The first and most fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy is a party with a large grassroots and MPs with a strong connection to that grassroots. If we don't have that we don't have democracy. This cannot be compromised.

chairman bill wrote:The problem isn't Corbyn. The problem isn't any one person. The problem is a fight for the future of Labour as a party of the left, against those who would drag it ever right-wards & continue to undermine the very fabric of the Welfare State.

zoon wrote:There is no fundamental requirement for a functioning democracy to have political parties at all.

zoon wrote:Most of the current Parliamentary Labour Party were last elected in 2015 on the basis of the 2015 Labour Party manifesto, but are now being told by their party to operate on a different (more left-wing) set of principles and policies, because the party has changed. It does not seem to me that there is any "fundamental democratic requirement" for those MPs to go along with that pressure to abandon the principles and policies on which they were elected.

chairman bill wrote:The problem isn't Corbyn. The problem isn't any one person. The problem is a fight for the future of Labour as a party of the left, against those who would drag it ever right-wards & continue to undermine the very fabric of the Welfare State.

mcgruff wrote:

zoon wrote:There is no fundamental requirement for a functioning democracy to have political parties at all.

OK in theory you don't need parties but in practice they are inevitable. That's just the way it works. The people who get an urge to actively pursue change will organise into groups to promote common goals. The active minority (assuming the party is democratic) will have a big role in setting the agenda on which elections are fought. They will contribute unpaid work -- campaigning, leafletting, fundraising etc -- which allows the party to function.

Occasionally there are successful independent candidates but mostly politics is all about parties.

In the 1895 general election, the Independent Labour Party put up 28 candidates but won only 44,325 votes. Keir Hardie, the leader of the party, believed that to obtain success in parliamentary elections, it would be necessary to join with other left-wing groups. Hardie's roots as a lay preacher contributed to an ethos in the party which led to the comment by 1950s General Secretary Morgan Phillips that "Socialism in Britain owed more to Methodism than Marx".

Keir Hardie, one of the Labour Party's founders and its first leader In 1899, a Doncaster member of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, Thomas R. Steels, proposed in his union branch that the Trade Union Congress call a special conference to bring together all left-wing organisations and form them into a single body that would sponsor Parliamentary candidates. The motion was passed at all stages by the TUC, and the proposed conference was held at the Memorial Hall on Farringdon Street on 26 and 27 February 1900. The meeting was attended by a broad spectrum of working-class and left-wing organisations—trades unions represented about one third of the membership of the TUC delegates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)#Founding

zoon wrote:Most of the current Parliamentary Labour Party were last elected in 2015 on the basis of the 2015 Labour Party manifesto, but are now being told by their party to operate on a different (more left-wing) set of principles and policies, because the party has changed. It does not seem to me that there is any "fundamental democratic requirement" for those MPs to go along with that pressure to abandon the principles and policies on which they were elected.

mcgruff wrote:I'm not sure if you could claim that they're being asked to do that. First, they would need to have principles to abandon. Also, the only thing truly radical about Corbyn is his sincerity.

Regardless, the issue is not can they represent their constituency but can they represent their party? They haven't picked a fight on policy but rather a very personal fight about Corbyn's ability to lead the party accompanied by some very dirty tricks. There's no way back after that. Either they win or they have to go.

zoon wrote:
As a matter of power politics, yes the party can deselect them and have by-elections fielding its preferred candidates on a new manifesto. It may be that the electorate (the general public, the electorate that matters for a functioning democracy) will enthusiastically vote for more socialism. I'd be happy if they do, though in the wake of Brexit I have my doubts.

GrahamH wrote:

He would seem to have no chance of attracting Tory voters, 58% of which voted Leave.

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:
As a matter of power politics, yes the party can deselect them and have by-elections fielding its preferred candidates on a new manifesto. It may be that the electorate (the general public, the electorate that matters for a functioning democracy) will enthusiastically vote for more socialism. I'd be happy if they do, though in the wake of Brexit I have my doubts.

The Brexit factor is an interesting one. Would Labour do best on a pro- or anti- Brexit stance?

Owen Smith is supporting another referendum. I believe 90% of the party members supported Remain, so that might seem like a smart move in the leadership contest, however, a candidate seeking to overturn a democratic mandate not once (leadership contest) but twice over (Brexit) might find a lot of resistance. My impression is that party members like democracy and might turn against a serial supporter of repeat ballots.

"Labour Voters" voted 66 to 33% Remain, so again Smiths position might look good, but democracy and sovereignty were big issues in the campaign. I would expect a big swing to Leave if people see attempts to overturn the result. It also seems likely that Owen would lose much of that 33% to UKIP. He could reverse the numbers.

He would seem to have no chance of attracting Tory voters, 58% of which voted Leave.

angelo wrote:Living in hope that the democratic process is defeated because one doesn't like the outcome is not a good idea.

Sendraks wrote:

angelo wrote:Living in hope that the democratic process is defeated because one doesn't like the outcome is not a good idea.

What democratic process? There was nothing democratic about the referendum.

angelo wrote:
What, the vote was rigged??

Scot Dutchy wrote:A party without a Parliamentary party. A strange beast. Maybe they could set up a rotary system with the membership of the party. Bus them in every day.

chairman bill wrote:It appears that a good number of 'rebel' MPs have decided that they'll respect the wishes of the members if Corbyn wins, and even be prepared to serve in a shadow cabinet. Even arch-Blairite MPs like Stephen Kinnock have said they won't leave the party. I suspect that talk of a split will come to nothing.

chairman bill wrote:It appears that a good number of 'rebel' MPs have decided that they'll respect the wishes of the members if Corbyn wins, and even be prepared to serve in a shadow cabinet. Even arch-Blairite MPs like Stephen Kinnock have said they won't leave the party. I suspect that talk of a split will come to nothing.