Defectors?

[Danllan]

There were rumours at Labour's conference about some of their MPs joining the Conservatives. Now there are the same rumours at the Conservative conference, and even a number... 3. I have no problem with this sort of thing and I guess they've seen the light, but then I'm a Tory at the moment.

However... I'm a democrat first and foremost and I don't hold with 'You vote for the person not the party' line trotted out by MPs that choose to change party. We vote for e.g. John Smith, Conservative Candidate, or David Jones, the Labour Party etc. etc., in an election the two are indivisible.

So I'd like to see them have the courage of their convictions and have by-elections in their constituencies; great respect to any that do and good luck to them; not much other than contempt for any that don't, even if they come over to my current party of choice...

 

[SteveHants]

Christ, I never thought I'd agree with you on anything in "politics".....

Although at the moment, it's just rumour. There's another that Boris has made the "rumours" up to try to make gains from the LP conference, but I find that hard to believe as Starmer's "anybody but Corbyn would be 20 points ahead in the polls" Labour continue to embrace the centrism that will see them follow the French PS into electoral oblivion.

Odds on Jess Philips?

 

[capfits]

@Danllan why would any current MP from another party join the Tories with their wiff of corrupt money?

 

[jendan]

@Danllan why would any current MP from another party join the Tories with their wiff of corrupt money?

Its scarcely believable unless its a Labour MP in a red wall constituency that managed to hang on with a small majority.Even then,it doesnt make any sense.

 

[SteveHants]

@Danllan why would any current MP from another party join the Tories with their wiff of corrupt money?

For some of the corrupt money, presumably.

 

[br jones]

@Danllan why would any current MP from another party join the Tories with their wiff of corrupt money?

Maybe they can see that sir keir is a liability at election time,and they will lose their seats ,so jump now

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I was just watching Ian Duncan Smith on GB News, he sounded really sensible, I wonder why he was so unsuccessful as leader? I think, his roll out of universal credit was scotched by the chancellor, so it never had a chance of being successful.

 

[Ncap]

You mean
"IDS who lied so grossly (and clumsily) on his CV. To be honest (and maybe no connection with the fact that he dresses like a Biggles wannabe as he toot toots around the countryside in his little Morgan motor car) I think he'\s just a bit of a fantasist with little connection with reality"

 

[Mek]

I was just watching Ian Duncan Smith on GB News, he sounded really sensible, I wonder why he was so unsuccessful as leader? I think, his roll out of universal credit was scotched by the chancellor, so it never had a chance of being successful.

Just shows how bad things have become when IDS sounds sensible.

 

[Danllan]

@Danllan why would any current MP from another party join the Tories with their wiff of corrupt money?

Writing that about 'the Tories' is daft, it's like stating that all Labour MPs are just automata of the unions and not working for their constituents. Certainly, in both instances, there are some poor examples who fit the descriptions, but most don't.

As for why... I guess few will be certain of knowing the truth; but I expect exasperation with Labour is a fair place to start. The Liberals are and will remain irrelevant, if these people - if they are 'real' - genuinely believe that their constituents' and the nation's interests will not be as well served under Labour, they are doing the right thing - but they should still submit themselves to by-elections.

 

[capfits]

Writing that about 'the Tories' is daft, it's like stating that all Labour MPs are just automata of the unions and not working for their constituents. Certainly, in both instances, there are some poor examples who fit the descriptions, but most don't.

As for why... I guess few will be certain of knowing the truth; but I expect exasperation with Labour is a fair place to start. The Liberals are and will remain irrelevant, if these people - if they are 'real' - genuinely believe that their constituents' and the nation's interests will not be as well served under Labour, they are doing the right thing - but they should still submit themselves to by-elections.

@Danllan that is so funny Shadwell.
Calling MPs of other parties automata when the Tories MPs have simply served as lobby fodder pollyannas. LOL.

 

[Danllan]

@Danllan that is so funny Shadwell.
Calling MPs of other parties automata when the Tories MPs have simply served as lobby fodder pollyannas. LOL.

Ooh... a derogatory national stereotype and a racial pejorative all in one sentence, well done...

But, coming from the fellow who criticises much but has answers for nothing, so what?

 

[stewart]

There were rumours at Labour's conference about some of their MPs joining the Conservatives. Now there are the same rumours at the Conservative conference, and even a number... 3. I have no problem with this sort of thing and I guess they've seen the light, but then I'm a Tory at the moment.

However... I'm a democrat first and foremost and I don't hold with 'You vote for the person not the party' line trotted out by MPs that choose to change party. We vote for e.g. John Smith, Conservative Candidate, or David Jones, the Labour Party etc. etc., in an election the two are indivisible.

