Should a defection by an MP or councillor automatically trigger a byelection?

[AY1975]

As was widely reported in the news yesterday, Christian Wakeford, the former Tory MP for Bury South, has defected to Labour. Here is the story about his decision:

Christian Wakeford: Defecting was most difficult decision I've ever made

The ex-Tory MP says he had "many sleepless nights" over moving to Labour, but it was the "right decision".

www.bbc.co.uk

Defecting from the Conservatives to Labour was "the most difficult decision of my life", says Christian Wakeford.

The MP for Bury South switched parties on Wednesday to cheers from new colleagues, but anger from the old.

Mr Wakeford said he had been considering the move for "months" and had "many sleepless nights".

But he said it was the "right thing" for his constituents, adding he would remain "a moderate and centrist... just wearing a different rosette"....

MPs and councillors have defected from one party to another (or left their previous party to form a new party or become independents) throughout history. In some cases this has triggered a byelection in their constituency or ward, but not always.

Clearly, defections happen for all kinds of reasons just as ordinary voters change their party allegiance for all kinds of reasons. It can be because they feel that their views have changed, the party that they have decided to leave has changed such that they no longer feel able to identify with that party, or the party that they have decided to join has changed such that they feel more able to identify with that party.

Do you think a defection should automatically trigger a byelection in all cases, or if not, under what circumstances do you think it should lead to a byelection and when do you think the sitting MP or councillor should remain as a member of their new party until they are next up for re-election? Obviously, some if not most of the voters who elected them are liable to feel betrayed, especially if they elected them in order to unseat the previous MP or councillor who was a member of the party to which the current incumbent has defected (as in the case of Bury South, which the Tories won from Labour in 2019).

I also wondered who decided whether a defection should result in a byelection. Does the decision rest with the Government or Parliament (or the full council or council leader in the case of councillors), or with the party that the defecting MP or councillor has left (or with the party that they have joined)?

 

[duncanp]

What the media naturally forgot to mention was that Mr Wakeford voted in favour of a bill that would force a by-election when an MP defects fromone party to another.

Rachel Reeves was interviewed on ITV this morning and said she wanted a general election (the last thing we need right now) but that "..this is not how our democracy works..." when challenged over whether there should be a by-election in Bury South.

Presumably Ms Reeves would be ranting and raving with exactly the opposite viewpoint if a Labour MP defected to the Conservatives.

Personally I think that defecting from one party to another should be grounds for the electorate in a constituency to initiate a recall petition, which would force a by-election if a threshold of the number of signatures was reached.

 

[deltic]

The present system is based on the fallacy that you voted for the person so it doesnt matter if their political allegiance changes they are still the same person. The reality is that in most cases we vote for a political party and not the individual and where people have resigned and fought an election under their new political colours they are often unsuccessful. So I would support a requirement for a by-election in such cases.

However, what would then probably happen is that the person does not change parties but just votes against their present party so the end result for the voters is the same.

 

[Gloster]

My feeling is that there should be a by-election if an MP joins another party, but not if they become an independent. If you join another political party, even a newly established one, you are bound by the policies of that party, which are different to those you were elected on. If you are an independent you can continue to support the policies you were elected on, only diverging over such matters as you think fit. Forcing an MP to always toe the line is just what the whips want and would reduce the already limited opportunities for independent thought among MPs.

 

[IanD]

It should be treated as a resignation and result in a by-election.

I suspect in this case if the same person was chosen as the Labour candidate in a by-election, he would be successfully re-elected as the apparent reasons for electing a Tory MP in that constituency has been achieved. However, if I was running the constituency Labour party I would be seeking a new candidate (or the original Labour candidate who stood at the general election who was robbed by this turncoat).

 

[deltic]

In the past 30 years, 23 MPs have directly defected to a rival party. Of these only two instantly called a by-election to fight for their seat — UKIP's Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless. The pair both won though Reckless went on to lose his seat in the general election a year later.

Of the other 21, only two were re-elected as MPs at the next general election. Con-to-Lab defectors, Alan Howarth and Shaun Woodward, did so by standing in different (and safer) seats. Of the other 19, 10 ran and lost at the next election and 9 chose not to stand

 

[Western Lord]

As has been stated, in our system you vote for the candidate rather than the party (supposedly). However, Mr. Wakeford might like to reflect on the fact that he would not be an MP if it were not for the "Johnson effect". I presume that the Labour candidate for Bury South was less than delighted to see Starmer fawning over an erstwhile rival.

 

[DarloRich]

I also wondered who decided whether a defection should result in a byelection.

