Letters: Nick Vinehill, October 25, 2016

In response to Mike Pantling (Letters, Lynn News, October 14). Mr Pantling as a long-term member of the Labour party and clearly on the right of the party, or what he and his allies would euphemise as moderately left, is naturally aggrieved by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has been re-elected leader again.

The crux of his letter, referring to my “sad” misunderstanding of the workings of Parliament and the Labour party, was that Labour MPs opposed to Mr Corbyn’s leadership were nevertheless elected by their constituents and not the Labour party and are therefore not bound by the Labour party constitution or pedantic Parliamentary rules to seek mandatory re-selection by their respective constituency Labour parties. However it’s hardly political rocket science that whatever previous Labour party policies were, they, as Labour MPs in the light of Mr Corbyn’s victory, should do so as they are all clearly identifiable as being unrepresentative of grass root Labour thinking and, even after Mr Corbyn’s second emphatic victory, are clearly intent with the backing of the capitalist press to defy him at every hurdle.

Quite obviously what the likes of Mr Pantling cannot stomach is the fact that whatever Mr Corbyn’s leadership achieves or doesn’t achieve in the long run, at least his short tumultuous period as leader has brought into sharp focus the type of Labour candidate that should present themselves to party members for selection and indeed the wider voting public as a whole.

Mr Pantling predictably emphasises that the Labour party membership backing Corbyn doesn’t represent the voting public as a whole who will determine whether Labour forms a government in the future. Yet I’ll put it to him where does the wider voting public get their facts and ideas from about political parties and what they stand for if it wasn’t for primarily the members?

Nick Vinehill, Snettisham