*Shock defection* Tory moves to Labour as Gordon Brown steps up to be PM

Wow, I certainly didnt see this one coming.

Nice little bit of PR for Gordon Brown and a disaster for Cameron.

IMO it's an unusual move for an old-school 'patrician tory' type, one might have imagined the LIBDems more of a natural 'home' for a disaffected tory.

Conservative MP Quentin Davies has defected to the Labour Party, it has been announced.
The MP for Grantham and Stamford made his decision public in a letter to Conservative leader David Cameron.

He wrote that under Mr Cameron the party "appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything".

The defection comes the day before Gordon Brown takes over as prime minister from Tony Blair.

- His remarks to Cameron are worth repeating as they are bound to resonate very widely.....

Mr Davies, a pro-European, voted for former chancellor Ken Clarke in the Tory leadership contest which Mr Cameron won in 2005.

In his letter, Mr Davies wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.

"It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."

Last year, he called Mr Cameron's decision to vote for an immediate inquiry into the Iraq war "absolutely crazy".

news.bbc.co.uk...

mod edit: changed quote tags to external quote tags

Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 28-6-2007 by UK Wizard]

Now that's really going to be a kick where it hurts for Cameron and give Brown a boost on the eve of his ascension to the premiership...

Very, very interesting. The next week should be a fascinating one in British politics.

The only thing that I don't understand is how Davies could join the Labour party despite idealogical differences that is unless his idealogical stance has changed over time. Davies certainly didn't go quietly he must have been beyond feed up with the Conservative party.

Maybe he was offered a cabinet post or a ministry to run.

And will this MP resign so there can be a by election? Now that would be something to see. Would Davies be re-elected?

At last, a rational call for an election rather than the routine nonsense regarding Gordon Brown's assumption of power.

If an MP who was elected on a Tory manifesto changes party he should indeed seek reelection on the basis of his revised stance.

Still no constitutional reqirement for it though.

Originally posted by timeless testIf an MP who was elected on a Tory manifesto changes party he should indeed seek reelection on the basis of his revised stance.

- Just out of interest (& cos I don't know myself) has that ever happened when an MP changes political party?

Originally posted by timeless testStill no constitutional reqirement for it though.

- Well as they so often say we elect the man as a free representative and not a mandated delegate and not the political party (in theory) under our system.

Given the choice I'd rather put up with this kind of rare & infrequent anomaly than switch to party-delegate MPs.

I think it's no bad thing for MPs to periodically leave & switch parties for the duration of a Parliamentary term.
If it was good enough for Churchill........?

I have to say that I don't know either although I do remember having the infamous Reg Prentice thrust upon me in Northants back in the 1970s after his defection in the opposite direction.

I agree that the option to recognise the personal element of voter appeal in an election result is important and, as you say, to remove the opportunity for the existence of a representative with a conscience in favour of a group of unthinking delegates is deeply undesirable. In the circumstances of today's society, however, there is also a case for recognising that the vast majority of voters have neither met their MP or even heard them speak and the huge majority of votes are cast on the basis of party allegiance.

In fact, it is the very argument which makes the call for a general election misguided, (the principle of voting for a manifesto rather than an individual PM), which leads me to argue for the desirability of a by election in these circumstances.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey - Just out of interest (& cos I don't know myself) has that ever happened when an MP changes political party?

Well, I cant find one who did and I think there may only be one who actually continued to stand in the same constiuency after defecting. A certain Oswald Mosely...

But how many of the electorate understand they are voting for the person rather than the party the person stands for?

As most of us will never get to spend enough time with thoses wanting our votes to understand their views on great deal, the decision on who is vote would seems to be based on which party's policies does the voter agree with more, as we will have more general information on what each party stands for

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
But how many of the electorate understand they are voting for the person rather than the party the person stands for?

If they don't understand that then it's partly their fault, surely? They shouldn't rely on government/the media to tell them everything. Plenty of sources to learn how British government works.

This defection bores the hell out of me!! Anyway nobody will remember it come election time. Why's it so amazing that a: one of the many MP's in opposition defects, and b: They make the defection date the day Brown takes office?
All it's designed to do is get attention from people who would probably be wiser for thinking a little more about the real issues facing this country.
It might be housing, it might be nuclear, today I'm more interested in the little present "The Youngsters of Democracy" in Iraq have sent Gordon Brown (3 blown-up soldiers).
Clearly there must be something significant about 1 of over 600 backsides in the House of Commons changing seats i miss. Could it be that the media barons are quite determined to give Brown a positive reception? If so what purpose does that serve? To make the British people feel a little less restless? I wonder why that should interest the media barons?
That's the only real interest (if there's any) to be had from this issue.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
But how many of the electorate understand they are voting for the person rather than the party the person stands for?

- Well first of all I'd really caution such an attitude, alluding to a public too disinterested or dim to understand (properly) the issues is never a good starting point IMO.

Anyhoo, that might be a fairer comment with a much less known MP but Quentin Davies had been around for some time and was a reasonably 'high profile' (shadow Minister) and undoubtedly reasonably known in his own constituency.

