.

It was, and is, already the case.

The full judgement is here - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... 160728.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Foskett J makes it pretty clear that in his judgement the rules mean what they say, which is that an incumbent leader needs no nominations to be included in a leadership election, only the challenger does.

Foster's people seem to have been making a very strange argument, including basically de-constructing the English language and trying to re-construct it to mean something it doesn't and also arguing that an awful lot should be kind of assumed to be included in the rules because earlier, quite different, rules said something else because....... erm.....

No doubt Foster will seek leave to appeal, after all he's rich man looking for a political party to buy.

I read (Guardian?) that he doesn't intend to appeal.

That surprises me. Foskett certainly didn't give an inch of ground to Foster's arguments but since Foster had a next to zero chance of winning the case in the first place I was kind of assuming that his intention was either to win outright or, failing that, to be a nuisance and keep the media turmoil going for as long as possible.

Maybe having to pay the respondant's costs in full has put him off, his little legal adventure can't have been cheap. Mind you, if he did seek leave to appeal there's no certainty he'd get it. It's not always the case, but awarding full costs to the other side in a civil dispute like this is often seen as a hint that the judge thought the losing side's case had little to zero merit.

[TobyLatimer]

ScreenShot01509.jpg (92 KiB) Viewed 9121 times

[JonnyT1234]

Unless they revise the terms again, then the best news about this is that any future leader will always be in the leadership election. Which is just so sensible its unbelievable that it wasn't already the case.

It was, and is, already the case.

Haha. You are, of course, correct. What I should have said, is that this is no longer under any doubt, but the (seeming) ambiguity of the clause could have been challenged at any point in the future too if it hadn't happened now.

Am I right in also thinking that the NEC could equally have voted the other way, and if it had gone unchallenged, Corbyn would not have automatically been on the ballot? This at least means that the NEC can never change their minds.

[Willow904]

Sorry, I was being flippant. Anything that makes the Labour Party democratic and more representative of its membership would be most welcome so an overhaul is definitely due.

(Edit: so long as they aren't fudged like the current ones have been!).

Maybe they could have a lawyer that specialises in the area of private club rules to give any new rules the once over? It was surprising to me how unclear the rules were. The precedent was for an incumbent to need nominations, if the intention was to change the rules so the incumbent didn't need nominations, I don't understand why the rules didn't explicitly say so. A change from past practice should be clearly indicated. It does make you doubt the ability of those elected to the NEC and makes you wonder if at least one or two of the appointments should be more professional in nature. It's a big job in some ways. At the very least those elected could probably benefit from some more non-partisan advice and support than they currently seem to be getting.

[Lost Soul]

Plenty of this kind of thing in the SNP/Ukip social media world as well of course, but this reflects my perception

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/jer ... noid-style" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Though the author doesn't know what 'disinterest' means and the last bit becomes standard anti-Corbyn fare.)

That's exactly what the people I talk to in the 'actual' world are saying ( and by that I mean the people I know )
The internet seems to be a different place entirely ! I've been quite shocked.

edit - but then I don't twitter or tweet.

[frog222]

Plenty of this kind of thing in the SNP/Ukip social media world as well of course, but this reflects my perception

http://www.newstatesman.com/2016/07/jer ... noid-style" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Though the author doesn't know what 'disinterest' means and the last bit becomes standard anti-Corbyn fare.)

The author had some valid points, but the hyperbole became too much when ...

His army of followers are quite happy to engage in abuse on his behalf, whether it’s the relentless abuse of journalists, or bricks tossed through windows,

he repeated that one !

Saved a few minutes of my life .

[JonnyT1234]

I refer you all to yesterday's post by ohso:



It isn't paranoia when it is demonstrably happening.

P.S. Martin Robbins is a former Guardian click-b... Opinion writer. So no wonder he doesn't know what disinterest means

[SpinningHugo]

What I'd really like to hear now is a vocal commitment from the PLP to honour the democratic mandate of whoever wins and collectively do their jobs.

Then they can rightly claim their place as Labour party MPs representing the interests of their constituencies.

There is, of course, a tension here.

Should MPs be answerable to the members of their party, or to the constitutents who elected them? These groups are not the same.

