How many potential defectors?

[carlton43]

Yes, this has been commonly referred to by others always with disapprobation. As a far less tribal person than some, as regards party, I don't share that view. I also don't share the common view about deselection either. I completely refuse to buy the message that the de-selections are made on the basis of poor attention to duties, casework and canvassing. I think it is much more to do with party factionalism, policy differences, personal animosities and a desire to 'steal' safe wards built up by old hacks for the benefit of rising stars and favoured sons of either a Union or a prominent political family and caucus. So, I can see why many might defect before or just after de-selection. And why shouldn't they? After years of effort to be rejected and reviled calls and deserves no loyalty at all. Would I be loyal to a party clique that had deselected me? What do you think? I would do as much damage as I possibly could out of pique and out of hurt I would know all the weak points and where the bodies were buried and I would plot and plan and leak and prime both press and my contacts with other parties to open up the debate in all those personal, political and party areas that had long bugged me. A couple of years of intense activity would show them the error of their ways.

All of the above neatly divides me from the true dedicated party supporter. How could I do that to The Cause, The Party and Those Ideals> Well, I'm not built like that and it may be why I don't fit into any Church or Religion, don't like Monarchy and Tradition and could never be an Aparatchik in a Party. I am in and of a party whilst it suits me and is the closest approximation of how I feel at the time. I don't have any feeling for the party as such. I have no qualms about voting the other way in HOC or Chamber or of lending my vote or of jumping ship. I am not loyalist material, and frankly distrust people who are.

[Merseymike]

If people are prepared to use the party label to be elected then it is
not surprising that leaving that party makes them appear opportunist
Perhaps they should have stood as independents ?

[greenchristian]

Feb 18, 2015 14:46:48 GMT carlton43 said:

I completely refuse to buy the message that the de-selections are made on the basis of poor attention to duties, casework and canvassing. I think it is much more to do with party factionalism, policy differences, personal animosities and a desire to 'steal' safe wards built up by old hacks for the benefit of rising stars and favoured sons of either a Union or a prominent political family and caucus.

Do you think that's universally true, or are you just making a generalisation?

[Andrew_S]

It's difficult to think of any Labour MPs who might defect to the Green Party. In a way that's rather odd because you'd think there'd be some overlap between the two parties, but the tribal factor in the Labour Party is so strong that you can't imagine it happening. In fact it's almost easier to think of Tory MPs who might defect to the Greens: (I won't mention any names such as Zac Goldsmith or Ben Gummer).

[neilm]

Feb 18, 2015 17:53:15 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 18, 2015 14:46:48 GMT carlton43 said:

I completely refuse to buy the message that the de-selections are made on the basis of poor attention to duties, casework and canvassing. I think it is much more to do with party factionalism, policy differences, personal animosities and a desire to 'steal' safe wards built up by old hacks for the benefit of rising stars and favoured sons of either a Union or a prominent political family and caucus.

Do you think that's universally true, or are you just making a generalisation?

I believe it to be almost universally true in Labour's case.

[East Anglian Lefty]

This may of course say more about you than about the reasons for deselections.

[Khunanup]

Feb 18, 2015 18:54:16 GMT neilm said:

Feb 18, 2015 17:53:15 GMT greenchristian said:

Do you think that's universally true, or are you just making a generalisation?

I believe it to be almost universally true in Labour's case.

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

[Devil Wincarnate]

Feb 18, 2015 21:23:37 GMT Khunanup said:

Feb 18, 2015 18:54:16 GMT neilm said:

I believe it to be almost universally true in Labour's case.

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

I would also argue that Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights- Conservative associations in particular are stuffed with members who only pay a fiver so they can join the Con Club and don't have any voting rights.  Therefore, deselections are less common because there are fewer people with voting rights, and therefore a smaller number of people control the selection.  That's not a bad thing, but that tends to be the case.

There are loads of Conservative affiliates, but very few have real power.  Can you imagine if membership of the Primrose League,Monday Club, Tory Reform Group or having a subscription to Right Now! allowed you an extra vote?  Chaos.

PS: Bring back the Primrose League.

