Red Wall Defections

[nezumi]

It had to get its own thread though, really.
Young Labour aren't happy and they do make a good point, although I highly doubt whoever runs YL social media actually represents the electorate.

Should there be a by-election? Not "will there be?" because I don't think there will. Labour obviously will want to attract defectors in order to even the odds, but what about the displaced ex-Labour MPs who have been loyal and would (perhaps rightly) want their old seats back?

My 2p is that a by-election would be a bad plan, not least because it's going to be hard to persuade the local CLP to campaign for someone they only just campaigned against but also because interrupting your enemy while they make a mistake is not a good idea. I think they'd do best to quietly accept all the defectors (and I think there will be more to come) and deal with the selection process for the next GE at a later date. One thing I wilol say is that Starmer needs to get his people to at least pretend to accept the turncoats (even if they'll get slung asap).

Looking at Waterford's record it's not a surprise that he voted with the whip every time but the main alarm bells I get from him is that he is definitely a Tory, through and through, there is definitely not a hint of progressive sentiment in him and it is quite blatantly obvious to me that he's trying to play the system for his own gain. I'm going to go on the record (and out on a limb potentially) and say I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him and he is as slimy as swarfega.

I'd take him now, make him swear to follow the whip and then sling him in favour of a real Labour person after all the defectors have defected but before the next GE (after the dust has settled and everyone's forgotten who he is).

[monkey]

Labour obviously will want to attract defectors in order to even the odds, but what about the displaced ex-Labour MPs who have been loyal and would (perhaps rightly) want their old seats back?

The last Labour MP for Bury South was Ivan Lewis, who was given the boot for sexual harassment (well, quit before it made contact, but the boot was on its way). He then stood against Labour, but then withdrew too late to be taken off the ballot and encouraged everyone to vote for Christian Wakeford. Lucy Burke probably would have won if it wasn't for his shenanigans, she lost by fewer votes than Lewis managed to get. So in this case, no, the candidate shouldn't be the Labour MP who lost their seat. I suppose you put in the "have been loyal" qualifier though! ETA: This does add another layer to the back and forth of the story too.

Accepting Wakeford into Labour is most definitely unfair on the local party and seems contrary to the rules, but in the end I agree with letting him in, because it weakens Johnson further, which is what is needed. But yeah, let the local party decide if he should be the candidate for the next election.

I am undecided whether MPs who leave their parties should have to have a by-election or not. I can see merits in both sides of the argument.

[Woodchopper]

One issue with an automatic by-election after a change of party would be the effect if an MP were to have the whip withdrawn and chucked out the party.

An automatic by election after withdrawal of the whip would make the party leader much more powerful. Rebel MPs would likely lose their seats immediately and loyal candidates could be put up to replace them.

[monkey]

One issue with an automatic by-election after a change of party would be the effect if an MP were to have the whip withdrawn and chucked out the party.

An automatic by election after withdrawal of the whip would make the party leader much more powerful. Rebel MPs would likely lose their seats immediately and loyal candidates could be put up to replace them.

I've considered that to be different in the past. There's a difference between an MP leaving a party and the party leader not wanting them in it anymore. A big enough difference for the two things to be treated differently, at least.


On another note, one option would be to expand the reasons you could do a recall ballot, and leave the decision up to the electorate.

[nezumi]

One issue with an automatic by-election after a change of party would be the effect if an MP were to have the whip withdrawn and chucked out the party.

An automatic by election after withdrawal of the whip would make the party leader much more powerful. Rebel MPs would likely lose their seats immediately and loyal candidates could be put up to replace them.

I've considered that to be different in the past. There's a difference between an MP leaving a party and the party leader not wanting them in it anymore. A big enough difference for the two things to be treated differently, at least.


On another note, one option would be to expand the reasons you could do a recall ballot, and leave the decision up to the electorate.

I think the recall ballot idea is good. I think that would be the best idea for democracy (not that they care ). It would have the advantage of proving whether the constituency voted for the party or the person.

[jimbob]

One issue with an automatic by-election after a change of party would be the effect if an MP were to have the whip withdrawn and chucked out the party.

An automatic by election after withdrawal of the whip would make the party leader much more powerful. Rebel MPs would likely lose their seats immediately and loyal candidates could be put up to replace them.

