UKC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47278902

Will they be joined by some the more ardent Remainers from the Tories?

Interested to understand the platform these 7 want to represent.

Meh.

If somebody want's to leave then crack on with it. However you will never get the Conservative Party splitting up because they are not so stupid. The closest thing that put the willies up the Conservative Party was UKIP when it threatened to steal its core voters and MP's.

Any fractious political party only strengthens the Conservative party.  Tories may not play nicely with each other but they live by the mantra "For the greater good"

youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY&

Rather a small number for all the fanfare, will it really have much of an impact?

Although, given the nature of politics I doubt that the move would have been made without significant planning and negotiations. The inclusion of Umunna is interesting given how well his stock did during the Labour leadership competition (I can't think of the right word!) the other year.   

Seven less under the Labour Whip which could make a difference with such a small majority Government.  

They all seem to be from large Labour majority seats. Will they still be MPs after the next GE?

As much as a more center-ist offering appeals, how do they differ from the Lib Dems and how do they think they can survive in a political landscape carved out in the effigy of two party politics?

True. I guess it will really be an issue if Remainer Tories come across as well.

If there is a No Deal Brexit, I can well imagine quite a few Conservative MPs resigning and joining this new group/party.

I think they differ from the libdems in that they are not libdems, daft as it may sound. I think there is a chance, medium term, that a new party is formed, especially if some of the centrist tories jump ship (Anna Soubry springs to mind), which will subsume the libdems, who have been disappointingly invisible for too long. They have had every chance to regain the ground they lost after the coalition episode, and to me dont seem to have made any progress at all. 

There is certainly a vacuum at the moment in the centre; labour moving leftwards, and the tories being dominated by the far right. As for the effect in the HoC short term(ie from now), I can see them aligning quite nicely with the SNP. If this group of 7 can combine with the SNP and the Libdems, thats a sizeable block, especially if there are more than 5 or 6 tory rebels willing to continue rebelling.

I agree with everything you say in your analysis. I think most (ideally all) Lib Dems should join this new group, and must be subsumed by it. I say this as a lukewarm Lib Dem member who finds them v underwhelming. I think that at this time of impending national crisis a new central grouping is essential.

It woul;d be fascinating to know what formal/informal discussions have been held between these 7, the Lib Dems and the Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve group of Tories. There MUST have been some engagement. This does feel like the SDP all over again but I want to understand what they are for rather than what they are against.

I thought this was a post about parallel sided cracks....sadly more brexit :/

Everything suggests that there's a HUGE amount of discussion/planning going on behind the scenes.

Yes, very sadly. What an utter curse on life it's become.

An interesting move, and a bold one. One thing that can be said about it, is that it appears to be an honest move. For all the fanfare and attention-grabbing, it can't help their chances of holding their seats come the next election, or furthering their political career with cabinet positions in the near future. For that reason, I think it is the right move.

I also think from a PR perspective, a staggered series of defections would make more sense, so I'd look out for Tories in the next couple of weeks, especially if May pulls next week's scheduled vote. I'm not so sure about Anna Soubry, she barely kept her seat in a leave-voting constituency, although putting her job on the line to go with her conscience could be a big PR boost if she did switch.

I also wonder if they might attempt to convince the Lib Dems to ditch their tarnished brand and join them.

In terms of rearrangement of the deckchairs, this does have shades of the SDP, but remember that the SDP was led by four formidable politicians in Roy Jenkins (former Home Secretary), David Owen (former Foreign Secretary), Shirley Williams (former SoS Education, and surely one of the most able politicians never to have been PM), and even Bill Rodgers was a former SoS. 

None of the current crop of leavers have the same political heft as those four. Even Chukka Umunna, who appears very able, has the presence needed to shake things up to a significant degree. There is certainly a void in the centre, but there seems to be a lack of anyone with sufficient gravitas to make a real difference, and our dismally inadequate electoral system makes it so very difficult for anyone outside the main tribes to have their voices heard. 

