  |
 MP's changing parties |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Feb 20 2019, 07:32 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
 
|
I hope I haven't asked this before, but do you think MP's switching parties should be required by law to fight a immediate by-election under their new colours?
|
 |
 
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 08:45 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,651 User: 3,272
       
|
I've answered the question you posed. No, I don't think it should be required by law. Regardless of how people actually decide how to vote, technically we vote for candidates, not parties. Therefore, there cannot be a legal requirement for an MP to resign and fight a by-election if they switch parties.
Morally, the position is different but not clear-cut. When 30-odd MPs left the Labour Party to form the SDP in 1981, they all still broadly supported the manifesto on which they had stood less than two years earlier. Why, then, should they have been forced to fight by-elections? One later defector did but timed it rather badly. By the time of the by-election, Thatcher was riding on the wave of the Falklands farrago. The position of the one Tory defector was a little different. My general attitude is that there should be a presumption that an MP switching parties ought to feel a moral obligation to call a by-election if they join a party that stood against them in the previous general election. Ultimately, however, the choice is theirs. I thought the two Tory defectors to UKIP in the last year of the 2010-15 parliament wasted public money by calling by-elections so close to the next general election. As for the eight ex-Labour MPs (and any others who may follow), any moral obligation to call by-eelctins would be mitigated if their personal literature in the campaign made their position on EU withdrawal clear. The more they can say that their constituents knew (or should have known) where they stood on the issue, the more they can claim (however loosely in reality) that their victory was an endorsement of those views. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 08:56 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Feb 20 2019, 08:45 AM)  I've answered the question you posed. No, I don't think it should be required by law. Regardless of how people actually decide how to vote, technically we vote for candidates, not parties. Therefore, there cannot be a legal requirement for an MP to resign and fight a by-election if they switch parties. Morally, the position is different but not clear-cut. When 30-odd MPs left the Labour Party to form the SDP in 1981, they all still broadly supported the manifesto on which they had stood less than two years earlier. Why, then, should they have been forced to fight by-elections? One later defector did but timed it rather badly. By the time of the by-election, Thatcher was riding on the wave of the Falklands farrago. The position of the one Tory defector was a little different. My general attitude is that there should be a presumption that an MP switching parties ought to feel a moral obligation to call a by-election if they join a party that stood against them in the previous general election. Ultimately, however, the choice is theirs. I thought the two Tory defectors to UKIP in the last year of the 2010-15 parliament wasted public money by calling by-elections so close to the next general election. As for the eight ex-Labour MPs (and any others who may follow), any moral obligation to call by-eelctins would be mitigated if their personal literature in the campaign made their position on EU withdrawal clear. The more they can say that their constituents knew (or should have known) where they stood on the issue, the more they can claim (however loosely in reality) that their victory was an endorsement of those views. 1. You state the law correctly - but could the law be *changed* to require a by-election?  2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality...  3. What if the party they join is new (as in this case) and therefore could not have stood against them in the previous GE? 4. I suppose there could be a recall petition if voters felt strongly enough. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 11:09 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,651 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 20 2019, 08:56 AM) 1. You state the law correctly - but could the law be *changed* to require a by-election? 2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality... 3. What if the party they join is new (as in this case) and therefore could not have stood against them in the previous GE? 4. I suppose there could be a recall petition if voters felt strongly enough. 1. Read what I said. For as long as we technically vote for individuals, not parties, such a change makes no sense. That's why I answered No to your question. 2. M any have a very strong sense of morality. It just doesn't get reported much. OTOH, if part of "morality" means voting for what they believe in, May would never have got the authority to invoke Article 50. 3. That's my whole point. It's all very well to say "If you now claim to support the values of Party X, why did you stand for Party Y" if both parties contested the last election. If Party X didn't exist, that doesn't apply. That's why I make the distinction. 4. No they can't. A recall petition can only be launched if an MP is guilty of serious misconduct. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 12:50 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,811 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 20 2019, 08:56 AM) 1. You state the law correctly - but could the law be *changed* to require a by-election? 2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality... 3. What if the party they join is new (as in this case) and therefore could not have stood against them in the previous GE? 4. I suppose there could be a recall petition if voters felt strongly enough. Thought you weren't keen on voters having a second choice on something they knew what they were voting for - it's all there in their campaign literature what they stand for and people knew exactly what they were voting for... 
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 02:48 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 20 2019, 12:50 PM) Thought you weren't keen on voters having a second choice on something they knew what they were voting for No matter how many times you repeat that, that does not make it true... 
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 02:59 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 21 March 2006
Posts: 570 User: 294 
|
I think there should be a way for constituents to legally trigger a by election- whether it be because their MP has been sent to jail or completely gone back on their manifesto pledges.
Morally, it will be difficult for the defectors to campaign for things like a "People's vote" when they themselves are refusing to give their constituents a people's vote on them- presumably because all 11 know they would lose. Apparently 96% of people at the last election voted on party lines rather than the individual MP. This post has been edited by Esmerelda: Feb 20 2019, 04:27 PM |
|
|
|
|
Feb 20 2019, 04:13 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Esmerelda @ Feb 20 2019, 02:59 PM) Apparently 96% of people at the last election voted on party lines rather than the individual MP. Perhaps more publicity should be given to *that*! |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 18th April 2024 - 02:36 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
