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?

I understand why we don't have by-elections, as under the current system we do vote for the MP.

However, their party is going to be (one of) the main reasons that they get votes. People talk about "voting Tory" not "voting John Jones". People's voting intentions in polls depend on what's happening in Westminster. Parties have national manifestos, leadership debates, whips. That's how you can have a constituency that has been Labour for decades or Tory for decades, for example. It's not because every Tory candidate Surrey has ever had has been a wonderful person who sorts local issues and rescues kittens in his lunch break. It's mainly because people there support the Conservative party.

Given that, in practice, people do vote by party, I think there should be a by-election. Wakeford could always stand in the by-election, as Labour (if they let him) or independent. If people truly think that Wakeford is the best local MP, regardless of party, they'll vote him back in.

I think this is a really marginal issue because it happens so infrequently so why waste space on it? Of course, Churchill crossed the floor twice which is partly why the Tories never trusted him as PM until the success at El Alamein and he went on to be our greatest wartime PM. If he had lost his seat in a compulsory by-election we might have lost WW2.

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.

Our Bozza would probably say nobody told him they were the rules so he shouldn't have to stand down

He can change his mind (although it seems very cynical to me), but there should be a by-election definitely.

Op have you ever voted before because you sound like you have no idea wtf you’re on about.

I agree with you, OP. I'm delighted this guy has defected to Labour but I can't see how that's fair on his constituency who voted for a Tory, even if I think they were misguided. I know we are supposed to vote for the person, not the party, that's why with deaths there is a by-election. They don't just continue on with a new person of the same party, but I still think defections are a bit dodgy for democracy.

I’m a Labour voter in Christian Wakeford’s constituency.

He can fuck off, I still wouldn’t vote for him, he’s an awful man.

But the way it works in this country is we elect individuals to represent in in parliament, they may or may not be aligned to a political party. They can then vote whichever way they please in the commons - they don’t have to follow the party line.

Therefore if they want to defect they can.

I just hope Labour don’t put him up at the next election.

@Grantanow

I think this is a really marginal issue because it happens so infrequently so why waste space on it? Of course, Churchill crossed the floor twice which is partly why the Tories never trusted him as PM until the success at El Alamein and he went on to be our greatest wartime PM. If he had lost his seat in a compulsory by-election we might have lost WW2.

Ok that’s a stretch.

YABU
You vote for the person, not the party. And an MP can switch parties as much as any other citizen if they feel the party no longer adheres to their sense of ethics or purpose.

@Grantanow

I think this is a really marginal issue because it happens so infrequently so why waste space on it? Of course, Churchill crossed the floor twice which is partly why the Tories never trusted him as PM until the success at El Alamein and he went on to be our greatest wartime PM. If he had lost his seat in a compulsory by-election we might have lost WW2.

You think the Russians and, later, Americans wouldn't have bothered fighting if Churchill hadn't be our PM?

Under the political system you vote for the candidate not their party, so no. However, in reality, people are voting for who they want to be the next government, so I take your point.

"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."

Lady Sylvia Hermon did this and won her seat at the next general election:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Hermon

although it helped that the Alliance party withdrew their candidate to support her.

I think there should be a bye-election when there is such a dramatic change of allegiance.

YABU. People DON'T vote for a party, they vote for an individual. Have you ever looked at a ballot slip??

It may not be right, but it's how elections work.

Personally, I've always voted for the person first, and party second, hence why my recent voting pattern (not in date order) is Con, Con, Lab, Lab, Lib. All down to the person for me, ie. I only vote for a local candidate who has either lived or worked in the area and who has a real interest in local issues. I've never voted for anyone parachuted in from Central Office of any party.

Personally, I've always voted for the person first, and party second, hence why my recent voting pattern (not in date order) is Con, Con, Lab, Lab, Lib. All down to the person for me, ie. I only vote for a local candidate who has either lived or worked in the area and who has a real interest in local issues. I've never voted for anyone parachuted in from Central Office of any party.

+1

It's funny you need to sign more forms saying you have understood something to take out a direct debit than you need to vote.

(Now thinking of an Abraham Lincoln quote) ...

I always voted for the party candidate for the simple reason that our MP vote has a bearing on who runs the country.

We need a better voting system - if, for example, I had a really competent Conservative candidate, I’d never vote for them because I don’t want the conservatives running the country. But locally that isn’t much of an issue - I want my local MP to deal with local issues. We see it a lot where MPs vote along party lines that go against local views.

Better to decouple the two.

I wonder if other countries manage it!

I have voted for my local MP based on what he has done for our area, not by what party he represents. I have never voted for his party in a GE and I never would.
Just because you only vote for a certain party doesn’t mean the rest of the voting populace does so too. YABU

@Tomeeornottomee

I have voted for my local MP based on what he has done for our area, not by what party he represents. I have never voted for his party in a GE and I never would. Just because you only vote for a certain party doesn’t mean the rest of the voting populace does so too. YABU

Which I understand but it means that the ruling party ends up being one that you don’t support?

I wonder how many other voters have a similar dilemma and how our governments would look if they reflected actual voter party preferences.

We effectively have no choice really if we want a decent local MP vs a decent national government when the two don’t align.

OP's post isn't by any means ridiculous, but it's unreasonable on balance, for the reasons already given by others.

We need a better voting system

The problem is our existing voting system consistently delivers around 500 people who really don't want to see a better voting system. And will continue to do so.

This is how revolutions happen. When "the system" is so geared to feeding "the system" that it becomes sclerotic and eventually corrupt and oppressive.

Look how hard it was to abolish slavery. And even when we did we (that is the British taxpayer until 2011) had to pay back the slave owners for the loss of their property.

And as we know, women would never have got the vote if they had solely relied on "the system" as it was.

There are a lot of things that could be done to vastly improve the UKs electoral system. Some form of PR, for a start, and getting rid of hereditary privilege and cronyism for a finish. I humbly suggest worrying about what rossette an MP might identify with at any given moment is really small beer in comparison.

I want my local councillor - borough and county to deal with the local problems and my MP to influence national policy in a way that benefits their local constituents.

@Unescorted

I want my local councillor - borough and county to deal with the local problems and my MP to influence national policy in a way that benefits their local constituents.

But what when that is at the detriment to another MPs constituents ?

There will always be conflict where there are competing views. I would however expect my MP to vote in a way that does not cause detriment or hardship to his own constituents. I may not agree with that majority view but I would expect an elected representative to vote to uphold those views. What you don't want is one that is whipped so hard they have only voted against govt once even where it has been at the cost (environmental, socially and economically) for the majority of his constituents.

You vote for the individual. You are not unreasonable to think it's wrong for them to switch sides but you are wrong about who you vote for

I have always voted for the best candidate to serve my local constituency. Last time it was a Labour candidate (who won) even though I did not want Corbyn as PM under any circumstances. The other candidates were all woeful.

Good for Christian.