I have long suspected that you are not a true believer in representative democracy, and this confirms it.

A party leader ought not simply reflect the current views of its paid up membership. They should lead them to a position where the Party can command enough votes from the electorate to actually achieve things, and not just blow hot air.

Leaders should lead. In a representative democracy, they aren't followers. They aren't delegates, they are representatives, just as their MPs are. Their job is to try to give their membership what they need, and not what they want.

The left of the Labour Party has long rejected this approach, and the consequences are obvious. Until such ideas are defeated, they will not regain power. As not having an effective opposition impacts us all, this is really important, even if you think having endless right wing Tory governments a good idea.

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.

Party members seem to be the biggest hindrance most MP's have. If you are willing to pay up then it's most likely you are on the extremes of the party and not part of the centrist majority.

The issue for Party leaders is to try and get their membership to agree to what's best for the country, rather than just doing what the membership wants. In fairness, its not easy.

Exactly no point in joining CND if the leadership wants to keep nukes.

Because we have had a 2 party system for centuries the leadership tell the party members this is what you should believe in rather than listening to what the membership wants.

I'm starting think that Labour splitting up would be a good idea for democracy. We can have a Blairite European socialist style party and Corbyn an Angela et al can go back to the SWP.

They wont though because they know that a full on naked far left party will never get anywhere near power as the voters reject extremism at every election. That is why they have infiltrated the Labour party.

One more point

The party rules allowed the party members the say, if it were just a few dissentients then they couldn't have got Corbyn elected over several 'Blairist' alternatives.

If there were a centrist majority in the Labour party that wouldn't have happened.

Now the party have changed it back and taken the deciding power away from the rank and file.....that's not 'centralist', that's elitist.

For me I don't care what the party actually is....I have no axe to grind on that....I just think that the membership should have the leader they believe in....not lobbyists or rich elites.

Then let the wider public choose, left, centre, right or whatever.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's another disingenuous response from Stirlingsays, where he's most likely to purposely misinterpreted the post rather than not reading what I said. The majority of the electorate are either centre right or centre left and support one or two major parties. The majority of party membership is made up of the nutters.

Some are too extreme to even fit in with the nutters. They then tend to support the really mental parties, BNP, PA, Sargil's Old Labour, Respect etc.

They tend to all follow an agenda stating the main parties don't represent the electorate.

I agree that a UKIP for Labour Party would be a good way of dissasociating themselves with the weirdos.

Exactly that, they're not in the least bit representative, because if you're a person/group/corporation of actual influence you simply need to make inroads on two fronts instead of one to get your way, while the best Joe Blow gets is a relative illusion of choice that comes to nothing.

People are fine with the Punch and Judy aspects of politics and indeed play right into the jeering and cheering, but they don't ever quite realise that they too are part of the performance. A system that encourages a meaningful degree of compromise (possibly via proportional representation), and is representative of voters concerns and interests would be a better way forward but good luck ever getting that.

Sure it's an approach that gets criticism too, but it's nuanced enough to be more in the hands of the people rather than corporations. Right now we really have just stumbled into a type of leadership where they only ever look out for their mates and the elderly (as the one voting block they want on side).