An awful lot of moderates on both sides are being threatened with deselection, by the purple tories or momentum labour. 

Why should they stay loyal, if they are being shown no loyalty in return? If they were going to be deselected before the next election anyway, is it such a bad call to take your chance at the ballot box? 

Exactly my view.

I agree, both with you and Ian W - there is a beacon of light in UK politics, however whether this is enough to stave off Brexit (doubt it, not enough time) or if it means a new meaningful centrist party to emerge is questionable, but I do hope so - the Lib Dems/dissafected Tories/dissafected Labour & the Greens all coming together   would be a force to reckon with

given that the next elections are the local elections (then possible the Euro elections), doesn’t it make more sense for the new independents to make some sort of pact with a party that already has a huge grassroots organisation and frequently good local politicians? 

I edited my post slightly since you replied, but not in a way that changes the view expressed.

Yes to all that, except 'beacon of light' is perhaps putting it a bit strongly in this blackest time I've seen in my life in UK politics.

Maybe they have more stuff planned but at the moment it doesn't look like they have enough momentum to sustain a breakaway in the medium to long term.  It also feels a bit late with respect to the Brexit date.

The name 'Independent' looks like a placeholder, it obviously clashes with a major newspaper and isn't going to work for long.   Maybe that suggests the end game is to take over the Lib Dems and so don't need a new name.

To make it work people are going to have to do things they really don't want to do.   The Lib Dem leadership are going to have to give up their own ambitions and let defectors from Labour and the Tories that look like credible Prime Minister/Cabinet members take their jobs and they are going to have to drop the people currently standing for the Lib Dems in the defectors constituencies.

I have to admit, I'm unconvinced by this - surely the continuing inability of the Lib Dems to get arrested suggests that there isn't actually a particularly large contingent of politically-homeless voters just waiting for a pro-European centrist party to represent them?

Yes, partic to your last para.

Are you seriously telling us that most of the UK electorate are either UKIP, ERG, Momentum or Corbynites?

I agree with you and wish (alas, wishful thinking doesnt get me anywhere) that there is a shred of emerging reality from what you say.

If the GE was this week and I had to vote I would sadly spoil my paper.  I fully blame the Tories for this entire mess we're in and Corbyn has been useless in stopping this, perhaps actually wanting Brexit.  The Lib dems are nowhere to be seen and the Greens didnt field a candidate last time.

We are being led by a whole bunch a self serving and dangerous people at the moment and none of them deserve my vote.

I dont remember being so disgusted in politics as I am right now.

I suspect that there is a growing 'a plague on all your houses' tendency among the electorate. Apart from the unpalatable positions being presented by both the major parties, there are fewer and fewer reasons for voters to feel remotely attracted to any party. I fear considerable damage is being done to the levels of political engagement, and I would not be remotely surprised if the turnout at the next election is low.

Depressingly, you might be right. I can't remember a time when the electorate/people around me seem so politically indifferent, even complacent. Blinkers firmly on; Brexit virtually a taboo subject. 

Ok, flicker of hope

With the lib dems currently polling at about 10%, they certainly seem to be willing to vote for one of the above... 

Maybe they don't intend to start a new party. Maybe it's just the last move they have left to apply enough pressure to reform a moribund Labour party to which I'm sure they would all love to return.

Resignations in the coming days and weeks will be more to do with delegitimising party leaderships (both sides) currently stumbling toward mutually assured destruction, unable to snap out of the helpless fatalism they've talked themselves into than about starting a new party. We'll see if it works.

jk

You'll have to explain that. Those four groupings are directly opposed to everything the Lib Dems stand for.

Yup, it least we've got a flicker.

This is the main reason why I (and others on here, it appears) welcome a "new beginning" for a middle ground party. Given the mighty splits in both main parties around brexit, the only party to consistently campaign for EU membership appear to have nothing to say, and can't attract back any support; there must be many remainers looking for someone in Westminster to fight their corner, and it has so far been left to certain labour and tory MP's willing to put their heads above the parapet. So the Libdems appear dead and buried now, if they can't get a following in the current climate. There must certainly still be an appetite for a centre party, look at how the libdems polled in 2010........

