I can't see Carswell's logic in not fighting a bye-election. He claims that when he left the Tories to join UKIP he was honour-bound to stand again, whereas now he's leaving UKIP to be an independent, he doesn't need to stand again because he isn't representing another party. For me, the logic is that he was firstly voted in by people who thought they were electing a Tory MP, last time he was voted in by people who thought they were electing a UKIP MP. I think his "logic" is utterly flawed. If he thinks voter's were voting for Carswell, not UKIP, and if the Carswell brand is strong enough, he should put that to the test. Not that it matters much, but it's the principle of the thing.

It's strange, Carswell is being held to a higher standard than other MPs who in the past have jumped from one party to another. Most did not bother to consult their constituents. Carswell at least did fight a by-election when he shifted to UKIP. So long as he represents his constituents and they don't object, then who cares?

Supertroll

I'm not holding him to a higher standard. I believe all defecting MPs should stand again in a bye-election. I accept that our constitutional theory says we elect the MP not the party, but that is not the reality. Where I was brought up the saying was that the Labour Party candidate could be a pig or a beer glass and it would still be elected. The same, conversely, is true of the Tory candidate in many true-blue constituencies.

I believe that if a candidate is elected using the resources and banner of a political party which they then leave, then they should put themselves up for re-election. It's just common decency. As long ago as when the SDP was founded and Labour MPs defected but refused to fight bye-elections, I was unhappy about such behaviour.

"So long as he represents his constituents and they don't object, then who cares?" Who says they don't object? How do you know?

As I said, in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter much, but I think it reflects badly on his sense of decency and integrity.

Carswell's bye-election was unusual, and refusals to submit yourself to the vote of your electorate was a feature of all parties, not just of Labour. I do believe even Winston Churchill failed to call a bye-election when he jumped parties early in his political career.
I agree that everyone changing parties, ought to call to be re-elected, but this was not traditionally done.
Suppose Carswell had been pushed out of UKIP, would you feel he would need to seek re-election? If not, then what's the difference between jumping himself or being pushed?

So this is where you hang out, Mark.

I think you'll find it is a by-election, though in this instance, bye-election is more apt.

I find Carswell perplexing too.

It is incredible how Farage, and UKIP, have changed UK Politics, the map of the EU, and probably the future of the EU. Labour and the Conservatives both took a beating, Labour have not yet finished beating each other up.

UKIP are now unsure about what to do next, or where to go next, but all sides of the political establishment are terrified of them.

UKIP can be proud of being the greatest Political "One Hit Wonder" in living history. I am very grateful for what they have achieved, with the support they had. If the UK had Proportional Representation, Farage might have been the "Clegg style" Deputy Prime Minister. 2016 turned out some good Political results, which is worth remembering for those who support PR.

Supertroll

You raise an interesting point, and it's not an easy one to answer. On balance (but only on balance) I think an MP expelled from his party should probably have to face a by-election (yes, William, you're correct about the spelling, I realised too late I had mis-spelled it), but it is a harder question. If the MP hasn't actively chosen to depart from the party under whose banner he/she was elected, a by-election in those circumstances may be harsh, but is probably the fairest outcome for the electorate.

My interest in the question is purely academic - I am not a support of UKIP or of any political party.

Mark. If you believe an expelled MP should have to face a by-election, this means that political apparatchiks should be able to overturn the will of the electorate, which cannot be right.
In this specific case, it is further complicated by Carswell's admission that he deliberately mislead UKIP (and thereby the electorate) about his true affiliations. For this reason I feel (also on balance) that he should resign and stand again.
I also have no connection with UKIP and am interested in this purely as an intellectual exercise.
I also wonder if the right wing of the Tory Party knew what Carswell was doing when he left the Tory Party and secretly approved (surely not?)

Supertroll & Mark Hodgson, the ability of MPs to be deselected may be tested by Labour this year, now that Len McCluskey has decided on behalf of Unite to give Corbyn another 18 months.

Carswell may also have abused the Democratic process, but not on quite such a large scale.

Mar 29, 2017 at 4:51 PM by Supertroll

"I also wonder if the right wing of the Tory Party knew ..."
I think you raise a good point but I would prefer to find out who the collaborators were before I labeled them. And trying to label them relative to the Tory Party would be difficult when part of the reason for UKIP 's creation was the lack of agreement within the Tory party about policies that transcended the old left/right divide.

There are several possibles in the frame but, ironically, I don't think Mark Reckless would be that reckless. :)

Carswell has said his statement, which he put out, has had a reasonably good reception and, having been voted in as a Tory and as a Kipper, I would have thought that the status quo was not that wrong: he hasn't done anything criminal (that I know :) ) and he won't be voting much differently, as I posted earlier. Sometimes an error needs correcting, sometimes it needs to be left on show, and sometimes we need to wait until more information is gathered before making a judgement. Representative Democracy, which is what we have, has this conundrum and has been part of our Politics for a long time and is why we have General Elections at regular intervals. In the past, if a similar issue occurred and it grew and grew, it would become part of the National Debate and a General Election would be called, but with the current new arrangements, this is less likely to happen - another negative created by the BBC (that is, Blair, Brown and Cameron :) )

I am not even sure whether what he has said was a plan that he has followed or one that he has created to explain what he did. It wasn't with the flow, but then, an agent for change doesn't do that.

What is interesting is what happens at the next election: how will he be treated by the other players; will he stand again in Clacton, or elsewhere; will he rejoin the Tories?

Supertroll:

"If you believe an expelled MP should have to face a by-election, this means that political apparatchiks should be able to overturn the will of the electorate, which cannot be right. "

Again, a very interesting point, which touches on the difference between constitutional theory and reality, which I think could usefully be more seriously discussed by our politicians.

The big question is, what IS the will of the electorate? Did they vote for Carswell because he was Carswell, or because he was first a Tory, and then a Ukipper? Extrapolating that question further, should a political caucus be able to expel an MP from the party at all between general elections? Presumably yes, in terms of the internal party constitution, but where does that leave the MP and the electorate? It's a fine judgement call. In some exceptional cases - of exceptional individuals as candidates - the electorate might have voted for the individual, but more generally I suspect they are voting for the party, and the identity of the party's candidate is irrelevant to most electors.

I fear I'm rambling, but that's because it's not an easy issue. As with much in modern politics I think we need a serious debate about how our constitution works, and how it should work. However, those issues won't see the light of day, I suspect, while we sort out leaving the EU (a rather bigger constitutional issue).

Perhaps what is required is the Power of Recall, although I am not convinced this could be introduced without preventing its misuse.

Supertroll
I think you'll find Churchill changed parties twice, setting the precedent for Carswell. possibly one of the reasons for the wilderness years even fellow politicians found him untrustworthy. They are a slippery lot politicians,

SandyS. "A precedent"? Could you be suggesting that Carswell will be with us for decades and will come good at the end?

Yes I was aware of Churchill's political record. He represented part of Essex close to where I grew up.

Supertroll
Who knows, stranger things have happened? Churchill was a bit of a nomad in terms of Parliamentary seats.