You are normally sensible but do you genuinely believe a Corbyn led Labour Party would deselect MPs for voting leave? If so you completely misread he situation. Jeremy has not sold his principles he has come to the belief that in 2016 that the best way to safeguard workers rights is to remain within the EU despite his more general reservations. If Labour MPs vote against this on principle he accepts this. This is not second hand but pretty much from the (bearded) horses mouth.
Thank you for saying I am normally sensible...my lad would probably not agree though!! Jeremy has a real problem with this..and although I like him , I also believe he has made a decision not based on overnight conversion but for the reasons below... I apologise for copying them from a different thread. Originally Posted by Mr C View Post I can understand that Andy. But I think when JC seriously aired his Euro doubts, he wasn't the Labour leader and the socio/political climate was very different to now. I fear his reasons are more pragmatic. The operative words are Labour Leader and are key to it . To be fair Jeremy is in a very tricky position...there are still a large number of Blairites who would prefer to see him gone...his own election depended on union support largely Unite...who want to remain...as do the Blairites generally ...he has apparently repaid their support by dropping his lifetime opposition to the EU. The real problem he now has , is to resolve his conversion to the Remain campaign with Aslef/RMT....he was supported by them in his election and they announced it was conditional on his support for renationalisation of the railways....this is not possible under EU rules . An easy Remain win would have saved him from paying anything other than lip service to the campaign...it will be most interesting to see what his position will be in the event of a Brexit
On the railways ,havnt the govt taken over East Coast trains on a couple of occasions now, then sold them back to private company's.?
The franchise was taken back into public ownership returned a profit for the first time in years they then gave it back to a franchisee who promptly started to lose money again.
Marlon , forgive me if it sounds like I'm having a go at you...I'm not..but you couldn't be more wrong..the Parties set the agenda...they expect Elected Members to toe that line..the consequences for stepping out , start with a tongue lashing from the whip...then the threat of removal from Committees..if that doesn't do the trick you find yourself out of the loop with an empty email inbox or not invited to meetings..and other members suddenly not as talkative as they were before...eventually the threat of de-selection followed by actual de-selection , or the alternative method is the leaking of embarrassing information leading to your resignation . The Thick of it with Peter Capaldi illustrates it perfectly..it is as dog eat dog as they portray it...I'd prefer not to go into how I know these things..but trust me , it is not secondhand information and I guarantee it does happen.
The MPs are expected to follow party lines normally penalties apply ie having the whip withdrawn etc which is probably a deselecting process etc. However on occasions members who have a conflict of interest or strong convictions are not pursued under thesr rules. Remember Robin Cooke etc who wasn't punished for noy voting for the Iraq war and resigned as a minister . This is one those occasions and no actions will be taken. This referendum divides across the floor of both houses and although falling out and heated arguments are abound but no official punishments will be given. Tactics used however could be punished but that's a different matter. There are loads of examples of mps not voting party lines without repercussions.