a reply to: thomadom
I have to declare an interest as a life-long conservative (I was the winning Conservative candidate in my school's Mock General Election in 1970).
That perspective creates an complex set of reactions;
One identifies Jeremy Corbyn as rubbish.
From a Conservative viewpoint, it is quite useful, up to a point, that the Labour party should have a rubbish leader. There is a persistent rumour
that mischief-making Conservatives helped to get him elected. I read a letter in the Daily Telegraph in which the writer called it the best thirty
pounds (or whatever) that he had ever spent.
At the same time, it isn't in the long-term interest that a rubbish leader should have a potential impact on national policy decisions, so I have a
lot of sympathy with those in his party who want to get rid of him.
The root of the problem is the silly populism of throwing open the election to national membership.
Let us, for the moment, set aside the Labour Party constitution.
In terms of the British
constitution, a Prime Minister is chosen by his ability to command the votes of a majority of M.P.'s. Not voters. Not
party workers. People sitting in the House of Commons.
Therefore it makes no sense to have a leader of the Parliamentary party, and potential Prime Minister, elected by anyone other than the members of the
Parliamentary party. They are the people who would have to support him by their votes in the Commons. As we have just discovered, the current system
leads to the absurd possibility that that they are expected to support a man they do not want or trust.
If it were necessary, and other methods of removing him were unavailing, would the Labour M.P.'s have the courage to adopt the more drastic approach
which the British Constitution makes available to them? That is they could all resign the party whip and form a new parliamentary grouping. Nothing in
the British Constitution would oblige them to follow the new custom of resigning seats and fighting by-elections. If the defection were large enough,
Corbyn would cease to be leader of the largest opposition group. If the defecting group outnumbered the SNP, their newly-chosen leader would have a
rightful claim on the salary and duties of the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course it would lead to turmoil in the constituencies, but there's going to be turmoil anyway, and desperate situations call for desperate
measures. It could pay dividends in the long term.
edit on 27-6-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)