In his book, which I reviewed for GBNews, The Smallest Room in the House, Professor Philip Cowley, one of the country’s leading psephologists, estimates that the personal vote for a Member of Parliament is 2%. The candidate’s previous voting record in the House of Commons makes no noticeable statistical difference to this figure.
This is important when considering the question of by-elections for MPs who cross the floor. There is a romantic vision of politics whereby MPs used to be elected on their individual merits and then gathered together in the House of Commons and voted, not according to a whip, but on their conscience, having considered the issue carefully.
I am not sure when this mystical period is supposed to have been, but even before the advent of party politics, there were all sorts of other factors at play. In the earliest times, really up until 1832, the government of the day used its influence to ensure friendly MPs were returned. Rotten boroughs had patrons who expected MPs to do their bidding and to support their views.
Corruption played a major role in elections, as did violence. Even Edmund Burke, who famously set out what the role of an MP ought to be, did so after he was elected, and the electors of Bristol were so unimpressed by his failure to stand up for their interests that they did not return him at the next election. He only managed to get back into the Commons via his patron, Lord Rockingham, who owned the pocket borough of Malton.
Since the growth of political parties, almost no independents have been elected, and those, such as Martin Bell, who were, did so when other parties withdrew to support them. It is the party ticket that leads to success, not the personal talents of the individual candidates. In addition to the party, the leader is important, as UK elections have become more presidential in their nature. This reinforces Cowley’s view that there is only a tiny personal vote.
This has led me to argue that a change of Prime Minister requires a new general election, and I covered this in an earlier Substack. Our constitution evolves and one of its strengths is that it is flexible and it is not codified. However, if a new leader ought to face a fresh election, how much more should an MP who crosses the floor trigger a by-election?
This is not something for which it is easy to pass a law, as it would be unreasonable to give party leaders the power to force out an MP by taking away the whip, but it ought to become a clear convention.
The MPs who have recently joined Reform from the Conservative Party owe it to their constituents to offer themselves for re-election. All of them were successful as Conservatives and promised to support a party led by Rishi Sunak, somebody significantly to the left of Kemi Badenoch. They did so in the full knowledge that, even had he been elected, he was not going to follow policies that they really liked. However, because they wanted to keep their place in Parliament, knew that independents never win, and did not expect to win under a Reform ticket at that point, they chose to stand as Conservatives. They thereby thoroughly accepted all the baggage that came with that choice.
Crucially, they were returned because they stood as Tories and would probably not have been had they stood for Reform, which was not as popular then as it is now. At any rate, it was not a risk they were willing to take, unlike Lee Anderson, so they have essentially cheated their voters.
The purists will argue that every one of them was elected as an individual, and that is true at a technical level. But it is not true in reality. In modern times, the party name is on the ballot paper, and more recently a logo as well. This makes it clear that people are voting for a party, not just an individual.
All of them were clearly identified in this way, and gave no indication to their electorate that they might change. Even if they had put a vaguely phrased footnote on their election address, that would not have been approved by Conservative Central Office, so they would not have been able to stand.
All the excuses given for not holding by-elections are very thin, almost as thin as those for not holding council elections, which Reform is criticizing so heavily. It is not that much trouble to hold by-elections, and most voters are not thinking in detail about candidates’ own views when they go to the polling stations in a general election. It is vanity to suppose that voters in their constituencies carefully evaluated the closeness to Reform of their Conservative nominee.
Democracy and our constitution depend upon trust, that those elected will follow through on their mandates. This trust is fragile and many feel it has been broken in recent years. Ignoring the mandate from the voters and deciding to replace it with another one undermines confidence in the whole system, which is already weak and which Reform is supposed to be reinvigorating. It undermines the whole message from Reform.
It is also bad politics, because Reform would probably have won these by-elections with a landslide. The Labour Party’s poll rating has collapsed since July 2024, while the Tories are still under 20%. The momentum which Reform and Nigel Farage have is such that they could well have humiliated the Tories and advanced their own cause by holding by-elections. This would have given Reform a clear mandate and proved that polling numbers could be converted into real seats, a question that smaller parties always have to face.
Calling by-elections would also have been in accordance with Reform’s other positions. The party is highly critical of Labour’s cancellation of local elections, with which it accuses the Tories of complicity. But by avoiding by-elections, it looks similarly averse to facing the electorate. It seems as if Reform has put convenience above principle, which is a shame for a party that wants to prove that it is different, and not part of the Westminster bubble.
There is a way of dealing with this, by amending the process for recall of MPs. Currently, under the Standards Rules, this may only happen subject to a prison sentence or a long suspension from the House. The law could be changed so that a Member who leaves the party for which he was elected to join another could face recall.
It would need to be carefully worded so that parties could not force by-elections on members by withdrawing the whip. This would give the parties too much power over individual members and would make rebellion potentially much harder.
The need for a recall should also protect people such as Rosie Duffield, who left the Labour Party without joining a new one, because of the way she was treated and its handling of the trans issue. The good sense of voters would act as a protection for some, but also a spur to others who would probably prefer to seek the re-endorsement of their voters, but are stymied by a party hierarchy that favours convenience over the Constitution.
It is only in recent years that by-elections have become comparatively rare. It used to be necessary for a new minister to face a by-election to allow him to hold an office of profit under the Crown. But in a move that greatly strengthened the executive against the legislature, this was abolished in the early 20th century. Bringing it back for those who cross the floor would give authority to voters and would help shake up the Blob.
It is not too late for Reform MPs to show that they really are different and apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, thereby resigning their seats, to fight a by-election under their new colours. It would show that Reform was genuinely rejecting the old ways, what it calls the ‘Uniparty’, rather than simply being absorbed by the Blob as it grows and matures.
You can now earn rewards by referring friends. For instance, if you can encourage three friends to subscribe, you will receive a month’s paid subscription. For more details please see the Leaderboard page.
Your comments would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.