[neilm]

Feb 18, 2015 21:23:37 GMT Khunanup said:

Feb 18, 2015 18:54:16 GMT neilm said:

I believe it to be almost universally true in Labour's case.

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

Labour is also incredibly tribal, as Andy mentions above. Any sniff of disloyalty presumably earns you a lifetime of opprobrium (as an example, look at how many of them maintain a folk memory of Ramsay Macdonald).

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Some points to be made about that. First, that the Labour movement's sensitivity to any suggestion of betrayal probably on balance helps it maintain unity.

Second, that the actual story of 1931 is more interesting. In fact the immediate split with Macdonald was not bitter; most of the letters sent by Labour MPs to Macdonald after the split take the form "I'm sorry I can't agree with you, but I agree you acted from the best of motives and I'm personally sorry to see you go". The bitterness only came later, especially the decision to call an election and the conduct of that election, although it was then backdated.

[No Offence Alan]

Feb 18, 2015 17:27:47 GMT @trident said:

I suspect that for all the major parties, the proportion who would jump ship if the conditions were right is bigger in their respective heartland areas.

Yes, whatever your personal political leanings if you want to be a councillor in, say, Manchester, Eastleigh or Christchurch you really need to belong to the dominant local party.

[Deleted]

Feb 18, 2015 18:19:47 GMT Andrew_S said:

It's difficult to think of any Labour MPs who might defect to the Green Party. In a way that's rather odd because you'd think there'd be some overlap between the two parties, but the tribal factor in the Labour Party is so strong that you can't imagine it happening. In fact it's almost easier to think of Tory MPs who might defect to the Greens: (I won't mention any names such as Zac Goldsmith or Ben Gummer).

Andrew George would probably be at the top of my list of current MPs who are most likely to defect to the Greens, which is not to say that I think he actually will.

[Harry Hayfield]

Could I ask (on a similar topic) how many councillors (or indeed MP's if any have) have defected on one party to another a) on a matter of principle and b) because they did not feel involved in that party?

[East Anglian Lefty]

Feb 18, 2015 21:23:37 GMT Khunanup said:

Feb 18, 2015 18:54:16 GMT neilm said:

I believe it to be almost universally true in Labour's case.

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

But most affiliates aren't going to have a particular view on local councillors - union rights aren't usually an issue that comes up at that level, and even when they are it's not normally an issue that splits the group, so they'd have no reason to seek the deselection of particular councillors.

Where there are individual selections, it's usually likely to be about personal disputes or getting rid of dead wood (and these categories aren't distinct - not doing any work as a councillor isn't going to make you popular with either your branch or fellow councillors.) Where there are mass deselections, it's either London (where all-ups and a large membership make things more fractious) or it's about regional parties preventing some incumbents from passing the panel. As regional office don't usually have a reason to viscerally dislike a particular councillor or group of councillors, Occam's razor would suggest that this is about the councillors being judged not to be up to standard. You can of course argue whether the standards are reasonable, but until deselected councillors start regularly winning re-election under their own colours, I'm happy to assume that they generally are as incompetent as they're presumed to be.

[carlton43]

Feb 18, 2015 17:53:15 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 18, 2015 14:46:48 GMT carlton43 said:

I completely refuse to buy the message that the de-selections are made on the basis of poor attention to duties, casework and canvassing. I think it is much more to do with party factionalism, policy differences, personal animosities and a desire to 'steal' safe wards built up by old hacks for the benefit of rising stars and favoured sons of either a Union or a prominent political family and caucus.

Do you think that's universally true, or are you just making a generalisation?

Yes!

[finsobruce]

Feb 18, 2015 21:41:15 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Feb 18, 2015 21:23:37 GMT Khunanup said:

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

I would also argue that Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights- Conservative associations in particular are stuffed with members who only pay a fiver so they can join the Con Club and don't have any voting rights.  Therefore, deselections are less common because there are fewer people with voting rights, and therefore a smaller number of people control the selection.  That's not a bad thing, but that tends to be the case.

There are loads of Conservative affiliates, but very few have real power.  Can you imagine if membership of the Primrose League,Monday Club, Tory Reform Group or having a subscription to Right Now! allowed you an extra vote?  Chaos.

PS: Bring back the Primrose League.

