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?

It's all very well prattling on about the theory of who you're voting for-person or party-but most people assume they are voting for the party they want in power. If not, why have Independents in the first place?

What happens if every Conservative MP crosses over to Labour tomorrow? There will then be a Labour government, despite the Conservatives winning the General Election on their manifesto.

The same could happen if Labour were in power and they all crossed to the Conservative.

So, despite a certain colour winning the election on their manifesto, taking power, they would be put out of power the very next day if all their MPs crossed the floor.

What price democracy then. You might have voted for a Labour/Conservative government and then end up with the losing party calling the shots.

So, balls to democracy.

If you don't want to be aligned to a particular party and wear their rosette, then stand as an Independent. Don't tie your star to the party who you think will win, get people to vote for you and them and then shift your arse over to the other lot.

Personally, I think it's a quisling trick and I wouldn't trust the oath of any turncoat of any political colour who did it. He should have stood down and no Jesuitical musing, political angels on pinheads and word salads can make it right.

⬆️ There’s so much nonsense in this post I don’t know where to start with it. Let’s start with all the manifesto promises the Tories have already broken. Manifestos aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

Oh dear! Try to take your mind out of its pretty narrow "I hate the Tories, Yah Boo cos they're horrid" gauge and see it in a larger context.

What if Corbyn had won a landslide and the next day, all his MPs had crossed over to the Conservatives and he never had the chance to put his manifesto into action.

Wouldn't you think that was a failure of democracy? I would.

.

@TameDucksAtChatsworth

Oh dear! Try to take your mind out of its pretty narrow "I hate the Tories, Yah Boo cos they're horrid" gauge and see it in a larger context.

What if Corbyn had won a landslide and the next day, all his MPs had crossed over to the Conservatives and he never had the chance to put his manifesto into action.

Wouldn't you think that was a failure of democracy? I would.

.

Oh dear, try not to be so insulting to someone you don’t know and think about what you’ve posted and how nonsensical it is.

No party is going to defect en masse, is it? I’d think that was a failure of reality.

@TameDucksAtChatsworth

Oh dear! Try to take your mind out of its pretty narrow "I hate the Tories, Yah Boo cos they're horrid" gauge and see it in a larger context.

What if Corbyn had won a landslide and the next day, all his MPs had crossed over to the Conservatives and he never had the chance to put his manifesto into action.

Wouldn't you think that was a failure of democracy? I would.

.

That scenario is so totally unrealistic that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

If you don't want to be aligned to a particular party and wear their rosette, then stand as an Independent. Don't tie your star to the party who you think will win, get people to vote for you and them and then shift your arse over to the other lot.

That isn't what happened though is it?

He'd always been a member of the Conservative Party. He was a conservative councillor in the constituency for some time before standing as an MP.

He won by 300 votes - Bury South was very tight. It is a seat usually held by a Labour MP but he won by a small majority.

He served the constituency as an MP with the Conservative Party for two years.

Having seen the disgrace the leader of the Conservative Party has made of himself he has decided to leave the Conservative Party.

He wasn't a Labour man in disguise, waiting until the minute he got elected on a landslide Tory manifesto to dramatically fling back his blue cloak (revealing a red lining) whilst cackling about how he fooled them all.

If the leader of your party disgraces himself then it is your democratic right to remove yourself from that party. MPs have this right too.

If things were going so well in a political party that they just stormed a GE then their whole load of MPs wouldn't need to leave, would they?

When you vote for an mp, under our system, you vote for the candidate. The party is secondary.

@TameDucksAtChatsworth

It's all very well prattling on about the theory of who you're voting for-person or party-but most people assume they are voting for the party they want in power. If not, why have Independents in the first place?

What happens if every Conservative MP crosses over to Labour tomorrow? There will then be a Labour government, despite the Conservatives winning the General Election on their manifesto.

The same could happen if Labour were in power and they all crossed to the Conservative.

So, despite a certain colour winning the election on their manifesto, taking power, they would be put out of power the very next day if all their MPs crossed the floor.

What price democracy then. You might have voted for a Labour/Conservative government and then end up with the losing party calling the shots.

So, balls to democracy.

If you don't want to be aligned to a particular party and wear their rosette, then stand as an Independent. Don't tie your star to the party who you think will win, get people to vote for you and them and then shift your arse over to the other lot.

Personally, I think it's a quisling trick and I wouldn't trust the oath of any turncoat of any political colour who did it. He should have stood down and no Jesuitical musing, political angels on pinheads and word salads can make it right.

It's not theory, it's how the system works.

People vote for MPs. They don't really vote in a government in a direct way.

When the MPs get into Parliament, they have to form a government, and that's usually the party that has the most MPs. But - not always. Sometimes it can be a party that formed the last government if no party has a majority, or it can be some kind of coalition.

But the main issue is that whomever it is, whomever is the leader of that group and so becomes PM, they have to hold the confidence of the majority of MPs. The majority of individuals who have been elected need to be willing to accept the leadership of that PM and his supporters.

If they don't, that government will be dissolved.

That's the system that protects your representation.