In any event he will probably just simply move to boost the Labour majority.

The real effect in his move came with the comments he made in his resignation letter to Cameron and it is in this area that I think the 'defection' of MPs has some value.

Quentin Davies isn't the first to comment in such a way on the present tory party & leader (and if rumours are true he isn;t going to be that last this week either).

Sminkeypinkey, do you believe that most of the electorate in this country have a clue about what electing an MP means?

I would suggest that a great many of those who bother to vote, vote for the candidate based on the party he or she is a member of.

Maybe I am lucky because I studies public affairs and know that we elect the person to stand as our MP, not a person as part of the party they belong to.

During the last general election, I got to talk with just one candidate who came to my door and asked for me vote. None of the others cared enough to provide me with the opportunity. The outgoing MP at the time came to my door with some party activists and just listened. Did not even ask for my vote or who I mkight vote for. Of course, I would have not answered the question. Standing as an MP means selling yourself.

Any MP who crosses over, should seek re-election as they will have been elected on a set of values that must have changed if they feel the need to move across the house.

And sorry if I have taken this off thread too much!!!

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Sminkeypinkey, do you believe that most of the electorate in this country have a clue about what electing an MP means?

- Yes, yes I do.
Because the contrary position is, IMO, to take the stance every condescending dreary little fascist ever took ......which is something that I find worthy of nothing but howls of derisive laughter and not for me at all.

Originally posted by Freedom ERPI would suggest that a great many of those who bother to vote, vote for the candidate based on the party he or she is a member of.

- .......and I'll not deny that that is a part of it.
For some a large part and not for others.

Frankly that is at the end of the day none of my business and rightly so.

'They' could choose to make their choice by spinning a coin if they like, it is their absolute right to do so and it is a fundamental protection and guarantee of all of our freedoms that 'they' can.
We ought to respect and appreciate that not denigrate the possibility that some people maybe did not approach the process in the same way as 'we' did
(.......and no doubt there'd be others looking down their noses at you or me and the thought & choices we might have given to it all too.....not exactly my idea of a productive or helpful line of thought)

The instant you start deciding you're the one fit to be weighing up the 'value' of people's votes on the basis of whether or not you found their consideration, intellect and their thought processes 'worthy' enough is IMO the start of a very very slippery slope usually heading in one (totalitarian) direction only.

Best not even 'go there' IMO, it can never do you any good.

Some people might well be 'sheeple' or stupid or uninformed or willfully ignorant but basing your assessments of the value of our democracy and it's workings on such negative sweeping characterisations is IMO pretty unhealthy and rather ridiculous in itself.

As is said so regularly here, 'democracy is the worst form of Gov.......except for all the others'.

Originally posted by Freedom ERPMaybe I am lucky because I studies public affairs and know that we elect the person to stand as our MP, not a person as part of the party they belong to.

- Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

I prefer that we elect a representative and not a delegate.
If he stands next time the constituency will either endorse his stand/view or reject it.
That is our system.

But particularly with regard to this recent Quentin Davies case (and any other very well known MP) IMO there's no way that you can discount the politician's high profile and long-standing reputation in their own constituency.

Originally posted by Freedom ERPDuring the last general election, I got to talk with just one candidate who came to my door and asked for me vote. None of the others cared enough to provide me with the opportunity.

- Well that's one way of looking at it.

Having worked in politics I'd be much more inclined to the view that the parties (all of the parties) have very limited resources and are simply not being able to visit everyone
(and believe me they would all love to be at your door as much as possible were they able.....they are after-all in it to try & win the seat).

Originally posted by Freedom ERPAny MP who crosses over, should seek re-election as they will have been elected on a set of values that must have changed if they feel the need to move across the house.

- .......and yet the contrary point to this is that they were elected as free thinking representatives not as mandated party delegates.

If this is a 'flaw' of our system then it's one I am happy to live with so that we don't head towards a system of party delegates (yes even when it has worked the other way and it's been high-profile Labour people defecting.....not that that has ever happened very often )

I've yet to hear the defecting MP who did not claim that it was they who have stayed true to their starting principles and that it was the party that abandoned theirs and changed.

The fact is there is no constitutional requirement to seek reelection and I can't think of a single MP from any party who has ever stepped down.

Lastly I think it's no bad thing that MPs can begin at one point and watch how things develop over 10yrs as Quentin Davies has done and simply change their mind and see their own original party as wrong and heading in an even more wrong direction and the opposing party as getting things right and heading in, as they see it, the right direction.

It's all about freedom, if you want a situation where MPs are simply delegates why bother with any form of Parliamentary debate or scrutiny at all?
If we're having MPs as delegates why not just have 'block votes' at Parliament?

.......and there the core of this lies IMO.
Like I said if this is a flaw some find unpleasant it is at least a rare event and one out system can tolerate if nothing else.

Originally posted by Freedom ERPAnd sorry if I have taken this off thread too much!

- Not at all, feel free, it's a discussion board, it's what it's there for.

[edit on 29-6-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

I think it is disgusting that MP's should be allowed to switch parties.

