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 think you are spot on @AlternativePerspective

Many voters don't care nor know much about the individual MP, although there definitely are people that do. Most people vote for the party the MP represents due to the national policies that party has. So it is unfair if an MP suddenly switches party after being elected.

I agree that it should trigger a by election - I think it should be done within 6 months of any switch of political party made by an elected representative.

@DGRossetti

How about when a Prime Minister is replaced ? Should that trigger a general election ?

No, why would it? The general public don't vote for the PM

@SpidersAreShitheads

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.

I agree. I vote for a party’s policies and if I have to guess where the MP might land up the trust is gone. Technically yes it might be the case but I’m pretty sure this site would see many angry posts if Labour MP defected to Cons from same side who are saying it’s fine.

@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!

The reverse would be worse. Voting for great local MPs who are in a party where the leader would make an utter shite PM.

Wakeford was lucky to get in (in no small part due to the actions of Bury South's previous mp and the anti-semitism situation).
There's also an active independent party within Bury South which muddies the waters as the labour run council is not the greatest, which has led to a big backlash against labour. However, there is also a lot of anger against the Tories so, even if there was a by election called, it wouldn't be clear cut.

I feel sorry for the last labour candidate who lost against Wakeford in 2019, she was local and very engaged in the community.

National political party policies affect the country and our lives far more than local issues do. Local issues are important and it's crucial to get a good engaged MP but anyone voting in national elections on basis that they like their MP, but not the party they represent, is being myopic,

@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!

(looks around parliament)

You think there's a real danger that might happen in future ?

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!

So the policies and leader for the party mean nothing over the local candidate? Crazy

@HirplesWithHaggis

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

Yes, in theory, but in practice the vast majority of people do vote for a candidate because s/he represents the party they prefer.

I agree with a pp that it should trigger a by-election.

A lot of people believing a wrong thing doesn't make it right.

@DGRossetti well we have a conservative government and useless mps so I guess we are already there.

You vote for a candidate who is a representative of a party (unless they are an independent). And obviously in many cases you vote for that candidate precisely because they are representing that party.

The fact that the OP was wrong to say that you vote for the party and not the candidate (you effectively vote for both really), doesn't mean her point about candidates defecting is unreasonable.

Technically people can talk about what happens but if people dismiss the leader and manifesto for preferring their local MP I’d say they are an outlier and can’t understand why they would

But I guess if they’re a stickler for process and it’s that important to them it’s up to them how they vote

A lot of inconsistent frothing here, surely.

If we accept this poppycock about people "voting for parties" (and that's their lookout) then what should happen when the party changes ?

I was awake in 2019, and can recall Tory manifesto pledges (so not some bloke spouting off outside a pub, but official policy) about not raising NI (for example).

Why aren't people clamouring for a fresh election over that ?

Besides. Unless you are a Bury constituent, why should any of this worry you ? Your MP hasn't crossed the floor. Maybe concentrate on holding them to their promises before you fret over someone elses ?

poppycock about people "voting for parties"

Of course it is…

‘Frothing’ yep from people getting angry over the reality of people voting for parties or leaders. When the questions were asked after Labour’s defeat it was - was it more Corbyn or policies not how about your local MP

As for this site if it went the other way ha at this same posters being so magnanimous

I agree. It's cheeky. They should force a re-election of the MP.

@Viviennemary

I agree. It's cheeky. They should force a re-election of the MP.

Which he’d win because his majority as a Tory was miniscule. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Found out you were wrong on page 1 and not come back lol

@Itsalmostanaccessory no. I was talking about the by-elections. I vote for the PARTY in a GE, not in a local 🙄 thanks for your input though. Really helpful 😂

It's true that individuals are elected rather than parties.

But let's be realistic here. Most people know the sum of absolutely nothing about their local MP. You'll be lucky if most people could name their MP, let alone pick them out of a crowd.

Plus, the whipping system is a thing. Regardless of what your local MP claims to stand for personally, on most matters that people actually care about when it comes to how an MP votes they do as they are told. So, if you vote for an MP on the basis of say a manifesto to "get brexit done" they will be whipped accordingly to vote through brexit legislation. If they cross the floor to an anti-brexit party, they are whipped to vote the other way.

So given the actual reality of the UK political system and given that electoral reform is not going to happen soon it's understandable that people feel like a byelection should be triggered when an MP changes party, and I'm inclinded to agree with that.

For people that think the system should change, your first challenge appears to be to get your MP to give a toss ....

Which he’d win because his majority as a Tory was miniscule. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Not necessarily- he wouldn't necessarily be adopted as the Labour candidate would he?

Tbh although I think it's completely right that MPs should be able to leave a party if they believe it no longer represents their constituents' best interests, and I don't think this should automatically trigger a by election, it would probably be better if they had to serve the remainder of their term as an independent. They could then seek to be adopted by another party as their candidate, or stand as an independent.

@WindyState

It's true that individuals are elected rather than parties.

But let's be realistic here. Most people know the sum of absolutely nothing about their local MP. You'll be lucky if most people could name their MP, let alone pick them out of a crowd.

Plus, the whipping system is a thing. Regardless of what your local MP claims to stand for personally, on most matters that people actually care about when it comes to how an MP votes they do as they are told. So, if you vote for an MP on the basis of say a manifesto to "get brexit done" they will be whipped accordingly to vote through brexit legislation. If they cross the floor to an anti-brexit party, they are whipped to vote the other way.

So given the actual reality of the UK political system and given that electoral reform is not going to happen soon it's understandable that people feel like a byelection should be triggered when an MP changes party, and I'm inclinded to agree with that.

Well put

Talk this morning of CE voting according to Cons whip who will then change

CW rather

Realistically people vote for a party.
In a strong Tory constituency they could stand a monkey as a Candidate and they would still be elected. Look at Boris.
Convesrsley I could be presented with a Tory candidate with amazing credentials, great charisma, kind to animals, a novel prize and looks like George Clooney.
I wouldn't vote for a Tory.

Perhaps in local elections people will give a personal vote for a candidate that's done good things for their area.
National elections..... you vote for the party. Because that determines the direction for the whole county.