|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 20, 2012 23:22:14 GMT
Being somewhat experienced in the art of the defection myself, I don't think this is really a great deal though I think I have stated before on the old forum that my personal preference is for sitting elected members who wish to change party to sit as independents until they have a chance to stand for re-election under their new colours. With elections held under the FPTP system (or any other system where the voter elects a certain candidate), it is debatable to what extent an elected member is put into power by their party label, their personal vote, or the combination thereof. That aside however, the individual has been elected and his priority should not be to him/herself or to their party, but to act in whatever way best represents the will of the electorate. If any elected member therefore feels that they can no longer represent their electorate in their current party, be that due to issues with the local group, with national policies, or whatever, then I think there is an argument to defect (again though, I think they should be made to sit as independent until the next elections). The one situation where defections are clearly irrational are on party list elections such as those to Europe or the Holyrood top up seats, where I think a defection should force the member to resign and pass the seat to the next on their ex-party's list, as voters have voted solely for a party name in these cases.
I also don't buy into Mark's argument that supporting PR means all Lib Dems have to be willing to work with both Labour and the Conservatives. It should be born in mind that the existing party structures are themselves the product of our electoral systems and that all of the major parties (plus the larger minor parties) are essentially coalitions of groups with different aims that just about manage to coalesce together in order to have a chance at winning FPTP seats in Westminster. If Westminster elections were ever to switch to a proportional voting system, I think that within the span of a couple of elections we would see significant splintering amongst all the larger parties - Labour would likely split along its Compass and Progress wings, the Tories would divide into One Nation/Cameroon and Thatcherite parties, and the Lib Dems would split into social liberal and economic liberal groups. Thus you would then have more ideologically 'pure' groupings that would be more selective about potential coalition partners and would be less likely to drag unwilling members into future coalitions (looking at the Lib Dems in particular, the social wing would clearly be happier working with the Labour groups while the economic liberals or Orange Bookers are closer to the Tories, and probably closer to the Cameroon Tories than the Thatcherites would be).
In all, I wish James all the best in standing for election under his new colours. If he was elected by the hard work of Lib Dem campaigners as Mark seems to contest, then he will probably bomb out next year. If he was elected on a personal effort as James says, then there's a good chance he will do quite well. Either way, the important thing is that James continues to work for the electorate's interests as he best sees fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by bungle on May 20, 2012 23:49:28 GMT
So in summary it is the age-old tension between the MP, Cllr, MEP as representative or as delegate. I think back to the early 1980s Labour Party vicissitudes to see this particular debate explored ad infinitum.
I am happy to accept there is a blend of the individual as candidate and their party label in how you exercise your vote and how they become to be elected. I will never vote for individuals whose party I favour if I personally feel their judgement is suspect or they have flaws - that is too big a risk - which is one reason I voted the way I did in the London Mayoral election. We see some signs that the electorate also pick up on this to a small degree without the need for a big showdown such as Tatton 1997; this is somewhat gratifying e.g. the massive differential between Mayor and Assembly voting intentions in Barnet and Camden this month. Ultimately the power to vote people out regardless of what parties decide in terms of candidature is extremely important.
As a corollary I have always despised list systems because they severely weaken the accountability of the individual. So I feel much more aggrieved when an individual elected under a list system defects because they have much less right to claim a personal mandate in any way, shape or form regardless of the 'righteousness' of their reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 21, 2012 0:36:29 GMT
It should be born in mind that the existing party structures are themselves the product of our electoral systems and that all of the major parties (plus the larger minor parties) are essentially coalitions of groups with different aims that just about manage to coalesce together in order to have a chance at winning FPTP seats in Westminster. If Westminster elections were ever to switch to a proportional voting system, I think that within the span of a couple of elections we would see significant splintering amongst all the larger parties - Labour would likely split along its Compass and Progress wings, the Tories would divide into One Nation/Cameroon and Thatcherite parties, and the Lib Dems would split into social liberal and economic liberal groups. I'm honestly doubtful about this and I think it owes more to theory than it does to understanding the parties. The Labour Party is more than a mere coalition of centre lefties and hard lefties and bits in between who hang out together for the sake of winning elections; it's the political wing of a movement and formed by people with a much deeper commitment to the movement. The Conservatives are equally a deeper force than a mere umbrella to first single member elections. Plus I think you're also overestimating the electorate's willingness to have a fragmented party system where government gets determined not in the ballot box but in negotiations afterwards. (And there's also an obvious counter example of New Zealand where a combination of the introduction of PR & a time of particular turmoil in bother parties did see the emergence of splinter groups but by and large the main parties have stayed intact as big forces, and the bits and pieces are steadily being mopped up.) |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 21, 2012 9:14:48 GMT
If he was elected by the hard work of Lib Dem campaigners as Mark seems to contest, then he will probably bomb out next year. If he was elected on a personal effort as James says, then there's a good chance he will do quite well. Either way, the important thing is that James continues to work for the electorate's interests as he best sees fit. Incumbency usually gives councillors an opportunity to build up a personal vote, so I think it's possible for both of these statements to be true by the next election. But I think James is probably sadly mistaken if he expects the Lib Dems to stand down in his favour - and given the circumstances, he shouldn't be too surprised by this. |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 21, 2012 9:24:48 GMT
