But that sovereignty doesn't extend to choosing their own party leader.

Even though it’s on their own website?

“Stupidity is knowing the truth, seeing the truth but still believing the lies. And that is more infectious than any other disease.”

~ Professor Richard Feynman

You show me what on their website you think supports your assertion. Then I will explain what it really means.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

But according to your earlier posts that would only apply to the opposition not if the replacement was to be PM.

Sorry, but I don't follow that argument. I think it applies to who-ever becomes PM.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

But they haven't successfully gone about this have they? Gripe about that at will however that is the case and the democratic process as it stands. I myself would consider proportional representation a 'more' democratic avenue but as to it's effectiveness, I feel reluctant to asset any real conviction in declaring.

There is a huge difference between saying 'I would prefer x, y and z' or challenging ideals, to constantly launching and then forever haranguing everyone else with campaigns against individuals, insinuating that your agenda, political and world views should be installed without dispute or obstacle. Especially when they begin to translate as something akin to 'the mad cat lady' on the Simpsons - that communicates as 'anti-democratic'.

I've already addressed this with another post, not to say I am correct and must be listened to, it is after all just my subjective opinion but a real bugbear of late. Anywhere in history, anywhere, anyone, who asserts, expresses and Lord have mercy has gotten to power with such a mentality of 'this is how it should be, I'm right and everyone else is wrong' has proved absolutely disastrous and ruinous for democratic processes. Proclaiming yourself to be a 'fierce advocate of genuine democracy' and some sort of staunch democratic defender is laughable given you will only accept it so long as the results favour your preferences:

'I hate the fact X are in power','I think this X govt./PM is (insert expletive) and would prefer' vs. 'It shouldn't be X, all avenues must be explored to undo this and ensure my preference gets done'.

And yes, in the main, people may well vote for individuals however we would not have phrases such as 'Red or Blue Wall' nor would we have parliamentary seats spending long periods without changing if people did not hold allegiance to or trust for parties first and foremost. It's not coincidence, this is politics not roulette. Individuals will always have to align with the ideological stance of the party. Admittedly, they are much looser and closer together nowadays but a minority proportion of peoples will vote because 'I like that guy'. If your assertion were theoretically true, we'd have a different record of PM's from across the political spectrum as opposed to 'Labour in power, Tories in power x a bilion' since day dot.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!