2019-02-20 07:52:50 +0000
To: Speaker and Committee of the Whole House of Commons
Reform to constitution regarding MP's retaining seat after leaving a party
Dear Mr Speaker and Committee of the Whole House of Commons,
We, the Public of Britain, are tired of MP candidates claiming to share the values of a political party in order to win office, & then when it suits them to do so, quitting the party that got them elected to “become an independent” or “change party” in a manner which does not reflect the ‘package deal’ that was presented for election on the voting ballots.
We vehemently feel that an MP position (seat) is the property of the people in the constituency in which the seat is held, and that should an MP want to abandon the party which they were elected as a representative for, or should they be ejected from the party because of their behaviour, then that MP's position no longer reflects the democratically elected authority given by the choices on the voting paper, and an immediate bi-election in that constituency should be held, even if the MP would otherwise chose not to resign. The party they left should be offered a chance to put forward a new candidate, as well as other political party's candidates being able to stand on the ballot paper in that constituency. There are many people who vote not for their local candidate (as there is a good chance that the local electorate will not even know their candidate), but vote instead as support for a political party that shares their values (the party which is clearly labelled on the ballot paper when they put their cross in the box to vote), or even the party leader, and these people's vote should not be dismissed at the whim of the MP after election!
If the ‘once MP’ chooses to stand as an independent in that bi-election, or another party accepts them to stand as their candidate in that bi-election, then they should be free to do so. But the idea that a person OWNS a constituency seat, regardless of their actions (including abandoning the party they were elected to represent), is not only undemocratic, it is also unacceptable to the people who originally elected the ‘defector’, and a break with the contract formed with the voting ballots which contains two parts per vote - candidate name and party name.
Hence, we hereby formally request a reform to the rules/laws/constitution regarding members of the House of Commons – the convention from Edmund Burke in the late 18th century is no longer acceptable to the people for modern democracy. Members of the House of Commons are elected as a 'package', and voters put a cross against the name of a candidate AND party name; if the package changes in any way (such as the candidate leaving the party they were elected as a representative of) then the people now request the right to an automatic bi-election being called for that constituency so that they can reconsider their options, regardless of the intentions of the MP in question, as if they had automatically resigned. We are aware that this issue was briefly touched on in 2010, but was pushed aside, and we would point out this further fact for consideration that, if the person was elected because of ‘who they are’, rather than the ‘party they represented’, then they should have no fear of winning the bi-election standing as an independent. In addition, as outlined above, there will be a very large percentage of the electorate who do not know their local candidate, and instead vote to support a political party, which is right next to the tick box where they put their cross to vote, or vote to support the leader of that same party, and the democratic will of all these people should not be dismissible by the person currently sitting in a constituencies seat. The people's right to open democracy outweighs the individual candidate's rights to convenience. Parliament must be democratically accountable to the will of the electorate.
We, the Public of Britain, are tired of MP candidates claiming to share the values of a political party in order to win office, & then when it suits them to do so, quitting the party that got them elected to “become an independent” or “change party” in a manner which does not reflect the ‘package deal’ that was presented for election on the voting ballots.
We vehemently feel that an MP position (seat) is the property of the people in the constituency in which the seat is held, and that should an MP want to abandon the party which they were elected as a representative for, or should they be ejected from the party because of their behaviour, then that MP's position no longer reflects the democratically elected authority given by the choices on the voting paper, and an immediate bi-election in that constituency should be held, even if the MP would otherwise chose not to resign. The party they left should be offered a chance to put forward a new candidate, as well as other political party's candidates being able to stand on the ballot paper in that constituency. There are many people who vote not for their local candidate (as there is a good chance that the local electorate will not even know their candidate), but vote instead as support for a political party that shares their values (the party which is clearly labelled on the ballot paper when they put their cross in the box to vote), or even the party leader, and these people's vote should not be dismissed at the whim of the MP after election!
If the ‘once MP’ chooses to stand as an independent in that bi-election, or another party accepts them to stand as their candidate in that bi-election, then they should be free to do so. But the idea that a person OWNS a constituency seat, regardless of their actions (including abandoning the party they were elected to represent), is not only undemocratic, it is also unacceptable to the people who originally elected the ‘defector’, and a break with the contract formed with the voting ballots which contains two parts per vote - candidate name and party name.
Hence, we hereby formally request a reform to the rules/laws/constitution regarding members of the House of Commons – the convention from Edmund Burke in the late 18th century is no longer acceptable to the people for modern democracy. Members of the House of Commons are elected as a 'package', and voters put a cross against the name of a candidate AND party name; if the package changes in any way (such as the candidate leaving the party they were elected as a representative of) then the people now request the right to an automatic bi-election being called for that constituency so that they can reconsider their options, regardless of the intentions of the MP in question, as if they had automatically resigned. We are aware that this issue was briefly touched on in 2010, but was pushed aside, and we would point out this further fact for consideration that, if the person was elected because of ‘who they are’, rather than the ‘party they represented’, then they should have no fear of winning the bi-election standing as an independent. In addition, as outlined above, there will be a very large percentage of the electorate who do not know their local candidate, and instead vote to support a political party, which is right next to the tick box where they put their cross to vote, or vote to support the leader of that same party, and the democratic will of all these people should not be dismissible by the person currently sitting in a constituencies seat. The people's right to open democracy outweighs the individual candidate's rights to convenience. Parliament must be democratically accountable to the will of the electorate.
Why is this important?
With the current system, which allows the defecting MP to be disingenuous to the election system (leaving dishonourable people the opportunity to take advantage of the popularity of a political party to ‘ride the wave’ into a MP seat for the sole intention of gaining officer for themselves rather than delivering that parties representation as promised in the election contract, and go AGAINST the will of those who elected the MP by breaking manifesto promises in any way they chose without repercussion ) and a betrayal to the voters.
There are many people who vote not for their local candidate (as there is a good chance that the local electorate will not even know their candidate), but vote instead as support for a political party that shares their values (the party which is clearly labelled on the ballot paper when they put their cross in the box to vote), or even the party leader, and these people's vote should not be dismissed at the whim of the MP after election!
There are many people who vote not for their local candidate (as there is a good chance that the local electorate will not even know their candidate), but vote instead as support for a political party that shares their values (the party which is clearly labelled on the ballot paper when they put their cross in the box to vote), or even the party leader, and these people's vote should not be dismissed at the whim of the MP after election!
How it will be delivered
Facebook, twitter, email, sending request to online media.
