SpinningHugo wrote: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.