After all, the whole basis of a Party getting into Government is based on the amount of MP's, regardless of people's opinions about whether we vote for the candidate or party.

In this day and age, the talking heads you have turn up at your door as a candidate spout Party rhetoric and toe the Party line. On top of that, we are inundated throughout the campaigns with Party election broadcasts and posters everywhere.

So how can people then turn around and say we vote for the candidate and not the Party?

People will vote for the Party they want in power and rarely because of a candidate. For that MP to then turn and join an ideologically different party than he was voted in for by his constituents is wrong and is an insult to democracy and the people who voted.

If he wants to stand as a Labour candidate and not a Tory, then there should be a by election. If people really want HIM as their candidate, they will vote for him, but I guarantee that if there was a by election, it would swing back to the new Tory candidate for that area.

I can't say I am surprised to see Sminkey supporting this action. I wonder if the roles were reversed you would be so non-plussed about it. What if your MP decided to switch parties. Would you be happy that, based on his opinion alone, you will now be represented in parliament by a Party you do not support, even though he did vote for that Person based upon the election pledges he and his PARTY campaigned under?

EDIT: To further support my position, it has been said on other UK threads that the Government is elected based upon it's manifesto pledges.

For Labour supporters to then turn around and say "Oh well, they voted for the candidate and not the Party" is laughable!

If that is the case, what gives Labour or any Party the right to Govern? Every MP should be an independent then! It's one or the other. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Party is elected, or the candidates.

But they are not. They are Party members and based upon that, people will vote accordingly.

[edit on 7/7/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
how can people then turn around and say we vote for the candidate and not the Party?

- Because no matter how you frame it the fact is still true that in this country we vote on the basis of individual candidates in an individual constituency and not for national political parties.

The national political party comes 2nd to those considerations (and we should value & appreciate that).

The political party the candidate is a member of will of course inform the electorate's choice but technically we do not vote for the party we vote for the individual candidates.

Originally posted by stumason

I can't say I am surprised to see Sminkey supporting this action. I wonder if the roles were reversed you would be so non-plussed about it.

- ......and if you look you'll see that I have said yes, fair enough, even when it has been Labour people 'defecting' in the past.

IMO it's a very small price to pay for a principle of enormous value.

It ensures (however rare or unlikely the scenario) that we have MPs that are free to represent us and who are not formally tied in to just supporting the parties they have joined
(or in some rarer instances with whom they 'take the whip' and vote with even tho they are not actually members of the party themselves).

I want my representitive to act in accordance with his or her good conscience should they feel moved to, I do not want them to be forced to follow a party line they cannot in all good conscience take
(and then be forced out & silenced).

Neither do I want Parliament to risk becoming a place where MPs do not get the full term should they speak out.
Proper representation involves experience and experience counts. I want my MP to be involved and informed about the debates and committees because I cannot be (which come back to them being a representitve once again).

That is our system and I for one am very glad it works that way.

You might not believe that to be important but I do.

Originally posted by stumason
For Labour supporters to then turn around and say "Oh well, they voted for the candidate and not the Party" is laughable!

- Sorry stu but it's only "laughable" if you insist on taking the most simplistic view of this.

People may claim to have voted for a party (and that may well be the only basis on which some do vote) but it is technically incorrect and it is my view that that technicality is one that we ought to recognise & value not dismiss because we imagine that 'most people' behave only in a certain way.

British electoral history is full of individual MPs who not only were members of political parties but so 'individual' that that was really of little importance when it came to their local support.
Many people, if not all, really do vote on the basis of the man or woman.
That is something well worth keeping IMO.

The alternative is so 2nd rate when all things are considered that, as I said, this is a small price to pay to keep something of such value.

Originally posted by stumason
You cannot have it both ways. Either the Party is elected, or the candidates.

But they are not. They are Party members and based upon that, people will vote accordingly.

- Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree stu.

I don't think you've quite got the idea here at all.

We elect Members of Parliament who choose take a 'party whip'; their party membership informs our vote, of course, but our system is not one of voting for a party, no matter how people might insist that it works otherwise in practise.

The final judgement has to be made when all things are considered.

It's my view that a system of party delegates (when one might as well have block or card votes on every issue) would be a hugely retrograde step for our democracy.

I want my MP to be a person of good conscience and to be free and open to act on that and if that means they will periodically rebel and vote against their own party then fair enough, that's how our system works.

If the political parties can't even ensure the support of their own elected membership then perhaps instead of blaming those members they ought to look a lot more to themselves.

So many people seem to claim to be worried about the power of the political parties and 'party control'; I can assure you that placing our MPs in the role of little more than party delegates and voting fodder would shift that power greatly towards the party-machines.
I am certain that would lead to a 'balance' in things that could be and almost certainly over time would be deeply unhealthy for our democracy.

Some might try and claim it is that way now but as we see with the periodic defections it isn't.
....and good thing too.

No system is perfect and there will always be marginal issues where one can criticise but in this instance I am fully behind MPs doing this.

Far better we have free MPs that might make a decision that annoys us than any other possible credible option IMO.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by sminkeypinkey]