Just a bunch of nowhere men & women who will disappear without trace at the next election. The only people these people have won over is themselves.

F*#"ty bye.

Or good positioning by Chukka who can return to the fold after the eventual departure of Corbyn as a potential leader with his “integrity” intact.

This is the thing, though. If the Lib Dems can't win more than 10% of the voters, what is a new party who stand for almost exactly the same stuff[1] going to achieve apart from creating confusion at a time when people need to be united and splitting that already small share of the vote even further?

[1] Except maybe being a bit more pro-war and pro-authoritarianism, I'm not sure how Blairite they are...

To get elected leader about 300000 party members would have to resign. Even then, his chances would be slim. Labour need a centre left leader, not a polarising figure from either end of the left spectrum.

I think we have to consider the effects of our ridiculous FPTP voting system, which means that it’s only worth voting for the party you prefer if they’ve got a chance of winning. If they haven’t then you’re better off voting for whichever of the ones that have got a chance that you despise least.

The Lib Dems had their chance and blew it. They won’t regain critical mass because nobody will vote for a party that doesn’t have critical mass already.

A new party has a shot IF they can cultivate the feeing that a large chunk of the electorate are all looking for a new party to jump to.

For that reason I’d also say that it would be a mistake for a new party to adopt the Lib Dem brand.

Again, this doesn't feel like a strong argument in favour of launching an entirely new party with no established voter-base and no tradition of local organisation or activism.

Alright, to put my preconceptions aside for a moment because I might be misjudging the situation, a straw poll. People who'd vote for this New Centrist Party: if you're happy to say so publicly, who did you vote for at the last election? Or if you voted tactically, which of the parties available would you have wanted to vote for otherwise?

Obviously we might just have to accept different opinions on how things would be received, but I think the route you’ve outlined above is a road to nowhere with FPTP in place. There simply is no middle ground between ‘party exists with low level support’ and ‘party has enough votes to win government’. The only option as I see it is to try and launch with a big enough splash to jump straight to relevance and hopefully pick up the protest vote from the currently unrepresented middle ground.

I’m 38 and in my lifetime there has only ever been one occasion when a 3rd party got close to being in government, and that was when (in hindsight) politics got so boring and safe that people didn’t feel obliged to prioritise voting against the party they dislike more highly than voting for one they do. That situation is not going to occur again any time soon. 

And thats why the libdems are gone - they haven't found anything to say or campaign on, even though there is actually so much for them to say and campaign on. If the new "party" do campaign positively on the issues the Libdems SHOULD have been shouting about, then there is very possibly some success to be had.

it just cant be under the libdem banner for me, unfortunately. Very unfortunately as I am exactly the type of person they should appeal to.

We're not the Judean People's front....

Fab!

Well, in the next general election if possible I will vote green, not because I think the party has any chance of getting elected in my area but to try send a signal that environmental matters need to be addressed.

I didn’t vote. 

I'm not sure who can say they would vote for them as they haven't really laid out what they are for, more why they can't stay in the Labour Party.

Well it isn't a party yet. I've always voted LibDem or Green (but Labour tactically at the last election). If I ever consider voting tory my partner is instructed to take me to a veterinary practice and have me put down.

This grouping seems to fill the ground where my politics lie; consensus, social democracy (I have felt that such a position has become almost extinct in recent years), though I favour some of Corbyn's policies on re-nationalisation, social housing etc.

I would certainly consider voting for a candidate from this grouping if they fielded one in my constituency and their manifesto is as I expect.

Also, though it hardly needs saying, I've never been represented by an MP I've voted for in my life. I am the anti-bellwether.

That was my first thought too. Then I remembered it's 2019 and Peppa Pig looks like an intellectual giant compared to the current crop of politicians.

This might actually be the time for a new centrist party to emerge.