Were they elected to do their party's will (and as a result the will of a tiny slice of the electorate) or to act (as they see it) in the best interests of their constituents?

If MPs really did think of themsleves as bound by the votes of members of their parties that would be a dramatic change.

Democratic centralism has long been the goal of the Bennite left (though they have never adhered to it much when not themselves in power).

This is a useful summary of Democratic Centralism (which I think many Labour members subscribe to as an idea).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour has not, hitherto, operated on that basis.

[Willow904]

On that note: people's views on retaining the voting rights of £3/£25 non-members?

With some obvious modifications plus the internal resources to manage it properly, I quite like the principle (of course, I would, seeing as I am more likely to fall into this category). Flawed but also has its positives.

Price could be reduced but weighting changed (e.g. Only worth a third of a full member's vote). Time limit for voting needs increasing from 48 hours, but can see the logic of it being a fixed window. Proof of identity, and ascribing to at least 66% of Labour's principles etc also needs sharpening up.

Thoughts?

I don't think the registered supporter idea has been a very successful experiment. It hasn't widened the pool of voters in the leadership especially, with the registered supporters roughly mirroring members in their choice. As such, the cost in resources to process and vet registered supporters doesn't seem like good value for money. And then there's the illwill it causes among long time members. When you join Labour, you are provisional member for the first two months, while it's checked to see if you belong to another party etc. You can't vote in CLP meetings during this time. I think this two month probation should extend to leadership elections also and that should be it. Keep it simple, keep it consistent. Affiliated union members should be similar, if they have been a union member paying the elective affiliate fee for two months before a leadership contest is called they get to apply for a vote.

[SpinningHugo]

I refer you all to yesterday's post by ohso:



It isn't paranoia when it is demonstrably happening.

P.S. Martin Robbins is a former Guardian click-b... Opinion writer. So no wonder he doesn't know what disinterest means

I am not wholly convinced by that Private Eye list. Newspaper headline writers are in the business of sexing stories up. You could do much the same with statements from Cameron no doubt.

[Lost Soul]

On that note: people's views on retaining the voting rights of £3/£25 non-members?

With some obvious modifications plus the internal resources to manage it properly, I quite like the principle (of course, I would, seeing as I am more likely to fall into this category). Flawed but also has its positives.

Price could be reduced but weighting changed (e.g. Only worth a third of a full member's vote). Time limit for voting needs increasing from 48 hours, but can see the logic of it being a fixed window. Proof of identity, and ascribing to at least 66% of Labour's principles etc also needs sharpening up.

Thoughts?

I thought it was a daft idea. Certainly £3.00 - it's like buying a lottery ticket, there's no commitment needed.
The £25.00 ticket ... well, you might as well join and be a full member if you're interested enough to pay that much.

The way it was initially set up. You're right, but £25 doesn't encourage any participation from people on low incomes.

What if the non-member votes were weighted down, as I suggested? Could even be more extreme - a tenth of a full member's vote.

The pros of it, by the way, are that it encourages mass participation in democracy in a manner that has real impact. It permits people like me who subscribe to Labour's principles but don't believe the PLP actually do to take part. There's also a lot of overlap between eg SNP, Green Party or Lib Dem members/voters and aspects of the Labour Party and I don't see why those overlaps shouldn't be given the opportunity to be strengthened rather than diminished. Especially while we're always going to be under this ludicrous FPTP system for parliament that otherwise would disenfranchise millions of voters unless they're given a say in the direction of the opposition to government.

Clearly there are lots of negatives to it too, but many of the ones that have manifested themselves could be mitigated to a lesser or greater extent.

I was thinking maybe reduced rates for low incomes.

I've just had a look. Standard is £3.92 a month, Reduced - ( retired, unemployed or work less than 16 hrs a week ) is £1.96 a month. Young ( 20-26 ) is a pound a month. Young Labour - a pond a year ! Students - a pound a year. Armed forces a pound..
Trade union affiliated £1.96 a month.
Membership seems affordable.

I speak as a non Corbyn supporting member ( now solid, due to regular reading here ) - not sure if limiting or extending would lean towards or away from my position. I suspect neither.

edit ( on reflection, a whole 'pond' seems excessive for a young member...)

