To think that mp’s defecting to another party shouldn’t be allowed?

[AlternativePerspective]

So Christian Wakeford has defected to labour over the whole Boris fiasco.

Fair enough, he wants no part in it and wants out. However, when people vote for an mp they vote for a party, not an individual. Therefore an elected mp defecting to the opposition is essentially giving a seat to that opposition without the vote of his constituents, who hadn’t wanted that party in place Because they didn’t vote for them.

So if he wants out, he should resign from his constituency so that his constituents can decide whether or not they want labour in power or not.

I mean, if you lived in a Labour constituency and your mp became a Tory I presume people might have something to say about that (I would,) so surely it should just be a blanket policy?

@TameDucksAtChatsworth

What would happen if Boris Johnson-or any other Prime Minister- said they were "crossing the floor". So, they were still PM-still in power- but were now pushing through policies of the opposition.

Would that be reasonable?

Of course not and nor is it reasonable for any MP to do this.

Well it's not reasonable because it's not possible.

If Boris were to cross the floor he would no longer be the leader of the majority party, and therefore no longer Prime Minister.

There is a quite from "Sherlock" about threads like this.

Yes, I would love to see the left reaction if this happens the other way. We hear so often I would never vote Tory. I do not respect that MP for doing that and he was probably always Labour with an agenda.

The votes on Election Night are counted by party.

Each constituency returns an elected it is the number of each candidates that are counted to give the party the right to form the next government. If we had a 1 person 1 vote system we would currently have a hung parliament (29 of the votes were for Conservative Candidates).

29% not 29...... although the way they are going it could be that way.

@TameDucksAtChatsworth

What would happen if Boris Johnson-or any other Prime Minister- said they were "crossing the floor". So, they were still PM-still in power- but were now pushing through policies of the opposition.

Would that be reasonable?

Of course not and nor is it reasonable for any MP to do this.

They wouldn’t still be PM, they’d have to resign.

We really ought to have proper citizenship education in schools so that people understand what they're voting for.

As others have pointed out, we vote for individuals, not parties.

@AlexaShutUp

We really ought to have proper citizenship education in schools so that people understand what they're voting for.

As others have pointed out, we vote for individuals, not parties.

Quite.

The name of the party is on the ballot

We don’t talk about individuals when summarising who we voted for - it’s a huge element, possibly the main one for most when choosing where to tick

Would Labour supporters be ok if it was the other way round? Or would you feel misrepresented by a Tory after voting for a Labour MP

The name of the candidate is in bold as well as the party name they align with. I don't expect to be a share holder of Heinz each time I buy a tin of baked baked beans with their name on it.

What would be more representative of what is actually happening is for an MP to be able to leave their Parliamentary party - because they no longer feel able to belong to that 'group' who have agreed on a common manifesto - and then sit as an independent or cross-bencher [like in the Lords].

Then in the next election they can stand as an Independent against a newly-appointed candidate OR return to their original party f in the meantime the manifesto had changed to one they again supported.

The 'two tribes' mentality gets in the way in some ways. I live in a marginal seat. Both of the last MPs have been good constituency MPs, with in many ways similar priorities for the area - health, education, infrastructure. If either had swapped to the other's party, it would have made very little practical difference on the ground.

Really it's a case of the theory and reality not fully aligning, mainly because it's a system that has been used for hundreds of years without change. When the electoral system came into being, there were no political parties; an individual stood for and was returned to parliament. Over time, parties formed and solidified, to the point now where almost all MPs are elected on a party ticket. Most, but not all, voters select their preferred candidate on national, party lines, though they are in strict terms electing an individual.

An MP is perfectly entitled to cross the floor, to change party and to vote however they wish. But in moral terms, it's far from as clear cut. Whatever you may think of their politics, I respected Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell for "resigning" their seats (although in another strange convention, MPs cannot actually resign) won as Conservative candidates, and fighting by-elections standing for their new party.

Some candidates don't belong to any party, they stand as Independent, so yes you vote for an individual rather than a party (although of course most candidates belong to a political party).

If all Tory MPs defected to Labour would that change it to being a Labour government

@AlternativePerspective

You’re wrong. When you vote you vote for the party who is represented by the candidate.

You don’t tick “mike smith” in the box, you tick the name of the party you’re voting for.

Have you already voted? You vote for the candidate, the party is just there to help you out. The person standing is the candidate and not the party. You might not like the facts, you clearly feel that it is not the case, nevertheless, it is still not the party standing. The party could not feature on the ballot without a candidate. The opposite is true though, so you can have a candidate without a party who would be listed as an independent.

@Jenasaurus

If all Tory MPs defected to Labour would that change it to being a Labour government

The convention is that whoever commands a majority in the House of Commons is invited to forma government. So if 50% +1 of all sitting MPs back Labour, the Queen would be obliged (on the advice of her current PM) to invite Sir Kier Starmer to form a government. No constitutional need for a general election.

@AlternativePerspective

You’re wrong. When you vote you vote for the party who is represented by the candidate.

You don’t tick “mike smith” in the box, you tick the name of the party you’re voting for.

Not true. The candidate name is much more prominent than the party. They are literally listed by name and then it tells you which party they represent. When I first voted the slip didn't have the party names on and I panicked because I couldn't remember the name I wanted to vote for.

You obviously don't pay much attention to what you've voting for if you've not noticed the candidate names on the ballot, so why do you care?

What would happen if Boris Johnson-or any other Prime Minister- said they were "crossing the floor". So, they were still PM-still in power- but were now pushing through policies of the opposition.

That couldn't happen, in theory or in practice. So a pointless example.

As an aside, until 1970 party names were not listed on ballot papers. This changed in part because of a candidate in Bexley changing his name by deed poll to "Edward Heath" and standing against the Conservative leader.

If all conservative MPs defected to Labour then they could call and win a vote of no confidence in Johnson's government. They'd then call and win a vote of confidence in a Labour government led by Keir Starmer who would head off to see the queen and then potentially run the country until the next election was due.

The problem with the OP is that political parties have no real status in law. All that matters in law is the way MPs vote from day to day. Parties are merely a way of getting things done more effectively because the government know they can rely on a majority of HOC votes as long as they don't take the piss.

Well as no doubt many others have pointed out, you vote for the MP not the party. This misunderstanding is one of the many reason our system doesn’t work.

Many years ago ( I can remember this!) only the candidates name was on the ballot paper and the parties had to go to a great deal of effort to ensure the electorate knew the name of their preferred candidate

@CorrBlimeyGG

What would happen if Boris Johnson-or any other Prime Minister- said they were "crossing the floor". So, they were still PM-still in power- but were now pushing through policies of the opposition.

That couldn't happen, in theory or in practice. So a pointless example.

A PM could cross the floor, just as any MP could, but they would lose the confidence of the House. A no confidence motion would almost certainly be called and constitutionally, the PM would be expected to resign as PM and recommend to the Queen that another MP, who could command the House, be asked to form a government.

Isn’t it basically both? A vote for the candidate is essentially a vote for their party, and if you want to vote in a particular party (and usually, by extension, Prime Minister) you just vote for their candidate. Two sides of the same coin.

Yes, I would love to see the left reaction if this happens the other way.

It has happened the other way too of course. It's happened in all directions several times. The system as it stands, as many have explained, is that officially we vote for the person. And in many constituencies people absolutely do vote for the person if they feel they have a good MP.

Given that CW is one of the 2019 MPs there may be many voters backing him crossing the floor if they have also been disillusioned with Johnson.