Oh no Rosie

[InandOutlander]

I'm so sad to see her go, she was the shining light within the Labour camp.

I think the theory is that the people of Canterbury get to enjoy a glow of righteousness by being represented by the Holy Labour Party.

It's surely not a question of her having influence over the government, because Keir doesn't listen to anyone outside of his inner circle.

😂 Feel absolutely free to trawl through my posting history to get an idea of where I'm coming from. I hope you have plenty of time on your hands (are you new?).

Can I just check that your position is that you don't think there should be any line at all? Your position is that an MP should be able to stand election for a party and then quit that party as soon as they won and that would be fine? No moral obligation to re-run the election?

If you think that's not fine to quit the party you were elected as a candidate for in your winning speech, then how about Suella Braverman? There was a rumour two weeks after the election that she was going to defect to Reform. This story headline is "Calls for Suella Braverman to face by-election – IF she defects to Reform"
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/will-suella-braverman-join-reform-defection-379368/

In the end she didn't defect. However, it is interesting that people said she should trigger a by-election if she did. "This is happening just two weeks after Suella Braverman, a Conservative Party candidate, was elected as the MP for Fareham and Waterlooville. Therefore, [if she defects] she should do the decent thing, resign, and then call a by-election."

Do you think it would have been acceptable for Suella Braverman to defect to Reform two weeks after being elected as a Conservative?

Or do you understand why people were saying she should trigger a by-election if she did? And why it was described as 'doing the decent thing'?

@noblegiraffe

I don't know what I think yet. That is why I asked you for more detail.

I suspect if I have time to go through your examples and find some of my own I will conclude that any line will be fraught with just as many exceptions and what if scenarios as the current no line and all you'd do in practice is trade off the current bad outcomes for some new ones plus a load of expense, so the status quo is probably the best approach.

But I've not thought about it much other than to recognise there's a lot of nuances once you start to think about how it works in practice, hence wondering how you see it working.

Right, well I think it's unacceptable to quit the party in your winning speech.

I also think that Suella Braverman should have triggered a by-election if she defected to Reform two weeks after being elected as a Conservative.

These things are both within the rules but not, in my opinion, the decent thing to do.

Bear in mind that I have not called for a change in the rules, merely said that it is a matter of principle that you shouldn't do these things.

Would I expect Suella Braverman to resign and trigger a by-election? Probably not, because I don't think she has any principles.

Would I expect a politician who claims to have principles to do the decent thing? Yes I would.

Matter of ‘principle’? We are talking about politicians, aren’t we?

Can I just check that your position is that you don't think there should be any line at all? Your position is that an MP should be able to stand election for a party and then quit that party as soon as they won and that would be fine? No moral obligation to re-run the election?

Not dipped my toe into this conversation, but FWIW, yes, that is my position. I can see it would piss the party off, but the candidate is not there to represent the party. Maybe a moral obligation to the party, but not to the electorate. At least until that candidate were to start going against their own personal campaign promises.

In the event that following the party would mean breaking a candidate's campaign promises, then staying in parliament to vote against the party would be the principled thing to do.

We do not have a party-based electoral system. We elect individuals. And those individuals have to represent their entire consituency. Who, given our electoral system, will mainly be people who didn't vote for him/her.

Any change to try to introduce more party-centric conventions or restrictions on MPs without corresponding electoral reform is liable to make the political situation even less pleasant.

About the only thing going for the FPTP system which gives parties totally unfair majorities is the fact that the "party" MPs are in fact totally independent of their party, and have the power to rebel. Take that away while leaving FPTP, and you're going to be in a much worse place.

I can see that for many this somehow doesn't "feel" fair, but there is a rational argument in favour of the system.

About the only thing going for the FPTP system which gives parties totally unfair majorities is the fact that the "party" MPs are in fact totally independent of their party, and have the power to rebel

That's not true when you have the system of whips.

He can't even bring himself to speak to her!

That's not true when you have the system of whips.

But it is. They are totally free to disobey the whips. They can't be ejected from parliament for doing so. They don't lose their "Labour" seat.

The worst that can happen to them is losing party support - there are no direct consequences in the electoral or parliamentary system.

But they ARE independent: it is individual choice as to whether or not to comply with the party whip or rebel… and lose the whip, become a de facto independent and then we end up back here.

