Another one bites the dust

Gayle · 13-09-2007, 18:03

I read this morning that Malcolm Pritchard has quit the Labour Party. He remains a Councillor but is now an independent.

Which means that Labour have 14 seats, Conservatives 18 and three independents.

I don't know the ins and outs of this issue but it does indicate a deep seated problem in the Labour party if a dyed in the wool Labour supporter would rather stand alone than with the party. I do hope that someone can shed some light on this for us.

Wynonie Harris · 13-09-2007, 18:21

Maybe it was in protest at Maggie being invited into No.10 by a Labour PM!

WillowTheWhisp · 13-09-2007, 18:31

Maybe Malcolm could come along and enlighten us?

Neil · 13-09-2007, 22:23

The Observer says he has issues with Graham Jones. I find that hard to believe

SPUGGIE J · 14-09-2007, 14:36

If there was issues and conflict then he has done right to keep them within the party and with those he alegedly has issues with. He has first and foremost put his constituents first as it should be.

Gayle · 14-09-2007, 14:45

The problem is though that if someone has a problem with leadership leaving the party is not necessarily the solution - in my opinion.

Malcolm's leaving now means that Labour only has 14 councillors compared to the Conservatives 18 - that in turn means that the chance of Labour becoming the leading party is greatly reduced - which in turn means that Labour will be the opposition party for some time to come - this in turn means that more Labour councillors will be disgruntled by the lack of power that they have.

By remaining in the party he could surely have influenced decisions more and if he felt really strongly opposed the current leadership of the party. Graham was elected by a democratic process. If you are in politics, particularly in a democratic system, then you have to accept that sometimes decisions don't always go your own way.

As someone who is on the outer perimeter of the party at the moment, I would love to hear from one of the councillors to explain the situation.

garinda · 14-09-2007, 18:20

I think it is morally wrong to leave the party that you were in when you were elected, especially mid-term.

Some people vote for the person, but others do vote for the party they want elected.

It's not just Cllr. Pritchard, two Conservative M.P.'s have crossed to Labour this year.

In my opinion if someone finds they no longer feel happy in the party in which they were elected, they should stand down, and there should be a by-election.

Gayle · 14-09-2007, 18:27

I agree with you Garinda. If someone gets elected on the Labour ticket then it does seem strange that they can leave the Labour party and remain on the Council.

I know that legally it is the person that is elected to the Council and not technically the party but it will have been the party that paid for all his publicity and election material.

garinda · 14-09-2007, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

I know that legally it is the person that is elected to the Council and not technically the party but it will have been the party that paid for all his publicity and election material.

Then they should be able to make them pay it back.

Nothing to do with party politics, I think it's wrong whenever it happens.

Gayle · 14-09-2007, 18:32

It works the other way of course, as well. Someone could get elected as an independent and then immediately join a political party and add to their seats.

jambutty · 14-09-2007, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

It works the other way of course, as well. Someone could get elected as an independent and then immediately join a political party and add to their seats.

They could indeed but when was the last time that it happened?

People may think that they vote for a person but in reality they are voting for the party that person represents.

However I agree with you garinda, if a politician leaves his/her political party s/he should stand for re-election. But they won’t because the pull of the gravy train is too strong.

Mancie · 14-09-2007, 20:22

I also disagree with MP's etc switching from the parties..but it's happened quite often, the most celebrated of British PM's, Winston Churchill switched parties twice during his career.

Gayle · 14-09-2007, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

They could indeed but when was the last time that it happened?

People may think that they vote for a person but in reality they are voting for the party that person represents.

However I agree with you garinda, if a politician leaves his/her political party s/he should stand for re-election. But they won’t because the pull of the gravy train is too strong.

I think people think they are voting for the party but in fact they are voting for the individual.

Government of Birmingham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First example I could find of 'independents' joining the Liberal party - although they're not quite independents but I'm absolutely sure it's happened locally.

Gayle · 14-09-2007, 20:34

I knew I'd find one

Yusuf Sidat in Blackburn was elected to Blackburn council in 2004 as an Independent candidate and he is now a LibDem.

Stanaccy · 14-09-2007, 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

I think it is morally wrong to leave the party that you were in when you were elected, especially mid-term.

In my opinion if someone finds they no longer feel happy in the party in which they were elected, they should stand down, and there should be a by-election.

Although I agree that switching parties mid term is morally corrupt it is however a result of our outdated first past the post system. You do vote for the person and not the party.

This is another a reason I beleive we should change the electoral system to Propertional Representetation, the only problem I have with this is it would prevent individuals with regional concerns being elected, so unless it was done for the constituency (and again then it would allow people to flit across the floor of the house) it wouldn't be truly democratic. So I've probably argued myself into maintaining the status quo.

With respects to Gayle request for further information, I feel, if an individual feels strongly enough to revoke the party whip he or she must explain their actions to the party. It may be a perfectly understandable reason, however without this the individual members will always question their actions.