[Lost Soul]

What I'd really like to hear now is a vocal commitment from the PLP to honour the democratic mandate of whoever wins and collectively do their jobs.

Then they can rightly claim their place as Labour party MPs representing the interests of their constituencies.

There is, of course, a tension here.

Should MPs be answerable to the members of their party, or to the constitutents who elected them? These groups are not the same.

Were they elected to do their party's will (and as a result the will of a tiny slice of the electorate) or to act (as they see it) in the best interests of their constituents?

If MPs really did think of themsleves as bound by the votes of members of their parties that would be a dramatic change.

Democratic centralism has long been the goal of the Bennite left (though they have never adhered to it much when not themselves in power).

This is a useful summary of Democratic Centralism (which I think many Labour members subscribe to as an idea).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour has not, hitherto, operated on that basis.

They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?

[JonnyT1234]

There is, of course, a tension here.

Should MPs be answerable to the members of their party, or to the constitutents who elected them? These groups are not the same.

Were they elected to do their party's will (and as a result the will of a tiny slice of the electorate) or to act (as they see it) in the best interests of their constituents?

If MPs really did think of themsleves as bound by the votes of members of their parties that would be a dramatic change.

I'm sorry, but this is just complete nonsense. They are there to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them. But they were elected by a majority of their constituents on the basis of the manifesto and party they are representing, not their personal views. Of course MPs should follow the will of their party's members first and foremost [edit: over that of their constituents, I meant]. They are the Party. Without them, there isn't one. It's just a bunch of independent MPs.

If the MP doesn't agree to a large enough extent with the direction that the members want the party to go in, step down and run as an independent or for another party. That way you'll know whether or not the electorate in your constituency picked you on the basis of your own views or on the basis of your former party's.

Any constituent who is a far right, racist bigot is not going to be surprised if the left wing MP who won their seat with a majority turns around and tells them that they don't support and will not represent those views. And vice versa. To think otherwise is idiotic.

[SpinningHugo]

They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?

Well, I of course agree, but does that mean Labour MPs should feel no compulsion to follow the votes of party members when they themselves disagree?

Deselection is, of course, a way of trying to bring in a form of democratic centralism. I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about that in principle. After all, most people vote for parties not particular MPs (indeed the Labour MP I have in the past voted for is one I think is an idiot.)

[Lost Soul]

They should be representing their constituents. Why else would anyone vote for them ?

Well, I of course agree, but does that mean Labour MPs should feel no compulsion to follow the votes of party members when they themselves disagree?

Deselection is, of course, a way of trying to bring in a form of democratic centralism. I'm genuinely unsure how I feel about that in principle. After all, most people vote for parties not particular MPs (indeed the Labour MP I have in the past voted for is one I think is an idiot.)

I'd hope that the MP I vote for would use their position to shape and steer things - any idiot could just toe the party line.

[SpinningHugo]

But they were elected by a majority of their constituents on the basis of the manifesto and party they are representing, not their personal views.

Well, manifestos are dangerous things. MPs aren't bound by them. Jefferson thought they should be banned as they mislead voters as to what they are voting for (a representative). In any event, whether an MP should feel bound by the manifesto on which his constituents elected him is a quite separate question from whether they should be bound by the votes from time to time of members of their parties *after* election.

Of course MPs should follow the will of their party's members first and foremost. They are the Party. Without them, there isn't one. It's just a bunch of independent MPs.

Well, that would mean that what voters are voting for is for a representative controlled by another group outside of Parliament.

If the MP doesn't agree to a large enough extent with the direction that the members want the party to go in, step down and run as an independent or for another party. That way you'll know whether or not the electorate in your constituency picked you on the basis of your own views or on the basis of your former party's.

Well, in principle you are *always* voting for the individual representative.
. To think otherwise is idiotic.

it is quite a longstanding debate in political theory. I am not very keen on democratic centralism myself, but members of parties tend to be as it gives them the power.

