BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> MP's changing parties
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - Subscribe to this forum
MP's changing parties
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 15
Guests cannot vote 
vidcapper
post Feb 20 2019, 07:32 AM
Post #1
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Feb 20 2019, 08:45 AM
Post #2
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Veteran
Posts: 30,741
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Feb 20 2019, 08:56 AM
Post #3
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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? unsure.gif

2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality... wink.gif

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Feb 20 2019, 11:09 AM
Post #4
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Veteran
Posts: 30,741
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


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? unsure.gif

2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality... wink.gif

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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Poptarttreat
post Feb 20 2019, 12:50 PM
Post #5
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 16,669
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


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? unsure.gif

2. Morally, yes they definitely should - but very few politicians have a strong sense of morality... wink.gif

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... tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Feb 20 2019, 02:48 PM
Post #6
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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... mellow.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Esmerelda
post Feb 20 2019, 02:59 PM
Post #7
BuzzJack Regular
***
Group: Members
Posts: 430
Member No.: 294
Joined: 21-March 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Feb 20 2019, 04:13 PM
Post #8
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Banned
Posts: 25,346
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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*!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2020 - 07:48 AM