Should they then be forced to resign and call a by-election every time they rebel and lose the whip - because that has to be the conclusion if we follow your argument re Braverman and Duffield.

The answer is obviously not, as this would mean the parties and not the constituents, would be dictating who represents a constituency. Which is deeply undemocratic and somewhat totalitarian.

Ah, I see, you don't think 'ejected from the party' is something MPs might want to avoid.

Of course we also know about the 'other' whipping system where they might reveal your secret affair or whatever to the press, but that one isn't technically part of the system.

Totally agree. And when you have parties with large majorities the testing of legislation by parliament, that is vital for good law, can be over-ridden unless MPs within the governing party are independent enough to criticise that legislation, amend it, and vote against it. We can see what happens when that does not happen in Holyrood. Holyrood already has list MSPs representing parties NOT constituencies (eg Maggie Chapman, Green, got a seat with just 6% of the vote) but also the SNP sign up never to contradict the party. Apart from the GRR Bill and the Representation on Public Boards Bill, there has also been named person, and UNCRC failed in court. Plus other rubbish legislation like the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act which was repealed, or the Bottle Return Scheme that was abandoned at great cost (and also failed under JR).

I wouldn’t have any time restrictions for the fact that a gov may do something worth crossing the floor over at any time, even just after a GE

Should they then be forced to resign and call a by-election every time they rebel and lose the whip - because that has to be the conclusion if we follow your argument re Braverman and Duffield.

I didn't say they should be forced to resign and I haven't said anything about losing the whip.

However quitting your party weeks after the election and not triggering by-election - I'm clearly not the only person, judging by that Suella Braverman article, who would consider that triggering a by-election would be the decent thing to do for your constituents.

The rules are the rules. Get over it for goodness sake.

24 pages of personal pique over the notion that principles and morals as you define them transcend the actual blinking rules won’t change the fact that Duffield has done nothing wrong - and the only people she needs to answer to are her constituents in her surgeries in the upcoming weeks.

Ah, and you will be telling Rosie Duffield that the rules are the rules, get over it for goodness sake re her complaint about Keir Starmer's expensive gifts?

Or do principles matter there?

Do principles only matter when it's someone you like complaining about someone you don't like's behaviour?

I'm clearly not the only person, judging by that Suella Braverman article, who would consider that triggering a by-election would be the decent thing to do for your constituents.

And I'm clearly not the only person who considers that not triggering a by-election would be the decent thing to do for one's constituents. And for the country, more broadly.

The difference is I'm not going to post any more on this topic, because I can handle people disagreeing with me, and I think I've already made the strongest argument I can. It would just get boring.

No - I utterly despise Braverman. But the rules are the rules.

get over it FFS

Jeremy Corbyn managed to vote against the government 428 times during the Labour governments 1997 to 2010.

Not sure what despising Braverman has got to do with it, but good to know you are, unlike Rosie Duffield, perfectly happy with Keir Starmer's £2500 glasses and expensive suits and think she should just get over it.

I think your conclusion is utterly insane…

the point - obviously - was that if I my position on abiding by parliamentary rules was only informed by ‘liking’ Duffield then I would find it hard to stomach the same operating within the rules by Braverman, whose politics and moral compass I despise. The rules are the rules.

And for clarity, I don’t believe the obvious efforts of Starmer and his ilk to deceive Parliament and the electorate over the nature of donations is something anyone should get over, whether they are Duffield or not.

Ah, and you will be telling Rosie Duffield that the rules are the rules, get over it for goodness sake re her complaint about Keir Starmer's expensive gifts?

I must have missed the bit in the election campaign where RD and the Labour Party made speeches about crossing the floor being wrong. Can you direct me to where they did this?

Does that make him one of Roy Castle's Record Breakers?

The electorate need to know.

Am done on this conversation but concur with @InandOutlander that RD’s resignation is a loss to the labour party - thank you for trying to start a conversation commiserating about her stepping down.

RD certainly said that accepting gifts which is perfectly within the rules is wrong.

While, as I might have mentioned a few times in this thread, hanging onto her Labour Party MP card only long enough to get an extremely well-paid job out of it. But apparently I should get over that, because it's 'within the rules'.