Labour MP's harassment

That shouild have read - "It may be that some of their constituents have different priorities to others and the MP has to work hard to reconcile all their needs " Without the bold the emphasis on the MP working hard to reconcile the interests of ALL his constituents is lost. I didn't say he/she would always succeed, but he should be trying very hard.

Even though an MP is supposed to represent all the constituents, you can hardly expect him or her to represent the 70% that cannot be bothered to take part in the election. A labour MP will have been voted for by more labour constituents, and therefore should represent their values and ideals more than those of a tory bent. Those who do not vote should not be surprised if their MP does not represent their views.

He or she should represent all his constituents; however, he will not necessarily be representing their political views in Parliament. The 70% who may not have voted can't grumble about whichever political party their MP belongs to. The ones who voted for another party candidate just have to hope that their political party will do better next time!

However, if they go to him with a problem or an issue then he should be doing his best for them whatever their political views (and he or she will not - or should not - ask that if a constituent goes to the surgery for help).

That is right. The political leanings of his constituents are only a part of what the MP reflects. He also has to consider the general needs of the area and the problems of individuals and groups.

If he is a good MP, then everyone is guaranteed a fair hearing and a considered response, not just a parroted repeat of the party line.

One day last week Corbyn spent five hours in his constituency office listening to people's problems. It was the day of his hundred days, and he was late for a HuffPost interview.
Do you think he should represent those tories who want him to push the button if he ever becomes PM?

Bags, how does your MP know you do not vote for him? Do you actually tell him? If so, why?

Canvassing.

Oh Corbyn is such a saint isn't he? Five hours in his office listening to problems, perhaps he will be canonised in the future like Mother Theresa?

And how the hell would he know how any of his constituents had voted? The ballot papers are not used to paper his office so that he can check on each visitor or letter. Once he is an MP, he represents the voters of his area. Full stop.

To think otherwise is to show a very narrow view of the democratic parliamentary system.

If one of those Tories came to his office with concerns over something which had nothing whatsoever to do with pushing buttons, would he tell him to go to get lost? If that (possible) Tory voter were being victimised by neighbours for being black or Muslim, would he tell him "Tough" and kick him out of the door?

"he represents the voters of his area" and also the non-voters! They live there too.

Thanks, bags.

The wisdom here is awesome. Who would have known an MP holds his surgery for all in his constituency , he/she listens to all regardless of how they voted , one learns so much here.

I'd be interested to know how many non-voters actually speak or write to their MPs.
I've got a file full of letters she has sent to me in response to my queries. Usually they are of national importance, telling me how she will vote.
Just to prevent sad comments, I keep the letters just to make sure I do not write or email more than once about the same topic.
Local stuff is usually to do with housing in the village.

If you are referring to my posts, Anniebach, they were to counteract the posts which seem to imply that they don't and should not look after and represent those in their area who did not vote for them or who are not members of their party.

A good MP is respected by all, whatever their political views, and there are many examples. A bad MP is not - and unless he is has a constituency which ignores his personal qualities when voting, he will not stay in office at the next general election.

I doubt whether any voters, including tories, want JC or any other Future prime minister to "push the button", dj. What people object to is someone declaring in advance that they never will; it's like playing poker with all one's cards face up.

Why not grumppa? We have lived under the threat of 'the bomb' for decades, the man is honest, something which seems to carry little respect . We all know pushing the button will result in world devastation yet we carry on pretending it is saving us from world devastation. Why not speak of a world without this fear

The important word is "want". I doubt there is anyone who wants the button pressed (presumably a nuclear button) Same with any other intervention, whether with planes or boots on the ground.

The "don't-bomb-or do-anything- to-defend-ourselves people" on here are very quick to verbal combat - does that really mean that they WANT to have a word fight and come on looking hopefully for someone to disagree with them so that they had get stuck in?

That is what you are saying about all tories "WANTING to push the button"

That's fine Anniebach if, to pursue my analogy, all the poker players agree to put all their cards face up on the table at the same time. Perhaps JC can have a pacifist heart to heart with Putin about it.

Perhaps grumppa, perhaps

And who are the - don't do anything to defend ourselves people Elegran? Do you really think pressing the button will ensure a good defence ?

www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2015/dec/23/2015-was-big-year-us-%E2%80%93-and-were-not-stopping-2016

For anyone who campaigns, this is what we can pat ourselves on the back for this year.
Looking forward to next year.

Pressing nuclear buttons is a red herring. AB and not one that I introduced. That was durhamjen

I'll rephrase my post to say " You and durhamjen are very quick to verbal combat with other posters - does that really mean that you WANT to have a word fight and come on looking hopefully for someone to disagree with you so that you have to get stuck in? That is what you are saying when you say that others WANT to push the button - that they HOPE to have the opportunity to use force"

That nuclear button is not in question in any case, but the "wanting" is the point of my post.

Plus - on further thought, yes, I do suspect that you both greatly enjoy the adrenaline of a word fight, despite abhoring physical violence.

Not at all, Elegran. I hope to persuade others by the use of my verbal dexterity. Not at all the same. Hope not hate. Words not war.
Mentioning nuclear bombs is not a red herring. That is the reason many people think that Corbyn should not be leader of the labour party, let alone PM.
There is no reason why his constituents should not go to his surgery and ask him to change his mind about that, despite him having been a pacifist all his life.

And no reason why he should agree to change his mind if he doesn't want to, but also no reason for their opinions on other matters to be of no interest to him/her. There are other issues that MPs can vote on and influence, not just one. This one issue may be top of the agenda at the moment, but an MP is a three-dimensional person - as are all people of all parties or none.

As Lilygran said - "People vote for the individual as well as the party, some more for one than the other!" and the individual responds to his constituents according to his own lights as well as his party policy.

( And verbal dexterity can be wielded as a blunt instrument at times! )

No Elegran, you are wrong

Sarcasm is seldom persuasive, or impressive.