Party leaders

No I wouldn't Annie, ours is a regular thorn in the side = which I welcome sometimes.

I agree with you that it is taking away the freedom to vote with your conscience but also voting you think your constituents want you to vote.

But, I think we should both hide now!!

No I would not want prospective party candidates to sign a loyalty to the leader clause.
I want my political representatives to work within the policies of their party but to be free to disagree with the leader when they believe that to be the right course of action.

What iam said.

Just as a bye the bye, how insecure and how much of a power freak does feeling the need for a loyalty vote make a party leader?

I always thought that an MP's loyalty should be first to his/her conscience, second to the constituency party that chose him, and third to the party leader.
I think can see where the question comes from though - when the current LP leader was elected, you could see that he was going to have a difficult task uniting the party behind him. Partly due to their many years out of power, (not including the Blair/Brown years) - time for several factions to develop.

This is all parties not one party

I think their main loyalty is to the people who voted for them not the leader ,maybe Labour wouldn't have abstained so often over important things if they were allowed to vote with constituents in mind

This is the sort of twisted reporting of a story that typifies the worst sort of propaganda. No MPs are being asked to sign anything. Prospective candidates are being asked to sign a loyalty agreement if they want Momentum to back them. Among the clauses is one that they will fully implement the promises in the manifesto (something I think most would want). Momentum have said they would support all Labour MPs once elected
The spokesman pointed out that the group only looks for loyalty from candidates at the pre-selection phase for the would-be MPs, but it supports all candidates when they have been nominated by Labour to run for parliament.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/labour-party-momentum-would-be-candidates-forced-urged-sign-deal-contract-accord-jeremy-corbyn-peter-a8076446.html
A little balance would be nice

What Trisher said

Oh dear, Corbynites think he is the only party leader in the country, usual move to bring a thread to a halt

Prospective candidates are being asked to sign
- Commit to the following political objectives, as set out in Momentum’s Constitution
- The manifesto clause is "subject to future policy development", so no, quite specifically not the published manifesto trisher

It's a personal pledge to Momentum and a commitment to unspecified policy.

Jon Lansman may be many things, but he certainly knows how to build a business and a power base within the LP. A personal commitment to the political objectives of Jon Lansman is far scarier than asking to support the current leader - JC is just the useful idiot imo.

No doubt they would have a hard job getting elected if they refused to sign!
No prospective or sitting MP should feel pressured into this from any Party, although Labour is the only one to be doing it.
Corbyn and McDonnell will probably say it has nothing to do with them, as usual, while they look the other way and
whistle.Meantime, Momentum is slowly but surely getting it’s tentacles into all aspects of the LP.

No.
Loyalty to the party should be expected, without having to sign a guarantee to win support.
Leaders change, their policies and beliefs also, as do those of elected and prospective MPs.
A very dangerous step indeed.

I would never ever vote for a candidate who has signed any sort 'loyalty agreement'. Not even if they were from the party I support in a closely contested constituency.

In fact I would resign from the party I have belonged to for many years, if there was even a suggestion that such an agreement might be worth considering.

I expect my MP to be independent and vote according to their principles. While I would be somewhat surprised if they made a habit of not supporting the party, (say, in 300 or 400 votes) they were recognised as belonging to. I would be equally worried if they followed their leader slavishly whether they had signed a 'loyalty agreement' or not.

Who ever defends this dishonest deed cannot speak of democracy or freedom of speech

I agree Annie Well said.

So what if you have campaigned for a party and an MP then votes against an issue you used in that campaign? Would you find that acceptable?

Or what if you voted for an MP and their party, and that party is in government, but with a tiny minority, and your MP voted with the opposition because of their principles and brought down the government. Is that OK?

If it's ok for the leader of the Labour Party then you think it's ok so why ask?

I would imagine anyone who campaigned for Corbyn was fully aware of his beliefs. It's not something he has ever hidden.

trisher

Your post 10.05 is interesting . I am reading your words as you consider it perfectly acceptable , a non negotiable position for MP's to be forced to adhere at 'ALL' times to the Party Line, never have a conscientious vote.

How would Corbyn have fared under such a Stasi state I wonder when he is known to have voted against his party leader time and again?

I am wondering if there is a fag paper between hypocrisy and control when talking of this move.

Yes, you are talking around this subject trisher and haven’t said a simple yes or no that you think it is acceptable.
Neither has anybody else who usually is very talkative about the LP and likes Corbyn.I wonder why?They are ignoring this thread as too difficult to comment on.

I think that the op is wrong in the assumption that MPs may or may not sign a loyalty clause to the leader.

No! That can and never should happen.

But one would expect as a member of a particular political party that they are loyal to the parties ideology. All political parties have a right to expect that from their members. If they can no longer give that loyalty then they should leave.

It isn’t the leader that matters but the political party. I’m sure you know that annie

The point is Momentum has now become so dominate a force in the eyes of the Labour Leadership it has successfully taken over the Labour Party.

Some of us said this would happen and it has.

Momentum is no longer is in the shadows it has become the norm . Who is in charge of the Labour Party , Momentum and they are so powerful they can get away with dictating the terms out in the open. At least now the public and those who said they know nothing of momentum cannot hide behind that nativity any longer.

I have asked these questions several times on GN and never received a reply , hopefully I will this time.:-

To those of you who are Momentum Members/Labour Members , return or new, who have done so because of /purely to follow Corbyn as Leader what will you do if Corbyn is no longer Leader?

Would you still vote Labour ?

Would Momentum still have a reason to exist?

What would Momentum become if there was no Corbyn as the purpose , the mantra was to promote Corbyn the man not the Labour Party ?

That's because it isn't a simple yes or no question lemongrove much as some people would like it to be. There are too many variables, which is why I posted the questions to those who had said they wanted MPs to vote according to their principles. How far would they take that belief?
If I was a member of Momentum (and I am not, much as some like to imagine I am) I can see that asking a candidate to make a commitment in order to gain my support and for me to campaign for them would be desirable.
And please read the article- it is candidates not MPs who are being asked to sign. There is a difference you know.
This is a typical example of people arguing about something that hasn't been proposed and is in fact purely a figment of someone's imagination. As a purely academic discussion it may be quite interesting but it has little basis in fact.

Whitewave

"But one would expect as a member of a particular political party that they are loyal to the parties ideology. All political parties have a right to expect that from their members. If they can no longer give that loyalty then they should leave."

This why I see such hypocrisy when it comes to Corbyn followers/Momentum you name it.

So the Labour Party backs Trident (at this moment in time!), Corbyn, Abbott , McDonnell haved voted against their party time and again.

Corbyn is known as a fairly prolific backbench rebel, has been for years. He has voted against numerous Labour Leaders for years.

Why has'nt he/ they left their party? If you believe what you post why do you not call for them to resign from the party.

The truth is for those who are Corbyn followers they are smelling a take over, a change of policies for the Labour Party and are not giving a hoot as to how it comes about, or which MP's , councillors that have served the Labour Party for years are treated in the process.




.