(08 Jun 2016, 6:04 pm)Andreos1 wrote But it is different. The public and party members (of which it is easy to become), are involved at all stages of voting a prospective MP, leader and potential PM.
Whilst the people of Whitney may have voted Cameron in as their MP, we all know that they did so as they thought it was the right choice. Just as Labour party members chose Corbyn as their leader and potential PM.
We can just as easily vote them out.
Whilst we may have a say in who our MEP is going to be, we know that is the end of the road as far as public involvement and influence goes.
Glad you bring up Corbyn and the Labour Leadership election here as, in my opinion, it exemplifies the lack of public and party involvement in choosing a party leader (and potential PM) due to the politicking of those in the Parliamentary Labour Party.
While Corbyn has the overwhelming support of party members, he certainly did not have the support of those responsible of putting him on the ballot paper. If the PLP didn't underestimate his popularity, with certain MP's nominating him despite having no intention of backing him, it's doubtful he would have made it as we've heard from the likes of Margaret Beckett and such.
Party politics aside, this has a direct effect on the electorate as the will of the party is not reflected in its leader, or potentially, the PM. If Labour happens to win the next General Election, one can argue Corbyn's assention is accidental win due the nature of his appointment. If he ousted before then due to a vote of no confidence by the PLP, one can argue that his dismissal is against the will of party members and therefore undemocratic.
Either way, his position is dependant on the few and not the many.