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?

Everyone should be able to develop their opinions and change their minds. If an MP never budges on any stance they have a closed mind and probably are shit at problem solving, listening and reflecting in the world.

When you vote for an MP you vote for that individual not the party. That's why they can switch sides

I vote on the individual….. if my preferred party is represented by a complete moron then I certainly wouldn’t vote for them.

I would think that if a candidate decides to change party then it would be fair if it triggered a bi-election to give constituents the choice of whether to keep them in office. But politics don’t often feel fair….

So, for consistency (aka "fairness") when an MP dies, they should be replaced by whoever their party thinks should do the job ? No election needed ?

@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.

I absolutely agree with this. In addition, to my mind, anyone who can suddenly swing so markedly - in either direction - is in it to promote themselves and can't really have had much belief in their own stated convictions.

@CreamFirstThenJamOnTop

I vote on the individual….. if my preferred party is represented by a complete moron then I certainly wouldn’t vote for them.

I would think that if a candidate decides to change party then it would be fair if it triggered a bi-election to give constituents the choice of whether to keep them in office. But politics don’t often feel fair….

Is it usually for the same party or have you switched due to local MP running

And do your views on local MP generally align with whether you like the leader or would you prioritise liking local over leader

@3scape

Everyone should be able to develop their opinions and change their minds. If an MP never budges on any stance they have a closed mind and probably are shit at problem solving, listening and reflecting in the world.

The issue being that MP's do not operate in a vacuum.

The party system in the UK means that MPs have no choice but to follow the party line, whether that is following a manifesto or as seems to happen more in recent times just making shit up as they go along.

That means, in reality, a vote is for a party as much as it is an individual whether you like it or not. If you vote for a tory candidate you are also voting for Tory principles as set out by the party leaders and the whips regardless of whether your MP personally agrees with the policy.

In addition, to my mind, anyone who can suddenly swing so markedly - in either direction - is in it to promote themselves and can't really have had much belief in their own stated convictions.

I think that pretty much makes them a perfect politician, no ?

If you vote for a tory candidate you are also voting for Tory principles as set out by the party leaders and the whips regardless of whether your MP personally agrees with the policy.

But in 2019 "tory principles" were saying no NI rises - we promise

In 2021 they were saying "We're going to raise NI"

Where was the call for a new election then ?

@DGRossetti

So, for consistency (aka "fairness") when an MP dies, they should be replaced by whoever their party thinks should do the job ? No election needed ?

Obviously if the sitting MP cannot represent their constituency for whatever reason, a byelection has to be triggered.

But even though you do vote for an individual, there is a case to trigger a byelection if an MP crosses party lines. If I use the SNP as an example, SNP MP's/MSPs are heavily whipped on issues such as Scottish independence. If someone voted for a tory MSP on the basis that they would vote against indyref2 and they then crossed the floor to the SNP, the fundamental basis for which that person voted is rendered completely void.

@DGRossetti

If you vote for a tory candidate you are also voting for Tory principles as set out by the party leaders and the whips regardless of whether your MP personally agrees with the policy.

But in 2019 "tory principles" were saying no NI rises - we promise

In 2021 they were saying "We're going to raise NI"

Where was the call for a new election then ?

But that's a party issue.

You obviously can't trigger a general election every time a manifesto promise is broken, if you do that you may as well do away with the idea of representative democracy altogether.

That's the key thing though. If there is a fundamental change to a voter's representative - whether that is the MP themselves changing or the party they belong to changing there is a strong argument that a byelection should be called. That's not a controversal statement.

However, when people vote for an mp they vote for a party, not an individual

Have you ever actually voted OP? You are completely wrong.

That's the key thing though. If there is a fundamental change to a voter's representative - whether that is the MP themselves changing or the party they belong to changing there is a strong argument that a byelection should be called. That's not a controversal statement

It's also not going to happen.

Seems the majority of MPs are happy with the situation, regardless of what people think.

Expecting politics to be fair when life isn't seems a tad naive.

I'd have a lot more sympathy with peoples deep and sincere concern for how their votes have been somehow invalidated if they had been there in 2019 when thousands of people lost the chance to vote completely and were told "that's tough, matey".

@DGRossetti

That's the key thing though. If there is a fundamental change to a voter's representative - whether that is the MP themselves changing or the party they belong to changing there is a strong argument that a byelection should be called. That's not a controversal statement

It's also not going to happen.

Seems the majority of MPs are happy with the situation, regardless of what people think.

Expecting politics to be fair when life isn't seems a tad naive.

I'd have a lot more sympathy with peoples deep and sincere concern for how their votes have been somehow invalidated if they had been there in 2019 when thousands of people lost the chance to vote completely and were told "that's tough, matey".

I know it's not going to happen, because the system suits the current parties, just like FPTP does. It's doesn't mean we can't push for reform though.

You realise how discussion forums work, right? People can think things aren't right and talk about what might be a better way to do things?

When someone votes, they vote for the individual MP, not the party. Otherwise the form would just say “Labour”. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a legal fact.

If people choose to vote for a particular MP because of that MP’s current party affiliation, then that’s the voter’s choice, but it doesn’t change how the system works.

Yabu.

I know it's not going to happen, because the system suits the current parties, just like FPTP does. It's doesn't mean we can't push for reform though.

I spent my entire adult life "pushing for reform" to our electoral system to see it pissed away in 2011. That was once in a lifetime.

You realise how discussion forums work, right? People can think things aren't right and talk about what might be a better way to do things?

He should have stood down and no Jesuitical musing, political angels on pinheads and word salads can make it right.

Except that there is no requirement that he stand down.

I think mps defecting to another party is least of our worries.

Interestingly They were interviewing his constituents on the news this morning and they’re livid saying that none of them want to be in a labour constituency.

Whether the rules say that you vote for an individual or not, the fact is that most people vote for the party that individual represents.

Looking at things the way they played out I don’t actually believe he switched his allegiance. He knew that if he made a big spectacle of himself in the commons then all the focus would be on him, taking the focus nicely away from Boris, and that’s just what’s happened. Ministers are reportedly wanting to wait for the Sue Grey report now rather than submitting letters of no confidence.

So I would say his allegiance is most definitely with Boris and not with labour. It was just posturing on his part.

@AlternativePerspective

Interestingly They were interviewing his constituents on the news this morning and they’re livid saying that none of them want to be in a labour constituency.

Whether the rules say that you vote for an individual or not, the fact is that most people vote for the party that individual represents.

Looking at things the way they played out I don’t actually believe he switched his allegiance. He knew that if he made a big spectacle of himself in the commons then all the focus would be on him, taking the focus nicely away from Boris, and that’s just what’s happened. Ministers are reportedly wanting to wait for the Sue Grey report now rather than submitting letters of no confidence.

So I would say his allegiance is most definitely with Boris and not with labour. It was just posturing on his part.

Really? Because him going on telly saying the government told him they wouldn't open a school in his constituency if he didn't vote as he was told doesn't seem calculated to endear him to the residents of Bury South.

Him being Boris, I mean.

Whilst I think he should fight a by-election, it is his choice. There are also some MPs who have a sizeable personal vote after years of working for the constituency. The late Sir David Amess comes to mind.

Interestingly They were interviewing his constituents on the news this morning and they’re livid saying that none of them want to be in a labour constituency.

It is interesting, given that it had been Labour for decades and the Tory majority there is miniscule.

Interestingly They were interviewing his constituents on the news this morning and they’re livid saying that none of them want to be in a labour constituency.

What was the sample size of these interviewees?

He only got 400 more votes than the Labour candidate when elected, so your assertion seems highly unlikely.

I wondered that. Probably in Ringley