I mean - lets say there was a scenario where that happened.

Say, they elect some party, and the leader decides to push through fa budget that will devastate large swaths of the country. As is usual on a budget vote MPs are expected to toe the line or be ejected.

So they vote against it.

What's the other option, the PM is allowed to tell them they have to support his or her direction? Why have MPs at all, why not just elect a PM and allow that person do do whatever?

YANBU

yes you vote for the individual, but you do that based on the things they say they are going do if elected. One of the things they said they’d do is vote for the party manifesto, that’s why they have that party’s endorsement.

Jesus, no matter this country Is fucked, people are voting for the party rather than the candidate. That means the candidate could be utter utter shite and they’d still vote for them!

I vote for a candidate that actually lives in my constituency. I want an MP who cares about this area and will work to improve it, I don't see how they can do that if they live 40 miles away.

The colour of their rosette will always come after that for me.

The previous MP for bury south was labour then suspended by the party (for allegations of sexual harassment). He later resigned from Labour and became independent . When he stood for re election in 2019 he changed his mind and asked people to vote for the Conservative candidate.
www.burytimes.co.uk/news/18104438.ousted-mp-ivan-lewis-honoured-served-bury-south/

TL;DR: you vote for the fucking local MP, not the party, not the leader, no matter how you feel or what you think. That is how our Westminster system of parliament works. If you don’t like it, feel free to campaign for change. Don’t pretend it’s something else. Cause it’s not. It doesn’t matter what party is written on the ballot, you vote for the person, not the party.

This.

@Dillidalli

Jesus, no matter this country Is fucked, people are voting for the party rather than the candidate. That means the candidate could be utter utter shite and they’d still vote for them!

You're so right! It explains why absolute cockwombles like Matt Hancock get voted in.

You vote for the individual, not the party as others have already said. The same for local councillor elections. I wouldn’t choose to vote LibDem in a million years but our local LibDem councillor is brilliant and really gets things done, hence he gets my vote.

@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 ever voted?

Have you ever heard of an independent candidate?

You literally vote for the person. The person who wins represents their constituents. If they believe their constituents are no longer represented by their party then they absolutely should be able to cross the house.

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

I don't agree. Where I live we no longer have FPTP (thank goodness!) but when we did I voted for the candidate who I thought would best represent my electorate, whatever their party.

One of the things they said they’d do is vote for the party manifesto, that’s why they have that party’s endorsement
Not sure piss ups in Downing Street were in the manifesto?

If MPs are not allowed to think for themselves, why have them at all?

I have lots of issues with the political system in this country but the fact of the matter is we have individual MPs in our system which means they are allowed to switch.

He will likely have made this gesture because he will have been inundated with letters from angry constituents furious at boris Johnson and the Tory party as a whole. His letter stated he believed the Tories were no longer serving his constituents. Don’t forget this is not a tory stronghold, its an historic Labour seat so lots of REALLY pissed off voters here.

Funny thing is, in the American system it's the opposite. You vote for the party. Despite the fact that their elections seem so much more about the individual than the party.

@HirplesWithHaggis

You don't vote for a party though, you elect the candidate. So many people don't seem to understand this.

This

So many people getting ragey and rude on this thread.

I think you vote for both. This is why:

On the voting slips (someone posted a screenshot earlier) there's the name but the party is displayed even more prominently right next to the box you tick.

I think a lot of people care about their local MP. So for example, let's pretend I'm usually a Tory voter (!) - I might like the Conservatives but absolutely loathe Priti Patel. I might not want to vote for her as my MP.

However, MPs don't always get a free vote in Parliament - sometimes they're whipped to vote a certain way. If they don't follow the party whip they can (and are) effectively ejected (if it's a three line whip). I was reading something the other day that suggests a very large proportion of votes are whipped to a greater or lesser degree.

So actually, the party is central to the person you vote for. Your local MP might seem like a really great person - but if their party whips them to vote a certain way, that's what they'll do. Going back to my previous example, although I don't like Priti Patel, I might feel forced to vote for her anyway because I don't agree with Labour/Green/Lib Dem policies. The party's policies generally are more influential than the individual's personal views - hence why there's such a focus on the party manifesto in pre-election campaigning.

Suggesting the party is irrelevant to the vote is ridiculous. If that was the case, why would it be necessary for the parties to produce a central manifesto? If it were ONLY about your local candidate and their worthiness, you'd want a local manifesto only.

If there's an issue that's of burning importance to you, when you vote you check for the party's stance on the issue. Because it doesn't matter what your MP thinks about the subject if they're whipped to vote a certain way.

That's why for most people the party takes precedence over the local person - because it's the party's manifesto and views that the local MP will be expected to support and implement. And if those central policies change, the MP will be expected to go along with those changes, regardless of their personal views. That's especially the case for big or important issues where they'll be whipped.

I think although you technically vote for the person, morally it would be better for them to have to stand down if they defect. A by-election feels like a fairer process. But I can't say I especially care too much - it's a fairly rare occurrence and we've got much bigger shitstorms currently going on in our political system.

There should be a by election for any significant changes like this