I think right now their importance is actually in placing pressure on the Labour leadership over Brexit. It's probably not enough on its own, but it could be a start.

If they want to leave then that's fine, but surely they should hold local by-elections and see how their constituents support them, rather than pretending they still represent them.

It looks a bit like throwing their toys out and stamping their feet,  otherwise.

Msybe you're being ironic. Considering the shambles he made of his Labour leadership bid I wouldn't back his ability to position himself in a queue at a bar.

Would seem reasonable, and John McDonnell has called for the same thing.

What integrity?

Surely you are presuming his constituents voted for him, rather then for Labour.

I'll grant you some integrity, should he call a by-election and he holds on to his seat, then fair enough, otherwise he's flying under a false-flag; not much integrity in that.

Angela Smith is my MP and I support her, I will resign my membership for the same reasons that she has.  She and presumably the other 6 are getting lots of stick, particularly from their hard left local party members.  My question to them and those of a similar mind in this thread is this.

With the worst Tory government in generations if ever, why can't Labour get ahead in the polls???

Blaming it on the Daily Mail is not a valid answer.

The answer lies in the resignation speeches of the 7

You didn't notice the "quotation marks"?

I did notice, but it implies people, or at least he, thinks this course of action shows some "integrity". I can't see any integrity in any of these people if they don't ask their electorate what they think.

In normal times, I would completely agree. However, these aren't normal times and right now I don't agree. They aren't constitutionally bound to trigger a by-election (I actually think they should be), but a series of high profile by-elections are the last thing we need in a time of crisis.

Then how do you know these people represent the people they say they do, to take it one step further, supposing they all joined the Tory party, would you be saying the same thing then?

No one, apart from the people who voted for them, knows why they we voted for! Were they voted for because they were they were Labour, or because of themselves?

Since we don't know that, how does anyone know who these people now represent?

As they are suppose to work for us, who have they actually asked if what they've done is the right thing for the "us" they're saying it for.

I suspect in some cases their "us" means "them".

Whether they are bound constitutionally or not, I'd say morally you don't put yourself up as X and change to Y without the people how voted for you having a say.

I support a People's Vote, and have heard Chakka speak, even though we're in agreement on Brexit, I've never liked him, and always found him a bit Tony Blair , self-serving and supercilious.

Like all MPs, they represent (or should) all their constitents, whether they voted for them or not. 

What's the point of elections then? Shouldn't they give all their constituents a chance to confirm their actions then?

You seem quite keen on a second referendum, how is this different? Something totally different from what the voters were expecting and no say in what's happening.

Why don’t you stop deflecting from the reasons behind the defections? Turning a blind eye to anti-semitism wasn’t on Labour’s manifesto was it? In the event of a bye-election will you expect Corbyn to make it official policy to ignore racism so that the constituents get what they’re promised?

If you leave you'll be doing just what the zoomers of the far left want you to do. Better to stay and keep your vote for when the next leadership election comes round. Jeremy is 68, he'll be gone in a few years.

I've never quite got the anti-semitism charge.

Corbyn doesn't strike me as one.  He's clearly old-school passionate about the Palestine issue, no doubt to the detriment of balance.  But then so is anyone who focusses on Yemen, Tibet or Trump at the expense of bigger issues.  Israel does more than enough, and are so unforgiving in their treatment of Palestinians, to be accused anti-Palestinianism as much as any labour members appear to be anti-semitic.

Or is the charge being levelled at certain members, likely Muslim or radical lefties, who either trot out stuff about "bankers", "Rothschilds" or Zionists that is born out of outright or unconscious anti-semitism?

Or that anyone who focusses on Palestine, while being less animated about Darfur or China, is maybe ignoring bigger human catastrophes, and that is potentially the result of underlying anti-semitism?  This seems a weak argument, though maybe some truth to it.

Or is it that after years of being accused of everything under the sun, the right have simply found the soft under-belly of the Labour party where they can at least pin racial bias on them and are gleefully stabbing away at every opportunity? 