IMO: of course it should.

Whilst I am very happy to see another Labour MP the people of Bury South voted for a Conservative. ( I know that's not how the system is supposed to work but it is how it does work in practice. Most vote for the party not the candidate)

 

[Ediswan]

I presume that the Labour candidate for Bury South was less than delighted to see Starmer fawning over an erstwhile rival.

She does not seem happy: https://twitter.com/lucyburkeMcr/status/1484087844796780549

 

[Feathers44]

I know how the system works and how people think it works.

I think if we want to react to the changes in line with how people think the system works then we need to change the way the system actually works to align with that.

Having an electoral system that relates to an ideal with an additional bit that relates to reality isn’t really a viable long-term solution.

Of course, that’s never going to happen because if you were making changes on that scale, these aren’t the changes you’d make (hopefully).

Edit: I think the idea of allowing the possibility of a recall petition under these circumstances would be worth considering.

 

[brad465]

Personally I think that defecting from one party to another should be grounds for the electorate in a constituency to initiate a recall petition, which would force a by-election if a threshold of the number of signatures was reached.

As has been stated, in our system you vote for the candidate rather than the party (supposedly). However, Mr. Wakeford might like to reflect on the fact that he would not be an MP if it were not for the "Johnson effect". I presume that the Labour candidate for Bury South was less than delighted to see Starmer fawning over an erstwhile rival.

I'd certainly get on board with a recall petition, but as appears to be being pointed out by other users, the problem we have is the lack of a constitution, combined with our archaic voting system, means that the overall political system is still in effect based on a time when there were no political parties, thus a defection to a different allegiance isn't recognised by the system.

Until this changes, which includes needing a better voting system reflecting multi-party politics, then complaining about what happens (or doesn't happen) to defecting MPs is a subconscious admission that the whole system is no longer fit for purpose.

 

[AY1975]

She does not seem happy: https://twitter.com/lucyburkeMcr/status/1484087844796780549

Nor do a lot of voters in Bury South: ‘It feels a bit ridiculous’: Bury South on Christian Wakeford’s defection to Labour | UK news | The Guardian

As well as supporters of the MP's old party feeling betrayed, so might supporters of their new party who might fear that their MP is still a supporter of their old party at heart and just masquerading as a member of their new party.

That said, I used to have a friend who was a councillor who defected from one party to another and didn't call a byelection but still got re-elected in the same ward as a member of their new party when the next council elections took place.

This video clip gives an interesting analysis of the situation too:

I'd certainly get on board with a recall petition, but as appears to be being pointed out by other users, the problem we have is the lack of a constitution, combined with our archaic voting system, means that the overall political system is still in effect based on a time when there were no political parties, thus a defection to a different allegiance isn't recognised by the system.

Until this changes, which includes needing a better voting system reflecting multi-party politics, then complaining about what happens (or doesn't happen) to defecting MPs is a subconscious admission that the whole system is no longer fit for purpose.

I agree; there is a separate thread on this at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/uk-voting-system.207975/

 

[Western Lord]

Nor do a lot of voters in Bury South: ‘It feels a bit ridiculous’: Bury South on Christian Wakeford’s defection to Labour | UK news | The Guardian

As well as supporters of the MP's old party feeling betrayed, so might supporters of their new party who might fear that their MP is still a supporter of their old party at heart and just masquerading as a member of their new party.

That said, I used to have a friend who was a councillor who defected from one party to another and didn't call a byelection but still got re-elected in the same ward as a member of their new party when the next council elections took place.

This video clip gives an interesting analysis of the situation too:

I agree; there is a separate thread on this at https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/uk-voting-system.207975/

It would be amusing if the Bury South Labour Party re-selected their existing candidate and Wakeford had to be parachuted into another constituency.

 

[AY1975]

This video clip gives an interesting view of the situation too:

 

[david1212]

It should be treated as a resignation and result in a by-election.

I suspect in this case if the same person was chosen as the Labour candidate in a by-election, he would be successfully re-elected as the apparent reasons for electing a Tory MP in that constituency has been achieved. However, if I was running the constituency Labour party I would be seeking a new candidate (or the original Labour candidate who stood at the general election who was robbed by this turncoat).

This is my view.

If chosen by another party as their candidate followed by winning the seat so still the MP for the constituency then the choice of the majority of constituents who made the effort to vote.

 

[tbtc]

No

Firstly, if a by-election is required (when an MP/ councillor changes parties) then would the same happen if they became an independent too? Or (if not) would they simply choose to sit as an "independent" and coincidently vote in exactly the same way that the party they wanted to join would vote? Would this stop parties from splitting (even in the event of something like a referendum result)?