I've considered that to be different in the past. There's a difference between an MP leaving a party and the party leader not wanting them in it anymore. A big enough difference for the two things to be treated differently, at least.


On another note, one option would be to expand the reasons you could do a recall ballot, and leave the decision up to the electorate.

I think the recall ballot idea is good. I think that would be the best idea for democracy (not that they care ). It would have the advantage of proving whether the constituency voted for the party or the person.

I think recall ballots are good ideas.

I also was one of the few people who actually seemed to think that the AV system that we had a referendum on is a good system as opposed to just a compromise.

I don't like party list systems as that means voters cannot vote out a particular candidate who's sufficiently high on the party list. So keeping the votes to a constituency seems like a good idea.

I think it's more important to be able to vote against bad candidates than vote for a good candidate. That is what the AV system allows.

[tom p]

The problem with recall ballots is, if poorly implemented, like in California, you can get perverse results.
I think that, absent a criminal conviction or suspension from parliament for something really serious (like financial dodginess), a recall ballot shouldn't be permitted.
You made your bed, lie in it. Even if you shat the bed 'cos you're a massive racist who voted tory for the first time ever 'cos they offered you an openly racist PM for the first time ever.

[purplehaze]

If a by-election is called, then the incumbent has to go through the selection process again with the CLP.

CLP stands for Constituency Labour Party. There are adjudicators who go through the interview process and they usually come from other CLPs nearby.

[bjn]

I've considered that to be different in the past. There's a difference between an MP leaving a party and the party leader not wanting them in it anymore. A big enough difference for the two things to be treated differently, at least.


On another note, one option would be to expand the reasons you could do a recall ballot, and leave the decision up to the electorate.

I think the recall ballot idea is good. I think that would be the best idea for democracy (not that they care ). It would have the advantage of proving whether the constituency voted for the party or the person.

I think recall ballots are good ideas.

I also was one of the few people who actually seemed to think that the AV system that we had a referendum on is a good system as opposed to just a compromise.

I don't like party list systems as that means voters cannot vote out a particular candidate who's sufficiently high on the party list. So keeping the votes to a constituency seems like a good idea.

I think it's more important to be able to vote against bad candidates than vote for a good candidate. That is what the AV system allows.

A multi-member ranked voting system strikes me as a bit better, with say 3 to 5-ish members per constituency. You get to vote against folks, but smaller parties still get a chance of electing a member.

[TopBadger]

If a member leaves a party to be an independent then I'm ok with them keeping their seat, however, crossing the floor to another party should trigger a by-election.

By all means leave your party because you've lost confidence in it, but to go so far to switch parties... I think that should trigger a by-election.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Well, with prompt timing, some Labour MPs are insisting that if Christian Wakeford is allowed into the Labour party, someone called Jeremy Corbyn should be as well. I'm sure I remember something about him and being friend with people who hate Jews, but maybe I dreamt that. If not, I guess all that is cleared up now.

[Fishnut]

If a member leaves a party to be an independent then I'm ok with them keeping their seat, however, crossing the floor to another party should trigger a by-election.

By all means leave your party because you've lost confidence in it, but to go so far to switch parties... I think that should trigger a by-election.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I have no problem him leaving the Tories and I recognise that people are whipped to vote according to the party line, but if you disagree with what you're being asked to vote for and are thinking of leaving then I don't understand why you wouldn't defect then, or refuse to vote along party lines and be kicked out, or something more principled. This defection just feels opportunistic.

[tom p]

If a member leaves a party to be an independent then I'm ok with them keeping their seat, however, crossing the floor to another party should trigger a by-election.

By all means leave your party because you've lost confidence in it, but to go so far to switch parties... I think that should trigger a by-election.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this. I have no problem him leaving the Tories and I recognise that people are whipped to vote according to the party line, but if you disagree with what you're being asked to vote for and are thinking of leaving then I don't understand why you wouldn't defect then, or refuse to vote along party lines and be kicked out, or something more principled. This defection just feels opportunistic.

It is the most transparent bit of arse-covering since these trousers.
Hopefully he'll be deselected by the next GE; however history shows that such turncoats are usually allowed to remain as MPs for labour until voted out.

[monkey]

Well I've just read that he backed a bill mandating by-elections for MPs who switch parties, so he should have one.

