Voters backed mandatory by-elections for defectors overwhelmingly, and the Yes case rested on one idea: the ballot paper is a party deal. The most-respected Yes argument held that an MP who switches is no longer “representing the stated will of the constituency”, because the manifesto has been junked.
Other Yes voices pushed it bluntly. One said “Defection changes that bargain”, inviting the MP to win again if their record commands support. A more exasperated voter said local MPs are “pretty useless on local issues” and that a switcher has put two fingers up to those who voted for them. One Yes voter conceded the whips could be made more powerful, then leaned Yes anyway.
The most-respected No case was the mirror image: “People should vote for the person, not the party”, so an MP may stay until re-election. A No voter put it as a bus: “The party is just the bus”. Two No voters reached for Churchill, who changed party. Others feared the reform would hand power to party leaders, and one offered recall as a milder route.
The disagreement runs through the live argument over whether MPs are delegates or representatives, which the government's reply, that voters elect individuals, took one side of. Yes voters did not deny that individuals are on the ballot; they argued that the rosette is why people vote.
Both camps invoked loyalty to what voters were told, and each claimed it for their own.
58 Opinions
MPs stand with a manifesto based on the national manifesto of the party they represent. Changing parties implies that everything in that manifesto is junked and therefore the MP is no longer representing the stated will of the constituency
People should vote for the person, not the party and therefore so long as the MP remains true to their beliefs they are entitled to stay until re-election
Much like with the “call a general election if the PM changes” nonsense.
Let's face it, most of us find our local MPs pretty useless on local issues, which are more normally decided by local councils, and we vote based on the Party, its manifesto, and its leader. If the MP switches party, he/she has put 2 fingers up to all those who voted for them. Of course they should be put to re-election.
Not sure what benefit this will bring
It depends. For a general election we vote for the party and their manifesto. For Local Elections we're more likely to vote for the person irrespective of Party so deflection won't require a bi-election.
Yes. MPs are free to change allegiance, but voters must be equally free to decide whether they still represent them. Party affiliation, manifestos and political promises influence how people vote. Defection changes that bargain. Trigger a mandatory by-election and let constituents deliver their verdict. If the MP's principles and record command genuine support, they can win again. Democracy belongs to the electorate, not the individual occupying the seat.
Yes, we have party system and we are voting for manifesto and rosette colour often for party leader rather than individual representing party in constituency.
YES We vote for a political party, they are elected as representatives of that party.. If they jump ship there should be another election as they no longer represent the beliefs they where elected on..
Yes. People voting for an MP are effectively voting for the manifesto associated with their party and contributing to putting that party in power. Regardless of any local issues or personal preference for the candidste. At its extremes, imagine a scenario where a defection tips the balance of power in key votes, that could affect everyone in the constueny and the country.