This is a genuine question.  Labour doesn't seem to deny the charge, its own members are rebelling against it, and it is constantly raised.  But I don't exactly see it.  Where is the evidence?

So, they won't be voting with the right of the conservatives then?  

What are those reasons? And what will your resignation achieve?

I've read Angela Smith's resignation letter, and I've listened to Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger on TV interviews - but I am none the wiser about what 'the answer' actually is?

I think I can see what these seven are generally' against'; but I can't see what they're 'for' - the vague claim that 'politics is broken' is not particularly helpful unless you have an actual plan to 'fix' it.  What do they actually hope to achieve? How they think this will all now play out? Can you enlighten me? It's a serious question.

All of the above in my view. There are also undoubtedly some thoroughly unpleasant bigots lurking in the Labour Party who need rooting out. However anti-semitism is an endemic evil throughout Europe (and much of the world) and it is clearly being weaponised here to weaken the Labour-left. 

There's a report on the media coverage surrounding the current Labour anti-semitism crisis by Justin Schlosberg (a media studies academic and Jewish Labour member) that is well worth reading. 

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-...

Every move in British politics is now about avoiding blame for the impending disaster that is unfolding. 

I never understood why they never wanted to adopt the ihra antisemitism definition.

The main reason most of them have given is Brexit, delivery of which was in the snap-election manifesto... It makes me laugh how when the 'centrists' are in the driving seat the rhetoric is all "Labour is a broad church" and the lefties are told to suck it up and put the party first. Then whenever they lose power the 'centrists' scheme, sabotage and ultimately split the party, strengthening the Tories. 

Because there is legitimate concern that some of the examples (of anti-semitism) given with the definition could be used to censor reasonable criticism of Israel. IHRA is pretty controversial (even one of the guys who drafted it has been concerned with it being used to curtail free speech) and the Labour amendments were actually quite reasonable. 

Pity more effort isn't put into avoiding the outcome.

We might see that majority disappear anyway. I can see Soubry, Heidi Allen, Sarah Wollaston, maybe Nick Boles and I'm sure others resigning from the Tories. I hear Soubry and Woolaston have removed all reference to the party from their social media already.

To decide who.constituents want to represent them. Party is only a part of that. 

I'm not  actually. Don't know why you say that. 

I don't think voters expected antisemitism  supporting brexit (covertly and dishonestly)  and totally incompetent leadership. 

No I wouldn't. I'm not arguing from a position of principle here. I'm arguing from the point of view that right now, we need everybody who opposes Brexit to oppose it.

As I said, in normal times I would agree with you. But right now, we're staring down the barrel of a full-blown constitutional crisis and national emergency. It's not the time.

I agree with you on Chukka. FWIW, apparently the People's Vote lot aren't best pleased with him right now.

If you're still in doubt - if those 7 MPs quit to call a by-election, than parliamentary arithmetic right now will give the Tories an outright majority.

Nah, that would need political courage.

Too little, too late, is what first comes to mind

And if they'd all defected to the BNP, you'd be happy with that? Come on FFS!

The trouble with your posts are they are so partisan, rather than any moral judgement you're prepared to dispense with that, because what's happening suits you agenda.

Previous posts, but I may have read them wrong, and can't be arsed to search them out.

All the more reason for a by-election then, surely.

And Angela Smith "funny tinge" statement has already tarred their Independent Group with racist remarks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/18/angela-smith-apologises-fo...

"What measures will you be taking to completely eradicate racism from The Independent Group?"

That's a good point, do they have to quit first?

No, but the point is they haven't changed their policies and views - the Labour party have.  

I don't think I have ever supported one here, and have argued against one on occasion.

Yes, I agree, stunningly foot shooting.

MPs can't resign, but the traditional method is to 'take the Chiltern Hundreds' which in practice means the same thing and means that the now-ex-MP will have relinquished voting rights in the House.

There's no mechanism (so far as I know) for a by-election to held while the sitting member formally retains the seat.

Corbyn can't hold his party together. He's the leader, his responsibility.