[AngryAsWell]

Neil CoyleVerified account
‏@coyleneil
Why are Momentum cronies targeting my surgery again @jonlansman & why film people seeking my help? Last time I saw 50% fewer constituents.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they filmed me they'd get an ear full. Cheeky bugers

[JonnyT1234]

I am not wholly convinced by that Private Eye list. Newspaper headline writers are in the business of sexing stories up. You could do much the same with statements from Cameron no doubt.

You know Hugo, I was there when this was going on. Reading what was being reported then listening to or reading what was actually said. I'm not some naive idiot, gulled by the hard left on social media. I'm a scientist. I try very hard not to believe anything until I've checked out the source for myself. So I checked for myself. It wasn't just the headlines. It was everything. The wilful misrepresentation of Corbyn at the time was shocking. It wasn't in people's heads. It wasn't paranoia. It wasn't fantasy. It was very, very real. And it hasn't stopped since.

Trying to revise history, as you seem very prone to want to do, just will not cut it with me.

[SpinningHugo]

My MP is is not Tristram Hunt but his partner in all things Labour.. I recently moved to his Constituency. How on earth am I going to vote for him, I will have to be on tranquilisers when I go to cast my vote.

Well there is usually a TUSC or Left Unity candidate, but I suppose that our glorious New Dawn may put an end to these. I am really unsure what I would do if there were an election tomorrow. If canvassed I'd have to say 'don't know'.

My MP actually canvassed my street with Corbyn. I was out. Curses.

[Lost Soul]

We usually have a choice of seven or eight - but it's easy to narrow it down when you cross out the ones with horns, or flags tattooed on their foreheads...
or brass buttoned blazers come to think of it.

[SpinningHugo]

Interesting who else is pushing that NS piece

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I expect he has as much hope of persuading swing voters as Tony Blair does.

[AngryAsWell]

Neil CoyleVerified account
‏@coyleneil
Why are Momentum cronies targeting my surgery again @jonlansman & why film people seeking my help? Last time I saw 50% fewer constituents.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they filmed me they'd get an ear full. Cheeky bugers

Perhaps if he didn't label people 'Momentum cronies' and 'entryists' and blatantly lie about Corbyn and his supporters in his Twitter feed? Unfortunately we've had so many MPs crying wolf about Momentum 'thugs' etc that in the absence of proof I remain sceptical that things like this are as reported by the MP.

They put it on the Momentum web site.
Are you really saying it's OK to harass people trying to get help from their MP? If so I'm amazed, truly amazed.
Edit to add
they also admit it
Marc Geoffrey
‏@Marc_Geoffrey
@coyleneil @jonlansman Filming so nothing can be misconstrued. Lots of false allegations being made recently. Best to protect ourselves.

[ohsocynical]

This is someone else's comment but thought it apt for its observation about the NEC.

Well the court ruling is a victory for common sense ... BUT what does it say that 14 of the NEC had voted to not allow him to be automatically on the ballot. It says to me that we've got people who are either unable to read the rulebook properly - or, worse, can but don't want to apply the rules properly.

[ohsocynical]

Some good news, at last (and I'm almost certainly going to vote for Smith)

Now, can we get the sodding party rulebook redrawn so that stuff like this brooks no argument?

Needs doing sytematically. the rules are the product of lots of changes.

In any event, I am pretty sure that the current leadership have lots of changes to the rules in the pipeline....

I do so appreciate your revealing little snippets from your privileged inside track knowledge of what Jeremy Corbyn secretly thinks Hugo.

It says so much about you.

I don't know about Corbyn, but a lot of people are wondering what the PLP are going to come up with next.

[citizenJA]

Have a good evening, everyone.
love,
cJA

[ohsocynical]

Neil CoyleVerified account
‏@coyleneil
Why are Momentum cronies targeting my surgery again @jonlansman & why film people seeking my help? Last time I saw 50% fewer constituents.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they filmed me they'd get an ear full. Cheeky bugers

Perhaps if he didn't label people 'Momentum cronies' and 'entryists' and blatantly lie about Corbyn and his supporters in his Twitter feed? Unfortunately we've had so many MPs crying wolf about Momentum 'thugs' etc that in the absence of proof I remain sceptical that things like this are as reported by the MP.

I strongly suspect Momentum is going to be the next thing used to discredit Corbyn.