Should A By-Election Be Called, If A Traitor To Their Party And To Those Those Who Voted Them In Power, Joins Another Party?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49353240

[jim360]

Different voters have different intentions, this much is clear. Hard to argue against having a by-election to test the theory as to whether it was the individual rather than the party that won them support. Easy to argue against the utter rot of being called a "traitor", though. An MP may represent a party but they are clearly their own person with their own approach to the job.

As an aside, it's odd to see people who always vote for a party, not an individual, supporting systems that are tailored towards voting for individuals rather than for parties. At least OG is consistent.

[Old_Geezer]

It would have been an orderly Brexit but parliament kept changing the order. We're now ordering an exit for Halloween.

[ichkeria]

She still represents the constituency. That is how it works. As I indicated before, the manifesto her party stood on has long since been abandoned.
If a by election was held every time an MP changed parties it would imply that party took precedence over everything and I don’t think that is right. If MPs transgress they can be subject to a recall petition, which is right

[jim360]

If all an MP did was vote with the party all the time then what would even be the point of having MPs -- which in any case massively skew party representation away from proportionality. This is a separate question from having a by-election but it's still relevant. The motivation for calling a by-election appears to be that MPs are merely pawns for their party, which in turn implies that parties matter more than people, which therefore implies that voting should be tailored towards party representation rather than single-member constituencies.

[ludwig]

// She still represents the constituency. That is how it works. //

We all know how it works 'technically'. However, the reality is as people have said, everyone votes for a party.

Although they are perfectly within their rights to do nothing, MPs should be honour* bound to stand again so the public can confirm they're still happy with the same representative, given that the person is essentially saying 'my beliefs have changed and are no longer the ones you elected me for'.

* yeah I do realise the irony of putting MPs and honour in the same sentence.

[andy-hughes]

If an MP votes against the party of which they are a member, then that is democracy at work.

But surely, if an MP leaves the party they were a member of when elected, that must mean that their fundamental thinking must have altered to a point where they can no longer remain a member of that party.

That's fine, but it does mean that the people who voted for the party are no longer represented, and the people who voted for the individual are no longer represented either, because the MP no longer holds the views on which they were elected in the first place.

Therefore, a by-election should be held.

If the MP has the confidence of people who voted for him or her as an individual, they will vote for him or her again, the 'party' voters clearly will not vote for him or her again, and the free choice will determine if the MP remains as representative or not.

[Peter Pedant]

// Of course it should. This turncoat has left thousands of people without representation in the house of commotions...……...ohhh hang on.// best answer in a just world - but hey this is AB !

we know this from History O level - those of us that did it that is!
MPs are representatives and not delegates....
but hey lets rewrite history, as AB often does !

oh, for the old age racists on AB - Oswald Mosley at the time was so well thought of (1935) that "he could have been leaders of Tories, Labour or Liberals" or the Nazis

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// Easy to argue against the utter rot of being called a "traitor", though. An MP may represent a party but they are clearly their own person with their own approach to the job. ///

In time of war, would a member of the armed forces not be called a traitor if they changed forces because they are their own person with their own approach to the war?

They must be prepared to stand under their chosen new party's name, so that their electorate can choose whether or not to re-vote them in again.

[jim360]

We aren't in times of war, though.

[ludwig]

// the people who voted for the party are no longer represented, and the people who voted for the individual are no longer represented either, because the MP no longer holds the views on which they were elected in the first place. //

That's the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter whether you see it in terms of individuals or parties, the representative is declaring that he is no longer the person you voted for in terms of his/her political beliefs.

In fact if he/she had known or suspected they were going to make this change before they were elected, you could argue their actions were fraudulent.

[anotheoldgit]

Jim360

/// We aren't in times of war, though. ///

Perhaps not in an armed conflict, but there is certainly a 'war' going on between the Brexits and the Remoaners.

[naomi24]

//The motivation for calling a by-election appears to be that MPs are merely pawns for their party, which in turn implies that parties matter more than people//

That can be tested by calling an election. Should the defector prevail, fair enough, but either way the electorate should be given the choice. I wouldn't be happy if my MP defected. Who would?

[Peter Pedant]

// That's fine, but it does mean that the people who voted for the party are no longer represented,//

blaaaarp ! howling non sequitur
oh come on andie
the MP represents the whole of his constituency including those who didnt vote for him - durrr
you MUST remember this from History? - you knoe

if not - revise Voting Patterns in the Eighteenth Century - J H Plumb
OK on a wet afternoon

[jim360]

// That can be tested by calling an election. Should the defector prevail, fair enough, but either way the electorate should be given the choice. //

Happy to agree with that. It's mainly the motives behind the question that I object to. Language of treason, treachery, desertion etc isn't helpful.

[naomi24]

//treason, treachery, desertion //

I've no objection to the language. I think it's all of that. Rather than continue to capitulate to PC demands it's high time society reverted to telling it like it is.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

/// Language of treason, treachery, desertion etc isn't helpful. ///

Add turncoat to the your list Jim, all fit them perfectly.

[jim360]

That's not how it is, though. The MP owes loyalty in a strict hierarchy: country, people, themselves, party. Being a traitor to the party, as expressed in the OP, is not a concept that should be taken seriously.

[naomi24]

Jim, /Being a traitor to the party, as expressed in the OP, is not a concept that should be taken seriously.//

Of course it should be taken seriously. The electorate, in the main, is guided by individual political persuasion. If the bloke I voted for suddenly decides to change his politics, why wouldn't I take it seriously? I elected him to represent me - but now he's got the job he's decided not to. That is serious.

[Gromit]

She left the Conservative Party 6 Months ago, why has it taken you so long to ask the question?

Churchill famously went the other way, being elected a Liberal and then defecting to the Conservatives.

[jim360]

Even in the extreme case that you have a point, it's still not treachery to the party. At most it's to the constituents -- and not even then. Many politicians have crossed the floor and never seen fit to call by-elections, but I don't think AOG would dare call Churchill a Traitor.

In practice it probably will roll around fairly soon anyway, in a snap general election.