And then there's the problem that, if someone has to stand for re-election if they don't remain in the party then does the same happen for someone who doesn't leave the party but doesn't follow the whip? Was it okay for a serial "rebel" like Corbyn to retain membership of Labour, despite not voting for the things in the party's manifesto or following the whip? Could this be used by whips as control over MPs, e.g. "if you don't vote along the party lines 95% of the time then a by-election will be triggered"? That's a lot of power to give Whips over MPs. Could Tory Whips use reselection as a thread against MPs not backing Johnson's leadership as the sharks circle with leadership contenders, following that logic?

Essentially, it's a mess, but any attempt to solidify things into coherent rules would only create new messes, e.g. would it be "fine" if Wakeford stayed on the Tory benches but followed the Labour whip and therefore rebelled against the Tory line on all major issues? We seem to want MPs to be able to follow their conscious and to be free to reflect the mood of their constituency (not just the "40%" of the constituency who voted for them), but we all have a different "line" about how much they can rebel before that becomes a problem - trying to define that "line" would cause more problems than it'd solve IMHO

 

[Busaholic]

No

Firstly, if a by-election is required (when an MP/ councillor changes parties) then would the same happen if they became an independent too? Or (if not) would they simply choose to sit as an "independent" and coincidently vote in exactly the same way that the party they wanted to join would vote? Would this stop parties from splitting (even in the event of something like a referendum result)?

And then there's the problem that, if someone has to stand for re-election if they don't remain in the party then does the same happen for someone who doesn't leave the party but doesn't follow the whip? Was it okay for a serial "rebel" like Corbyn to retain membership of Labour, despite not voting for the things in the party's manifesto or following the whip? Could this be used by whips as control over MPs, e.g. "if you don't vote along the party lines 95% of the time then a by-election will be triggered"? That's a lot of power to give Whips over MPs. Could Tory Whips use reselection as a thread against MPs not backing Johnson's leadership as the sharks circle with leadership contenders, following that logic?

Essentially, it's a mess, but any attempt to solidify things into coherent rules would only create new messes, e.g. would it be "fine" if Wakeford stayed on the Tory benches but followed the Labour whip and therefore rebelled against the Tory line on all major issues? We seem to want MPs to be able to follow their conscious and to be free to reflect the mood of their constituency (not just the "40%" of the constituency who voted for them), but we all have a different "line" about how much they can rebel before that becomes a problem - trying to define that "line" would cause more problems than it'd solve IMHO

Absolutely spot on.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I broadly agree with @tbtc. In general, I think in most situations, an MP swapping sides ought (ethically) to resign and fight a by-election - and I certainly think it's pretty atrocious that Christian Wakeford has chosen not to do so. But it's not really the sort of thing that it makes sense to have a law about. Laws - by their nature - are blunt instruments that are usually incapable of distinguishing nuances. And as tbtc's points kinda imply, a law requiring MPs to resign if they swap parties would have lots of unwanted side-effects (such as strongly incentivising an MP to stay in the same party even if they've decided they no longer wish to, just to avoid having to fight a by-election). This is the kind of thing is something that you probably have to leave up to the individual MPs conscience (and the voters at the next election).

 

[The Ham]

I broadly agree with @tbtc. In general, I think in most situations, an MP swapping sides ought (ethically) to resign and fight a by-election - and I certainly think it's pretty atrocious that Christian Wakeford has chosen not to do so. But it's not really the sort of thing that it makes sense to have a law about. Laws - by their nature - are blunt instruments that are usually incapable of distinguishing nuances. And as tbtc's points kinda imply, a law requiring MPs to resign if they swap parties would have lots of unwanted side-effects (such as strongly incentivising an MP to stay in the same party even if they've decided they no longer wish to, just to avoid having to fight a by-election). This is the kind of thing is something that you probably have to leave up to the individual MPs conscience (and the voters at the next election).

In one of the videos it was suggested that a recall motion could be the way to go. There's certainly some logic in that, as if 10% wanted a by-election then it would happen.

However anything more would be tricky and could probably cause issues which we currently don't have. For instance an MP defects (say) 6 months before a general election, do we really need 2 elections so close to each other? Well that's easy to legislate for, right? Well probably not, as the 2019 election want supposed to happen at that time. It's possible that Johnson is kicked out and (for some unknown reason) the next leader triggers a general election within 6 months. Same outcome, 2 elections within a short window servicing very little purpose.