But there have been people plotting against him from day one, how is he supposed to hold these wankers together?

Leadership?

Successful political parties are always a broad church, and in order to succeed, they need to be able to acknowledge and accommodate differing views. Corbyn has shown little interest in doing this, from day one. 

If he cannot successfully keep a PLP of fewer than 300 members together, there seems little chance he can successfully lead an election campaign which needs broad support in order to win a majority. 

It's absolutely the wrong time for by-elections.  They need to stay in parliament and vote against Brexit.

The possibility of groups of MPs breaking away is one of the very few checks-and-balances we have against one of the two-party monopoly being taken over by their left or right wing.    There needs to be a possibility of fracture and another group emerging just to keep them honest.

Given that he felt perfectly happy to accept the support of the Labour party to keep him in his comfortable seat for 30+ years, while showing no loyalty whatsoever - was it 500 times he ignored the whip? - the lack of loyalty shown to him can hardly be a surprise. 'Do as I say, not as I did...' Especially when his policies and actions have made him simply not credible as a future PM. 

He could ask Theresa May for some tips, fair to say she has endured a fair amount of plotting against her!

I think it comes with the job.

eight becomes eleven

This will have even greater impact than the Labour breakaways.

Only another 315 needed to put a hault to Brexit...

Yes, people I've actually heard of. Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston always seemed two of the most sensible Conservative MPs

Interesting times. Worrying, but interesting.

Too little too late to stave of Brexit or will they make a difference - let's hope so. 

And why is JC going to Brussels on Thursday - what is he hoping to do / achieve? Surely he will only serve to muddy the waters even further, if thats possible.

mayhap - are these the pebbles that trigger a landslide? I really rate Woolaston.

It leaves Mrs May with a nominal majority of just 2, if you include the DUP. Her position is now perilous.

Personally, i dont like anna soubry, but people who have met her seem to think she's sensible and pragmatic rather than the usual idealogues

Neal Lawson of Compass, has written a good blog post on the split:

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/labour-split-not-a-blip-but-a-symptom/

As he points out, this split is symptomatic of the old way of doing things and something more is needed after austerity and in the face of the threats of climate change - 

"We need a politics fit for the 21st century: a world that is agile and fast-moving demands collaboration and the participation of active citizens. New parties may come and go – but there is no alternative to a new politics."

Undoubtedly! It loses the conservatives three seats leaving them with a majority of 2 (i think including the DUP?) but more importantly, gives credibility to the new Independent Group as a genuine centerist movement, not just a group of disgruntled ex-Labour MPs.

Yes, see 11.31. 

I suspect even more may follow today.

I'm a bit hopeful for this 'party', but there must be a big risk that they will be wiped out by a snap election if Theresa loses her majority.

Bl**dy good letter; very hard to argue against.

I'm not so sure, I think the addition of ex-Conservatives reduces the pressure on Corbyn which doesn't really bring us any closer to a sensible approach to brexit. May has long had since decided to appease the right wing of her party, these few lost votes must already have been factored into what semblance of a plan she has.

I doubt this bloc will exist as a cohesive electoral force come the next election. They're probably not all that cohesive now, they appear united more by grievance than purpose. All but the most charismatic will probably return to their parties or lose their seats, if that weren't the unspoken fallback option I'd expect to be hearing calls for electoral reform as a unifying policy.

jk

But in the meantime, this new independent group have as many MP's as the Libdems.......and can maybe draw support from both the right of labour and the left of the tories. Yes, yes, thats what the libdems were supposed to do, but it simply hasnt happened for them.....

The situation in unfolding very fast. "A week is a long time in politics ..."

An accurate and somewhat depressing analysis. The long shadow of first past the post elections....

Now if the LibDems threw in their lot with them we might be onto something.

Otherwise at the next election there'll be Conservative, Labour, Libdem AND 'Insert new party name here' candidates names on the paper. Don't know how that would pan out.