[Gfamily]

This defection just feels opportunistic.

An opportunistic (ex) Tory? Who'd a thought it?

[dyqik]

The selection of a defector, plus the arguments about voting against someone, sound like the argument for primary elections, as in the US (which I guess you can see as a form of multi-round voting). It might even work better in the UK without the party registration of voters, so that you could choose to vote in the primary for whichever party you cared about the most (unless you were an actual party member, I guess). It also gives those in safe party seat a way to influence the selection of their MP from that party's candidates.

[jimbob]

There is a clear message being sent by Labour in this case. It's starting to regain what Corbyn had lost. And it harms Johnson.

[Millennie Al]

Well I've just read that he backed a bill mandating by-elections for MPs who switch parties, so he should have one.

Why? Surely if he had voted against a bill which had succeeded you would expect him to abide by the vote and obey the law? Why not expect the same in reverse?

[monkey]

Well I've just read that he backed a bill mandating by-elections for MPs who switch parties, so he should have one.

Why? Surely if he had voted against a bill which had succeeded you would expect him to abide by the vote and obey the law? Why not expect the same in reverse?

For reasons of not being a hypocrite.

(But I'm sure you don't have to look too hard to find some other reasons to call him one)

[tom p]

Well I've just read that he backed a bill mandating by-elections for MPs who switch parties, so he should have one.

Why? Surely if he had voted against a bill which had succeeded you would expect him to abide by the vote and obey the law? Why not expect the same in reverse?

By gum, you really are unbelievably dim or just pathetically specious. I hope it's the latter, 'cos if it's the former and you are as dim as you seem, then I wonder how you manage to put your trousers on in the morning.
The 'law' in this case is just the absence of a law that would have ordered someone in his situation to do something. Doesn't stop such people doing that thing if they think it is the right thing to do.
If I were a backbench MP, and I backed a proposed law requiring all adults with a living mother to phone or visit their mum on mother's day, the failure of that law to pass (or even to reach parliament, as happens with most proposed bills from backbenchers) wouldn't mean that I should stop contacting my mother.

[nekomatic]

If I think that people on my earnings should pay a bit more tax, is it hypocritical of me not to post a top-up cheque to the Treasury every month?

I wonder if anyone calling for a byelection has previously defended first past the post elections on the grounds that ‘voters elect a person, not a party’ though…

[dyqik]

If I think that people on my earnings should pay a bit more tax, is it hypocritical of me not to post a top-up cheque to the Treasury every month?

Did you get elected as an MP, and then sponsor a bill to raise taxes on people like you? If not, no, you're just mildly frustrated at the system.

[tom p]

If I think that people on my earnings should pay a bit more tax, is it hypocritical of me not to post a top-up cheque to the Treasury every month?

Did you get elected as an MP, and then sponsor a bill to raise taxes on people like you? If not, no, you're just mildly frustrated at the system.

He voted for politicians who would have done just that. So he has done the same as sponsoring a bill, just in a more diluted fashion

[discovolante]

If I think that people on my earnings should pay a bit more tax, is it hypocritical of me not to post a top-up cheque to the Treasury every month?

I wonder if anyone calling for a byelection has previously defended first past the post elections on the grounds that ‘voters elect a person, not a party’ though…

Given that it would be almost entirely pointless in that the additional amount you as an individual would pay amounts to a bit of spare change behind the sofa as far as the treasury is concerned (no offence, obviously I don't know how much you earn), no I don't think it would be hypocritical. I've had that comment from a couple of low tax/tory types before when I've mentioned that I'd be happy to pay more tax, and it's such a stupidly disingenuous argument that it doesn't deserve the time of day.

Obviously every penny counts when you're dealing with people and services who are really pushed, but that's not your fault. Obviously if you *want* to do it (or donate the equivalent to charity, for example) that's fine and great but I don't think not doing it is any kind of moral failing.

[dyqik]

If I think that people on my earnings should pay a bit more tax, is it hypocritical of me not to post a top-up cheque to the Treasury every month?

Did you get elected as an MP, and then sponsor a bill to raise taxes on people like you? If not, no, you're just mildly frustrated at the system.

He voted for politicians who would have done just that. So he has done the same as sponsoring a bill, just in a more diluted fashion

That's covered by my second sentence.