If Westminster elections were ever to switch to a proportional voting system, I think that within the span of a couple of elections we would see significant splintering amongst all the larger parties - Labour would likely split along its Compass and Progress wings, the Tories would divide into One Nation/Cameroon and Thatcherite parties, and the Lib Dems would split into social liberal and economic liberal groups. I think there is some truth in the suggestion that a proportional system that made it easier to get elected without being a member of one of the main 3, would see some new parties spring up. All parties contain some people who probably could fit into another party/grouping, but who have joined because that's the best way to achieve what they want to achieve. This isn't to accuse them of any intellectual dishonesty, as by-and-large, people don't join parties they're hugely unsuited to. Equally though, I think the splits you propose above are too simplistic Kris. Just taking the LDs as an example, whilst there are those who you might say are extreme social or economic liberals, the vast bulk of the membership and supporters do not fall into either of those camps, so this kind of split is unlikely. Whether British politics under more proportional systems could support a UK FDP equivalent (which may take some from the Tories as well as Lib Dems) or a Pirate-type party, is another thing. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on May 21, 2012 10:27:26 GMT
If Westminster elections were ever to switch to a proportional voting system, I think that within the span of a couple of elections we would see significant splintering amongst all the larger parties - Labour would likely split along its Compass and Progress wings, the Tories would divide into One Nation/Cameroon and Thatcherite parties, and the Lib Dems would split into social liberal and economic liberal groups. I think there is some truth in the suggestion that a proportional system that made it easier to get elected without being a member of one of the main 3, would see some new parties spring up. All parties contain some people who probably could fit into another party/grouping, but who have joined because that's the best way to achieve what they want to achieve. This isn't to accuse them of any intellectual dishonesty, as by-and-large, people don't join parties they're hugely unsuited to. The main parties are also broad church parties, encoompassing a range of views. This is not new, this is historical and goes back to the days when conservative and labour were mass membership parties. Those in either party who think that taking a hard line one way or the other and sticking two fingers up at people who don't agree with you as a way of getting into office are living in cloud cuckoo land. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 21, 2012 11:56:37 GMT
Blogger Jane Watkinson defects from Green to Labour, having originally defected Lib Dem to Green in 2010. I only mention this to highlight that I'm not the only young person to have held membership of three different parties...
|
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 21, 2012 12:53:47 GMT
Blogger Jane Watkinson defects from Green to Labour, having originally defected Lib Dem to Green in 2010. I only mention this to highlight that I'm not the only young person to have held membership of three different parties... There's nothing much wrong with a young person flitting between parties - that's the time when you're only just beginning to work out what you really think about issues and the world. In older people, too many switches looks like opportunism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2012 14:37:36 GMT
In older people, too many switches looks like opportunism. or possibly despairation .... |
|
|
|
Post by anthony on May 23, 2012 8:09:41 GMT
or possibly despairation .... That's probably a good word for it,  Unless you mean the band: www.despairation.com/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 8:13:00 GMT
or possibly despairation .... That's probably a good word for it, Unless you mean the band: www.despairation.com/My first though was to claim typo, but after some thought I'm quite happy with my new word ...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 8:15:04 GMT
I think there is some truth in the suggestion that a proportional system that made it easier to get elected without being a member of one of the main 3, would see some new parties spring up. But it may well make it more difficult for genuine independents to get elected, which would be a shame <ducks> |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2012 8:36:11 GMT
I hovered over the smite, then saw you were winding me up. Have an exalt. I was convinced that would get me a smite ..... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 23, 2012 9:04:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by meurig on May 25, 2012 8:31:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 11:20:07 GMT
for those of unaware the councillor contract has caused some fuss as it makes frankly the councillors work harder, This guy was elected unopposed so maybe he had it a bit easy ?
====================================
Cllr Hancock, a Labour group member for 17 years who was returned unopposed as a Labour candidate, told the Western Telegraph he had left the group because he opposed the signing of a contract devised by the national Labour party.
"The main issue is I'm against the candidate's contract all group members sign. The only contract I undertake is the contract of the people who elected me."
He added that the national contract was "quite onerous" and would micromanage members, which he said was unnecessary.
"I haven't changed my principles or policies," added Cllr Hancock.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843 
|
Post by Crimson King on May 25, 2012 14:22:35 GMT
The time for signing a contract, or for agreeing to sign one if elected, is before selection. If you expect a party to fund your campaign and work to get you elected they have a right to expect certain standards in return
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 14:27:45 GMT
I'm sorry, what on earth is a "councillors contract" AFTER an election?
As CK says, you might go through a selection process before hand and the election, but to then have to pledge good behaviour for the satisfaction of the national party?! My word!
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 25, 2012 14:45:01 GMT
I'm sorry, what on earth is a "councillors contract" AFTER an election? As CK says, you might go through a selection process before hand and the election, but to then have to pledge good behaviour for the satisfaction of the national party?! My word! I think it's less good behaviour in the sense of obedience and more in the sense of actually doing some work. Still very odd though, as everywhere else the candidate contract comes first. |
|
|
|
Post by meurig on May 25, 2012 15:01:25 GMT
Would it be overly cynical to suppose that Cllr. Hancock's unhappiness with the contract was given an added edge by the fact he was offered a cabinet post by the leader of the Pembrokeshire Independent Group?
Just asking.
|
|
