It is rare for a leader to substantially strengthen his authority over a party in the immediate aftermath of general election defeat. Jeremy Corbyn has managed it because his performance last month did not feel like defeat to his supporters, nor indeed to his opponents, not least because it defied gloomy forecasts. The effects of a good Labour campaign and an abysmal Tory one are impossible to separate. But one thing is certain: there are MPs who owe part of their majorities to Mr Corbyn personally. And many of those same MPs did not show him much allegiance in the two years preceding the poll. So it is unsurprising that some of the leader’s allies seek what might diplomatically be called a rebalancing of opinion in the parliamentary party. The mechanism might be viewed as a move to mandatory reselection of parliamentary candidates, giving constituency parties a bigger lever to prise out incumbents. Such a power exists already, but sitting MPs are not expected automatically to reapply for local approval in advance of every election.

The ostensible reason for the change is democratisation – a transfer of power to party members. It is on these grounds that Ian Lavery, Labour chair, and Chris Williamson, shadow minister for fire and emergency services, advocate rule changes. Mr Corbyn has signalled approval of the principle of empowering members, while not explicitly blessing the proposed means. Labour MPs worry that organisational reform is personally targeted at them. Party democracy can be used by MPs to understand internal dissatisfaction. But threats are not an effective way to convince anyone of the righteousness of one’s position. There are some worries about the demands addressed to Liverpool MP Luciana Berger. She has been told by a section of her local party that she must apologise for past criticism of Mr Corbyn and, in future, defer to the local party when choosing how to vote. “She will have to be answerable to us,” the statement read.

MPs ought to be responsive to members and respect their views. But they are also answerable to the wider pool of their constituents. Disagreeing with the leadership is part and parcel of democratic life – just ask Ken Livingstone (or indeed the backbench incarnation of Mr Corbyn). The current leadership has energised a membership, and it should be tasked with taking the fight to opponents in other parties. There is an element here of overinterpreting every move in a local party as some kind of purge. It is right to expect Mr Corbyn’s parliamentary critics to revise their views in light of the election result. Most have done just that. It is also fair to note that Labour’s national poll share reflected a complex coalition of people who were inspired by the leader and sceptics who backed the party in spite of its leader. The work of holding that alliance together, building on success, is not simply a matter of narrowing views. Engaging with party members and allowing their views to be better expressed in parliament is a fine ambition – and is in keeping with the open-hearted spirit of Mr Corbyn’s own campaign rhetoric, which is what Labour MPs should take to heart.