 

[Typhoon]

I broadly agree with @tbtc. In general, I think in most situations, an MP swapping sides ought (ethically) to resign and fight a by-election - and I certainly think it's pretty atrocious that Christian Wakeford has chosen not to do so. But it's not really the sort of thing that it makes sense to have a law about. Laws - by their nature - are blunt instruments that are usually incapable of distinguishing nuances. And as tbtc's points kinda imply, a law requiring MPs to resign if they swap parties would have lots of unwanted side-effects (such as strongly incentivising an MP to stay in the same party even if they've decided they no longer wish to, just to avoid having to fight a by-election). This is the kind of thing is something that you probably have to leave up to the individual MPs conscience (and the voters at the next election).

I agree but would add that the MP who switched parties might, justifiably, be able to claim that they have not changed their views at all, they have switched parties (not necessarily Tory to Labour or vice versa) because their party has changed.
At the last election there will be MPs who championed the Corbyn platform who feel that even though Labour has lost two elections with him at the helm that it is still the way forward. They might switch to, say, the Galloway Party claiming that it is closer to the Corbyn cause than the policies put forward by Starmer.
There are doubtless Conservative MPs whose election literature put Johnson's promise "We will not raise the rate of income tax, VAT or National Insurance" front and centre, and so feel uncomfortable with the forthcoming rises so rally to the call of (say) a Farage mark III party. The same election literature may have relegated his 'green' promises to a single line on the back page.

In both cases the MP could ask why they were having to have a by-election when it is others who are now deviating from the policies they fought the election under.

The Wakeford case is different and I fear it will do neither him nor Labour any good at all. He may well learn what it is like to be Billy No-mates very quickly (as others have clearly stated).

 

[Busaholic]

In one of the videos it was suggested that a recall motion could be the way to go. There's certainly some logic in that, as if 10% wanted a by-election then it would happen.

However anything more would be tricky and could probably cause issues which we currently don't have. For instance an MP defects (say) 6 months before a general election, do we really need 2 elections so close to each other? Well that's easy to legislate for, right? Well probably not, as the 2019 election want supposed to happen at that time. It's possible that Johnson is kicked out and (for some unknown reason) the next leader triggers a general election within 6 months. Same outcome, 2 elections within a short window servicing very little purpose.

I think the concept of a recall for a MP for political reasons alone is grossly flawed and would be an attempt to help put an end to what vestiges of parliamentary democracy, fast disappearing, we have left. I'd go so far as to say that the effect is not too far short of what political extremists who assassinate MPs are aiming to do, but in their case don't because an MP of much the same mindset (same party too) is elected in their stead at the following by-election.

 

[tbtc]

In general, I think in most situations, an MP swapping sides ought (ethically) to resign and fight a by-election - and I certainly think it's pretty atrocious that Christian Wakeford has chosen not to do so. But it's not really the sort of thing that it makes sense to have a law about. Laws - by their nature - are blunt instruments that are usually incapable of distinguishing nuances

Good points - if it were my MP I'd probably want them to resign and seek re-election - it's just the problems with legislation for such things, which may have some awkward repercussions

The whole thing is steeped in hypocrisy though; I've seen Emily Thornburry denying the need for Wakeford to instigate a Bury by-election (which is fair enough, but a bit hypocritical when she was arguing that the "Change UK" MPs who left Labour should have to stand down, because at that time she was being loyal to Corbyn rather than loyal to Starmer - which is partly why I don't trust any MPs to legislate for and honour future examples - they'll find some daft excuse for why they don't feel that the rules apply in this situation, if it suits them to, e.g. it'd be easy to claim that "I've not changed, but the actions of my party leader means I can no longer represent the people of this constituency..." and weasel out of it)

 

[317 forever]

What the media naturally forgot to mention was that Mr Wakeford voted in favour of a bill that would force a by-election when an MP defects fromone party to another.

Rachel Reeves was interviewed on ITV this morning and said she wanted a general election (the last thing we need right now) but that "..this is not how our democracy works..." when challenged over whether there should be a by-election in Bury South.

Presumably Ms Reeves would be ranting and raving with exactly the opposite viewpoint if a Labour MP defected to the Conservatives.

Personally I think that defecting from one party to another should be grounds for the electorate in a constituency to initiate a recall petition, which would force a by-election if a threshold of the number of signatures was reached.

In which case, if the threshold is reached as in Brecon in 2019, a by-election would result.

Admittedly, Bury South is not really a true Red Wall seat. It had been Conservative until 1992, and if anything remained Labour until 2019 against the odds.