So I'd like to see them have the courage of their convictions and have by-elections in their constituencies; great respect to any that do and good luck to them; not much other than contempt for any that don't, even if they come over to my current party of choice...

Perhaps you need to reform your electoral system, allowing two votes, one for the party and one for a constituency MP?
This would have to be better than the pseudo democracy you currently have.

 

[capfits]

Perhaps you need to reform your electoral system, allowing two votes, one for the party and one for a constituency MP?
This would have to be better than the pseudo democracy you currently have.

To be fair to @Danllan he has previously mentioned a desire for PR.

 

[Exfarmer]

It will be a great shame for the country if some Labour MP’s join the Conservatives as we need a real opposition not a left wing disorganised rabble of Marxists, Maoists , Trotskyists and others who are far more interested in whether men can have cervixes, women can have penises, rather than the real world issues. The conservatives cashed in big time thanks to Jeremy Corbyn and the traditional labour voter who could see through him

 

[robs1]

Perhaps you need to reform your electoral system, allowing two votes, one for the party and one for a constituency MP?
This would have to be better than the pseudo democracy you currently have.

I think there is some merit in that idea, perhaps the later to sit in the second chamber rather than the current lords system

 

[Danllan]

Yep, I am in favour of PR, it is the only truly democratic electoral system; but I want pure PR, not like the German version where >5% of the poll is needed to secure representation.

For me the percentage 'threshold' for representation in Parliament should be, currently, 100 divided by 650, about 0.153%. Secure that percentage and you get a seat in Parliament, no matter who you are; I dislike many 'extreme' views held by e.g. religionists, neo-Nazis, Trot's etc. but, for an irony, in a democracy all have to have the same entitlement to representation.

Anyway it's my belief that, in such a genuinely representative democracy, it would be a good thing to have these people in Parliament, where they would be under constant scrutiny and couldn't hide anything.

I think there is some merit in that idea, perhaps the later to sit in the second chamber rather than the current lords system

A second chamber is a good thing providing it can't contest the primacy of the Commons - that being a very good reason for it being of appointees rather than elected members. Because, there needs to be both a facility to review legislation and to recruit necessary expertise into government rapidly at need.

I've no problem with them being called 'Lords', even keeping the titles on retirement if that sort of thing appeals to them, but I think their should be a maximum period of sitting there, say twenty years or age 75, whichever comes first. (Special writs could allow finite extensions if certain expertise was absolutely necessary to government).

I also think that it should not be open to former MPs; nor to any who were involved in organisations that donated to political parties, so business and union 'leaders' wouldn't be foisted on us.

Of course, some will argue that a few such individuals will have expertise that may be needed in government from time to time. That is true enough, and we are fortunate in now having the role of SPAD to accommodate them - so there is no need for them to receive peerages.

 

[JimAndy]

Yep, I am in favour of PR, it is the only truly democratic electoral system; but I want pure PR, not like the German version where >5% of the poll is needed to secure representation.

For me the percentage 'threshold' for representation in Parliament should be, currently, 100 divided by 650, about 0.153%. Secure that percentage and you get a seat in Parliament, no matter who you are; I dislike many 'extreme' views held by e.g. religionists, neo-Nazis, Trot's etc. but, for an irony, in a democracy all have to have the same entitlement to representation.

Anyway it's my belief that, in such a genuinely representative democracy, it would be a good thing to have these people in Parliament, where they would be under constant scrutiny and couldn't hide anything.


A second chamber is a good thing providing it can't contest the primacy of the Commons - that being a very good reason for it being of appointees rather than elected members. Because, there needs to be both a facility to review legislation and to recruit necessary expertise into government rapidly at need.

I've no problem with them being called 'Lords', even keeping the titles on retirement if that sort of thing appeals to them, but I think their should be a maximum period of sitting there, say twenty years or age 75, whichever comes first. (Special writs could allow finite extensions if certain expertise was absolutely necessary to government).

I also think that it should not be open to former MPs; nor to any who were involved in organisations that donated to political parties, so business and union 'leaders' wouldn't be foisted on us.

Of course, some will argue that a few such individuals will have expertise that may be needed in government from time to time. That is true enough, and we are fortunate in now having the role of SPAD to accommodate them - so there is no need for them to receive peerages.

wow for once i find myself agreeing with you

 

[little_p]

It will be a great shame for the country if some Labour MP’s join the Conservatives as we need a real opposition not a left wing disorganised rabble of Marxists, Maoists , Trotskyists and others who are far more interested in whether men can have cervixes, women can have penises, rather than the real world issues. The conservatives cashed in big time thanks to Jeremy Corbyn and the traditional labour voter who could see through him

Although right now they could do with a women with a pair of balls.......