It will probably be fairly comfortable for the government but it will be interesting to see how labour MPs react - there may be no great requirement for them to listen to Corbyn in person but there's a grassroots campaign for labour voters to inform their MPs directly of their opinion. The value of social media and all that. A labour MP might not give a crap what Corbyn thinks, but if they're in a marginal constituency and a bunch of their voters say 'if you vote in favour you'll never get our vote again' that will certainly be something they'll have to pay attention to.

It's an interesting question actually - are we a representative democracy or a nominative democracy? If we're in the former, then MPs aren't allowed to vote with their own consciences, they're required to vote as their constituents would want. if the latter, the system basically is 'we elect you to make decisions on our behalf and whatever you decide is fair enough'. The thing is, we always say we're in the former but a lot of labour MPs are acting like we're in the latter.

I'm trying to think of the last time my local MP tried to canvas the opinion of the constituency... nope, not coming to mind. Massively safe Tory seat and I suspect my views wouldn't be high on the list for consideration.
In my experience, the only time MP's usually pay the least bit of notice to their constituents is when an election is in the offing, once that's dealt with they don't worry much unless the seriously manage to blot their copy book in the mean time.

There would need to be a referendum to properly consult the people on what they wanted and I really don't see that happening.
The politicians can't let those upstart voters start telling them when they can or can't go to war after all.

Given that all polling indicates the UK voters approve of RAF air strikes in Syria approve of RAF air strikes in Syria that seems like a pointless non-debate.

People rarely complain about the minutiae of political representation except when their own niche views aren't being enacted. I speak from knowledge, I am a Liberal and nobody agrees with me, we should have PR so that this can be measured more precisely.

I agree!

If the government is organised, they will win the vote. That much isn't interesting. However given that the same polls indicate the majority of labour voters don't approve of RAF strikes in Syria, the behaviour specifically of the Labour party MPs seems like a very valid point of interest, if not debate. If a group of MPs vote against the wishes of their party's members and, as has been said, they almost certainly haven't bothered to canvas their constituents - who exactly are they representing?

Cameron calls Corbyn 'terrorist sympathiser'

We're about send British troops to kill people on foreign soil, or at least more foreign soil. There's some chance some of them will get killed doing so (if you think ISIL can't get hold of surface to air weaponry you're an idiot) and almost certainly some innocent civilians will be killed in 'collateral damage'. This is not the level of debate this issue deserves.

Curses, struck down by the Lib Dem Paradox!

That's intriguing. To what extent are the MPs constituents' the party activists, as opposed to the local electorate? Bearing in mind that few get much over 50% of the local vote but all are expected to represent every constituent?

If in doubt, they can always quote Edmund Burke when he sold out the voters of Bristol to repeal a foolish import duty. "If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong""

They may not want to though, because I think he did lose his seat at the next election.

If they had to vote with the views of their constituents, that would make them delegates, not representatives

Representatives have to vote with the interests of their constituents, which is a different thing entirely.

That's a very fair distinction. And one not often made when talking about our electoral system.

Jon

Recriminations begin against Labour MPs who voted for Syria airstrikes | Politics | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ivingstone

How can you realistically talk about deselections when it was a free vote? That would effectively be another minority grouping, former supporters, against Jez's wishes.

If they're members of the constituency party of the particular MP, they can talk about deselection. If they're not, their threats are entirely empty.

As to it being a free vote, its like free speech. Yes, you get to do/say what you like, but you have to accept there may be consequences. If you vote against what the majority of your constituency voters want, free vote or not, you're making yourself unpopular with the people who put you in office. You can say how you voted is more in their best interests but they're under no obligation to agree with you and just as you have freedom of action, so do they.

Frankly, I'd like the whip system outlawed and ALL votes to be free votes, with MPs having to justify their voting record to their constituents.

However there's a difference between 'passionate disagreement' and 'threats and abuse'. Just as Jezza says, the latter is unacceptable under any circumstances.

I meant people who are Corbyn supporters talking about deselections, even though he's against them and deployed the free vote as an internal compromise. They're looking to cut their opposition off almost altogether. Brutal, but maybe better than the slow death the party is currently going for.

It was a free vote only because he knew if he tried to "Whip it" the MP's would have ignored him and he would have lost more authority