Should MPs who defect parties hold a by-election?

Original post by Prussianxo

No, you vote for the MP not the party

You vote for the MP because of the party; a by-proxy vote for the government of the day.

In that sense, I do support the requirement of regaining legitimacy from the electorate they serve. You could do this by extending the recall criteria; if local people aren't happy, then let them petition for a recall.

Reply 22

centraltrains

15

Original post by Rakas21

Your aware that MEP's defect all the time. Ukip won the 2014 elections and ended 2018 with 6 MEP's. The Tories came third in 2014 but ended 2018 with the most MEP's.

I wasn't looking into the MEP system.

Reply 23

Vinny C

20

Defection is generally because the party has changed direction so much that the MP feels the party no longer represents the mandate upon which they were elected. If for example, you voted Tory because they promised a smooth, beneficial transition with no downsides, one could argue that far more Tory MP's should be defecting.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 24

Original post by Notoriety

You vote for the MP because of the party; a by-proxy vote for the government of the day.

In that sense, I do support the requirement of regaining legitimacy from the electorate they serve. You could do this by extending the recall criteria; if local people aren't happy, then let them petition for a recall.

Just because that's the reasoning you have for your vote doesn't make it the same for others.

Reply 25

Notoriety

Original post by 04MR17

Just because that's the reasoning you have for your vote doesn't make it the same for others.

It's not my reasoning at all. It's basic political legitimacy covered in any constitutional theory class going. Besides being cowed by practical concerns, there's a reason the Salisbury Convention exists. It's the idea that the manifesto of the party is voted upon by the people.

This idea ceases to operate when you then say that the party name attached to the ballot paper is not the key deciding factor on an MP's being elected.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 26

Original post by Notoriety

It's not my reasoning at all. It's basic political legitimacy covered in any constitutional theory class going. Besides being cowed by practical concerns, there's a reason the Salisbury Convention exists. It's the idea that the manifesto of the party is voted upon by the people.

This idea ceases to operate when you then say that the party name attached to the ballot paper is not the key deciding factor on an MP's being elected.

So you don't vote based on the party membership of the candidate you choose? Or do you live in the speaker's constituency?

Reply 27

Aph

Original post by 04MR17

So you don't vote based on the party membership of the candidate you choose? Or do you live in the speaker's constituency?

Let’s be honest here, when most people vote they vote based on the party and the leader. They will vote based on who they want in Downing Street and not the person standing in the constituency other than the few people who vote for independent candidates and the handful of MPs who are loved by their constituencies.

Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Reply 28

Original post by Aph

Let’s be honest here, when most people vote they vote based on the party and the leader. They will vote based on who they want in Downing Street and not the person standing in the constituency other than the few people who vote for independent candidates and the handful of MPs who are loved by their constituencies.

Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

I've not said anything to contrary of this. Most people do. That doesn't mean everyone does, and that certainly doesn't mean we should adapt our electoral system to account for the reasons that voters use to make their decisions.

Reply 29

Aph

You have certainly heavily implied that this is not the case.
And surely the fact that the de jure and de facto positions of voters is so juxtaposed is a good enough reason.

Original post by 04MR17

I've not said anything to contrary of this. Most people do. That doesn't mean everyone does, and that certainly doesn't mean we should adapt our electoral system to account for the reasons that voters use to make their decisions.

Reply 30

Original post by Aph

You have certainly heavily implied that this is not the case.
And surely the fact that the de jure and de facto positions of voters is so juxtaposed is a good enough reason.

If you read implications into what I write that isn't my fault.

I disagree, because I think the de facto positions of voters is caused by a lack of significant independent candidates since the parties dominated the chamber as the 20th century progressed. I would prefer to see this change reversed rather than a whole pile of by elections for which turnout is usually lower, hence providing the MP with a smaller mandate than they had originally.

I wouldn't mind disallowing MPs to defect, and only allowing them to become independent, as I think that would be a step in the direction for British politics.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 31

Aph

Original post by 04MR17

If you read implications into what I write that isn't my fault.

I disagree, because I think the de facto positions of voters is caused by a lack of significant independent candidates since the parties dominated the chamber as the 20th century progressed. I would prefer to see this change reversed rather than a whole pile of by elections for which turnout is usually lower, hence providing the MP with a smaller mandate than they had originally.

I wouldn't mind disallowing MPs to defect, and only allowing them to become independent, as I think that would be a step in the direction for British politics.

The problem, as you have rightly pointed out, is the mixing of two systems. One where people vote for local delegates and one where they vote for parties to represent them. If there was an end of the party system and we only had indies i agree that would work just as well although you’d have the issue of only the well off being electable as you’d need a lot of money to be able to campaign.

Reply 32

Notoriety

Original post by 04MR17

So you don't vote based on the party membership of the candidate you choose? Or do you live in the speaker's constituency?

Well, the Greens and UKIP both fielded candidates in the most recent election for the Speaker's constituency. So no.

But I meant that the idea that a general election gives a party a mandate does not come from me. It's very basic and well-known.

Reply 33

fallen_acorns

20

For those interested in the idea of delegate vs representative and how it plays into a debate like this - watch the interview above from 6.38

You can ignore Brendan, hes a bit annoying.. but listen to Starkey - the reason I watched in the first place as he explains the history and context of our parliamentary system, and the justification for whether our MPs are representatives or not.

Starkey is just entertaining to listen to.. your getting a decent lecture about political history, then all of a sudden he calls a politician a Lying s*** with an awful hair do.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 34

Retired_Messiah

21

I doubt the next GE is that far off so I wouldn't see the point in running a bunch of by elections now.

Reply 35

Granann

1

The trouble with these mps is they want their cake and eat it there should be by election and we should demand they do so

Reply 36

Vinny C

20

Pretty sure this thread is all about Brexit. Defection is generally because the party has changed direction so much that the MP feels the party no longer represents the mandate upon which they were elected. If for example, you voted Tory because they promised a smooth, beneficial transition with no downsides, one could argue that far more Tory MP's should be defecting.

No reply from the Brexiteers apart from 'will of the people'... you're like a broken record! Stfu

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 37

limetang

19

No, you elect a representative to do what they believe is best for their constituents. If you think they have done a poor job of that (by defecting from their current party etc.) then you are free to get rid of them at the next election.

Reply 38

yaseen1000

17

Yes definitely. This is because voters from my experience don’t vote for a candidate based on who they and what they stand but vote for a candidate based on the political party they represent.

Reply 39

Napp