 

[MotCO]

What about the situation when an MP loses the Whip? In some situations, they are thrown out of the party, so would that trigger a by-election? What if he/she regains the Whip and rejoins the party?

If the seat is marginal, it may affect whether the party wants to throw the MP out of their party, so there are unintended consequences.

Initially I thought it was a no- brainer; there should be a by-election. Thanks to the thoughtful comments on this forum, I'm not so sure. Maybe the ability of the constituency to be able to recall their MP is the answer.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Other practical problem with forcing a by-election: It presumes that the party the MP is defecting to is willing to make that person their candidate. But in general that's not possible to guarantee. Each party will have its own procedures for selecting a candidate, and even if the national party leadership would be keen to keep the newly-defected MP, the local party members might not want to: They after all have just spent the last few years seeing that person as their opponent; they might have already selected someone else to be their local candidate at the next election - and that person may have already put a lot of work into campaigning. And so on.

Also, such a law would favour MPs in marginal constituencies: Christian Wakeford would probably win a by-election for Labour in the current political climate - his seat is marginal and the Tories are unpopular at the moment. But what about an MP in safe seat? A rule forcing by-elections would basically mean those MPs would be facing the near-certain end to their political careers if they swapped parties. I'm not sure that you want to put people in a situation where following their consciences has that kind of consequence.

 

[Typhoon]

What about the situation when an MP loses the Whip? In some situations, they are thrown out of the party, so would that trigger a by-election? What if he/she regains the Whip and rejoins the party?

If the seat is marginal, it may affect whether the party wants to throw the MP out of their party, so there are unintended consequences.

Initially I thought it was a no- brainer; there should be a by-election. Thanks to the thoughtful comments on this forum, I'm not so sure. Maybe the ability of the constituency to be able to recall their MP is the answer.

Doesn't seem to take much. Anne Marie Morris has lost the Conservative whip for voting with Labour on cutting VAT on energy bills. (It had no effect.)

On the other side, the 'Naughty Tory' Charlie Elphicke lost the whip after the sexual assault allegations were made (rightly in my opinion), but regained it in time for the confidence vote in Theresa May.

At one time it meant something.

 

[nw1]

In which case, if the threshold is reached as in Brecon in 2019, a by-election would result.

Admittedly, Bury South is not really a true Red Wall seat. It had been Conservative until 1992, and if anything remained Labour until 2019 against the odds.

This perhaps indicates that Bury South has generally been shifting leftwards compared to pre-1992, when one considers that Wakeford only just won it in 2019, and it could easily have remained Labour yet again. I don't know Bury South at all well but I get the impression (from travelling along the A56 into Manchester from the M62) the area is 'leafy suburbia', perhaps not a natural home for Johnson's right-wing populism but perhaps a home for more 'traditional' Tories which would explain their pre-1992 success. Consequently I suspect that Labour will win/hold (whatever term you want to use) this seat in the next election, whether it be a by-election or a general election.

I agree with others that a by-election should not be forced (it could give whips yet more reason to bully their party's MPs) but that Wakeford should do the right thing and call a by-election in this case. As I said above the likely result would then be a 'clean' Labour win with no issues of conscience.

 

[jfollows]

What about the situation when an MP loses the Whip? In some situations, they are thrown out of the party, so would that trigger a by-election? What if he/she regains the Whip and rejoins the party?

No there's no by-election, but if he/she doesn't regain the official party support then it's unlikely that he/she will win the next election.
I'm happy with the way things work now. I vote for the person as much as the party in the sense that I'll vote against Esther McVey until the cows come home (if they have a blue rosette pinned to them instead of Esther they'd win the election themselves of course) whereas I was considering voting for George Osborne until he decided not to stand.

 

[nw1]

No there's no by-election, but if he/she doesn't regain the official party support then it's unlikely that he/she will win the next election.
I'm happy with the way things work now. I vote for the person as much as the party in the sense that I'll vote against Esther McVey until the cows come home (if they have a blue rosette pinned to them instead of Esther they'd win the election themselves of course) whereas I was considering voting for George Osborne until he decided not to stand.

Ah, the Wirral Reject. Yes, lovely person. Tatton has certainly had an interesting collection of MPs through the years, that's for certain.

For a while I have to admit I detested Osborne, due to his austerity policies which I considered brutal. However, in the current political climate he's relatively benign in comparison to the government we have now, and is the second-least-worst MP of the four that Tatton has had since 1983.

 

[Busaholic]

the second-least-worst MP of the four that Tatton has had since 1983.

They put the Tat into Tatton