When have Labour party members *ever* removed a leader?

Members can't remove a leader, only MPs can.

And let's face it, why would the little people be entitled to have a view?

I don't think giving the labour party membership defact veto power over the prime minister of the united kingdom is a good idea, Norbert.

(a) It isn't a veto. It'd take a lot to make it happen. (b) There have been any number of Labour leaders who never made it to No 10. But more fundamentally, isn't it always amazing that what works really quite well in other countries in Europe should absolutely be out of the question here?

It is a veto. You want the membership of the labour party to be able tbring down the prime minister if they want. No. That isn't parliamentary democracy. It isn't democracy at all. I get b) but that isn't what we are talking about here, you don't want it just for opposition times.

Of course in the UK the leader of the party *must* be the Prime Minister so it must always be this way and cannot conceivably be any other way even though in other places it often is but let's not go there. He's elected to represent the views of those who *are* the party. If he stops doing that...

He isn't elected to represent the views of the people in the party. You don't understand our form of government.

Well, MA in PolSci but what do I know. Have a nice day.

I'm seriously worried that you didn't get an education worth the opportunity cost if you think giving labour party members the right to get rid of a sitting pm is compatible with our form of government. Your credentials don't mean anything if you are wrong.

He's elected to represent a constituency, and wins his status as pm because he commands the confidence of the house. What you want is to remove parliamentary sovereignty and replace it with the freaks of the labour party membership! Hell no.

Wonder if he'd get elected to a constituency if it wasn't for the Labour party. Digitalis: "the freaks of the labour party membership" Also Digitalis: "I am enraged as a labour party member, I feel totally powerless to affect change." 🤔 Democracy, eh? So messy.

That‘s something I agree with. The question now is whether MPs remain cowards in the face of the fascist right or whether they remember that their first duty is to the country and not to Starmer.

The PM has patronage. You want a government role, no matter how insignificant? Keep your mouth shut. They will not.

Patronage powers don't help when you don't have enough jobs to give out and your MPs don't think they have a chance of getting reelected.

Well, there's two options - either you have a small majority which means 40-50% are on the Government pay roll. Or you have a huge majority and then you don't really have to care about 40-50 rebellious MPs.

How can you be theoretically conscious and not recognise how what you are saying directly contradicts the lived experience of the last few months lol.

When Hitler passed the enablement act socialist MPs voted no, despite being threatened, despite knowing it would pass anyway. Many of them went into the first concentration camps. Being elected comes with great privileges but also with the duty to make the ultimate sacrifice when needed.

Yes, but then you've got people like Torsten Bell who was a huge critic of the two child benefit policy and now he's an ardent defender. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Are you two seriously, seriously comparing the labour party to parties that passed the enabling act. Can you get a fucking grip.

In addition to my other comment, doing what Farage says requires passing something that is no less evil than Hitler‘s enablement act.

No. I am reminding that MPs have a higher purpose than aiming for government jobs.

I could also point to David Lammy. From saying in parliament that Brexit is a con to going fishing with American Nazis. And no, the holiday pictures with Vance were not a required part of the brief of a foreign secretary. Other Europeans did not debase themselves like this.

There is no chance to replace Starmer anytime soon. He has a right grip on the party machine.

He can be replaced whenever MPs become unconvinced he's going to be able help them keep their seat. I imagine the 2026 local elections give a decent time for this. What exactly is your alternative timo? Pretend Jeremy Corbyn can spin a party of malcontents up? Pretend the greens can win?

Bring in PR to ensure there can not be a Fascist take over of the UK. Labour members voted for it.

The plp failed to remove corbyn cos, y'know, lp rules mean it's virtually impossible to remove a leader no matter how shit he is. Hence 2019.

We’re in this mess because of this kind of thinking. Labour clearly are not doing enough to win the next election or beat away Reform. They’re paving the way. The alternative starts when you stop giving unconditional support to people who are acting like fascists. It’s as simple as that.

I think if you think that labour are acting like fascists you need to get a reality check.

The war against basic rights for trans people is not that of a party that values human rights for all parts of society.

The position is bad on trans rights. It's not fascism.

The denial of basic rights for vulnerable groups is one of the big red flags on the way to fascism.

Do you think the labour party is a fascist party yes or no? Let's get this over with quickly

I will answer that. Willingness to use elements of, yes. Evidence: Ignoring the GFA Ignoring the rule of law for the TCA Lack of citizens rights regarding trans & EU / UK citizens Supporters of genocide Engaging in performative racism Watching people drown in the channel Treatment of aslyum seekers

So do you think in 100 years time students of fascism will do a labour party module between the Hitler and Mussolini?

Recent decisions with regards to Gaza protests by Labour are not that of a party that has freedom of speech at its core.

Ok but that isn't fascism, Timo.

Fascism is not a binary state but a slippery slope. Every such decision leads us further down this slope at which end Farage is waiting.

Fascism as a meaning and the meaning isn't "socially conservative politics with a long history in the labour party and in social democracies more generally". The policies are bad, the politics are bad, you do not need to invoke the spectre of fascism and it's crimes to say that.

It's much more relevant to compare this government to labour in the 60s and 70s rather than Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. That this needs to be said is ridiculous.