Dearie me, the three of you are having fun here aren't you? however, and in the spirit of discussion only.

Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights... er, no they don't . To vote in a  ward councillor selection you have to be an individual member of the party and that's it. It's perfectly true that in certain areas there may be a lot of people who are members of a union or the Fabian Society etc  but it doesn't entitle them to an extra vote. You're right  that the Tory party used to pad out its membership figures with people who joined the Con club, but I suspect it is equally true that in certain areas there are lots of members who are farmers or members of the Adam Smith institute etc. It's not really that different at all. Everyone sees other people's "vested interests"  and never their own. 

Khunanup makes the same mistake in suggesting that the high level of deselection is down to "vested interests" . My direct experience of this is only in London of course, but there are always de-selections here due to the large number of candidates and the fact that everyone comes up at once, instead of in thirds. At the 2014 elections there were a large number of deselections across London among Tory councillors, which matched, and I suspect exceeded the number of Labour deselections. The high level of party membership in London (and probably in other Metropolitan areas) makes it much more difficult . It's competitive in other words. The Lib Dems have always struck me as having a post modernist attitude to membership - It isn't really that important. A large number of their candidates (even round here) had no involvement with the party before they stand. Its a different political culture - not better or worse, just different. 

Carlton seems to suggest that councillors in the Labour party are de- selected for every reason under the sun except a lack of effort and/or competence. I can assure him that I know of people who have been de-selected for one or both of these reasons, some of them having been around a long time. Some people outstay their welcome or their enthusiasm. That's life really. 

I'm all for a revival of the Primrose League and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more written about them. It had what you might call soft power - The Tory MP Charles (Walwyn Radcliffe) Cooke wrote in his memoirs about the terrible imposition of having to  keep in with them by going to all their functions and drinking - horror of horrors - inferior tea. They might not have had a vote and certainly not an extra one, but they could make your life very difficult if you didn't toe their line... 

I also have to say neil that you mention Ramsay Macdonald probably more often than all the Labour posters put together.... The scion of Lossiemouth would be touched. One of the things that people now forgot (and especially in the Labour party) is how much of an asset Macdonald was seen as for a long time and also as a man of principle given his anti war stance in the  First World War. I suspect this made the reaction even more vehement than it would have been anyway when he formed the National government. 

[finsobruce]

Feb 18, 2015 22:37:28 GMT No Offence Alan said:

Feb 18, 2015 17:27:47 GMT @trident said:

I suspect that for all the major parties, the proportion who would jump ship if the conditions were right is bigger in their respective heartland areas.

Yes, whatever your personal political leanings if you want to be a councillor in, say, Manchester, Eastleigh or Christchurch you really need to belong to the dominant local party.

Which, is, as I always say when dok goes on about Manchester, why the electoral system needs to be changed particularly at a local level. 

[Merseymike]

Feb 18, 2015 18:19:47 GMT Andrew_S said:

It's difficult to think of any Labour MPs who might defect to the Green Party. In a way that's rather odd because you'd think there'd be some overlap between the two parties, but the tribal factor in the Labour Party is so strong that you can't imagine it happening. In fact it's almost easier to think of Tory MPs who might defect to the Greens: (I won't mention any names such as Zac Goldsmith or Ben Gummer).

I think that's probably because it's relatively easy to be a left wing red green within Labour and take the green stance on Trident, fracking etc

[Merseymike]

Feb 18, 2015 22:47:41 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Feb 18, 2015 21:23:37 GMT Khunanup said:

I think in Labour's case, the very nature of their party's setup mean there are many more obvious vested interests to keep happy (all the affiliates etc.) which just isn't the case in other parties. The sheer level of deselection in Labour never fails to astound me (though interestingly it's far far rarer at parliamentary level which does point to me that double standards do come into play to the detriment of Labour councillors).

But most affiliates aren't going to have a particular view on local councillors - union rights aren't usually an issue that comes up at that level, and even when they are it's not normally an issue that splits the group, so they'd have no reason to seek the deselection of particular councillors.

Where there are individual selections, it's usually likely to be about personal disputes or getting rid of dead wood (and these categories aren't distinct - not doing any work as a councillor isn't going to make you popular with either your branch or fellow councillors.) Where there are mass deselections, it's either London (where all-ups and a large membership make things more fractious) or it's about regional parties preventing some incumbents from passing the panel. As regional office don't usually have a reason to viscerally dislike a particular councillor or group of councillors, Occam's razor would suggest that this is about the councillors being judged not to be up to standard. You can of course argue whether the standards are reasonable, but until deselected councillors start regularly winning re-election under their own colours, I'm happy to assume that they generally are as incompetent as they're presumed to be.

In our area local residents and no one else select local councillors

[carlton43]

Feb 18, 2015 22:59:53 GMT finsobruce said:

Feb 18, 2015 21:41:15 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I would also argue that Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights- Conservative associations in particular are stuffed with members who only pay a fiver so they can join the Con Club and don't have any voting rights.  Therefore, deselections are less common because there are fewer people with voting rights, and therefore a smaller number of people control the selection.  That's not a bad thing, but that tends to be the case.

There are loads of Conservative affiliates, but very few have real power.  Can you imagine if membership of the Primrose League,Monday Club, Tory Reform Group or having a subscription to Right Now! allowed you an extra vote?  Chaos.

PS: Bring back the Primrose League.

Dearie me, the three of you are having fun here aren't you? however, and in the spirit of discussion only.

Labour branches tend to have more people with voting rights... er, no they don't . To vote in a  ward councillor selection you have to be an individual member of the party and that's it. It's perfectly true that in certain areas there may be a lot of people who are members of a union or the Fabian Society etc  but it doesn't entitle them to an extra vote. You're right  that the Tory party used to pad out its membership figures with people who joined the Con club, but I suspect it is equally true that in certain areas there are lots of members who are farmers or members of the Adam Smith institute etc. It's not really that different at all. Everyone sees other people's "vested interests"  and never their own. 

Khunanup makes the same mistake in suggesting that the high level of deselection is down to "vested interests" . My direct experience of this is only in London of course, but there are always de-selections here due to the large number of candidates and the fact that everyone comes up at once, instead of in thirds. At the 2014 elections there were a large number of deselections across London among Tory councillors, which matched, and I suspect exceeded the number of Labour deselections. The high level of party membership in London (and probably in other Metropolitan areas) makes it much more difficult . It's competitive in other words. The Lib Dems have always struck me as having a post modernist attitude to membership - It isn't really that important. A large number of their candidates (even round here) had no involvement with the party before they stand. Its a different political culture - not better or worse, just different. 

Carlton seems to suggest that councillors in the Labour party are de- selected for every reason under the sun except a lack of effort and/or competence. I can assure him that I know of people who have been de-selected for one or both of these reasons, some of them having been around a long time. Some people outstay their welcome or their enthusiasm. That's life really. 

I'm all for a revival of the Primrose League and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more written about them. It had what you might call soft power - The Tory MP Charles (Walwyn Radcliffe) Cooke wrote in his memoirs about the terrible imposition of having to  keep in with them by going to all their functions and drinking - horror of horrors - inferior tea. They might not have had a vote and certainly not an extra one, but they could make your life very difficult if you didn't toe their line... 

I also have to say neil that you mention Ramsay Macdonald probably more often than all the Labour posters put together.... The scion of Lossiemouth would be touched. One of the things that people now forgot (and especially in the Labour party) is how much of an asset Macdonald was seen as for a long time and also as a man of principle given his anti war stance in the  First World War. I suspect this made the reaction even more vehement than it would have been anyway when he formed the National government. 

That really is a first class response and full of useful facts. I hadn't realized the extent of Conservative de-selections in London and had assumed this to be much more of a Labour thing but I in no way suggested in was solely a Labour problem and in my post above made no reference at all to any party. I was not being tribal nor anti-Labour, just expressing an opinion. I also fully accept people are de-selected for matters of senility, laziness and incompetence, and rightly so. But I would still contend that most people are not de-selected for those reasons even if they are cited. It is easy enough to trump up charges as anyone involved with getting rid of staff knows.........good paperwork and masses of references however trivial will usually suffice. I have the feeling that Labour de-select more councillors than any other party and the Conservatives de-select more MPs. I wonder if that is true? If so why?