Maybe one of the attractions of the parties could be Proportional representation and an aknowledgement that politics will work on coalitions on ideas. Is that the new politics and how the two party politics has almost failed to  frame ideas properly.

Unfortunately those elected by FPTP into 300-400 safe seats think FPTP is great.

Most, if not all, of the Independent Group will lose their seats at the next election. I do not believe any of them have sufficient personal support to stand and win outside the conventional party machines. It will be a shame to lose Sarah Wollaston, who is genuinely independently-minded and brings informed perspectives when she speaks. I think Parliament will be a lesser place without Anna Soubry, who is also suitably independently-minded when it suits her. 

Perhaps. I've been thinking for a good while something has to change. I just doubt it's this but I could very well be wrong.

jk

Blair was interested in PR back in the 1990s & apparently had been in discussions with the LibDems. But then he won a very large majority & lost interest in the idea...

I wonder whether they are talking to the Libdems? God knows they don't have much of a presence at the moment, any one of those Tory emigres would be a credible leader to replace the current impotent nonentity.

Its inconceivable that they are not.......

The British people had a chance to take the first steps to a more proportional representation in a referendum in 2011. They rejected it 68/32.

Sigh.

Seems destined to be the way.

The only way I see FPTP getting fixed is as the inviolable policy of a minor coalition partner but that as we've seen already didn't work, the electorate are easily gulled and its pursuit (more the compromises that forced) ultimately destroyed the LibDems setting the cause back decades. Can't see any party keen to repeat that.

jk

OK, so if they start to make some policy statements other than simply renouncing Brexit then I am going to take these people very seriously.  I simply cant think of myself voting for the main parties at the moment.  Isnt there a doubt that they will forma  party at all and will simply stay independent.

The Libdems were well and truly shafted by the Tories over that, rolling out a huge media onslaught to delude the electorate into thinking that AV was somehow too complex for their poor little minds to cope with.

I don't think that's entirely fair - the lib dem U-turn on tuition fees has done a lot of damage as well.

I remember voting Yes to AV and I've since forgotten much about it apart from my now familiar sense of disappointment.

I found this quite good analysis:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/06/reasons-av-referendum...

So the question for the LibDems is; is our brand now a busted flush (at least for the next two elections) so will we join with the independents to form a brand new party?

Yes, that was the forced compromise I was referring to.

Outside the highlands academic hubs were pretty much the only geographical features that clustered the LibDem vote enough to return MPs, even a little (and they did a lot of) harm done to their brand in those areas inevitably spelled electoral oblivion whether voter numbers more broadly held up or not. Clever game play by Cameron's team (or a happy accident) and devastatingly ill understood by Clegg's. That or it was a conscious death-or-glory gamble. I'm not sure which is worse, that's probably a matter of perspective.

jk

I can't remember how I voted. I really hope pragmatic me voted yes but I remember idealistic me being frustrated at the weak gruel on offer.

In ordinary times I'd think the brand is probably still too badly damaged among the further education community to return many MP's and without the expectation of a reliable base of MP's on which to build I don't see them tempting voters outside of those old hot spots. We don't however live in ordinary times so there is an opportunity left wide open to them by Labour's refusal to even offer the public the opportunity to oppose brexit (let alone advocating for their voters and doing it themselves). Any election probably comes after we've committed to a course of action on brexit anyway so it's probably moot.

The LibDem grassroots machinery is functional and valuable, I think they'd be foolish to give that up lightly.

jk

They had / have traditional strength in the South West of England as well

Fair point. I've never really seen a good explanation for their appeal in the 'celtic fringes' (for want of a better and more complete description). Were they just clusters built, maintained and expanded gradually around a few good/locally respected MP's or was there more to it?

jk

But didn't they come a cropper as they were also vote leave areas?

Also the Northern Isles.

I suppose the question is whether these are traditional votes specifically for the Lib Dems, or whether they might translate to votes for a different centrist party if the right candidates were in place.

I'd suggest that there is a bit of a tendency in these areas for there to be more support for candidates not beholden to the mainstream parties, who may be better able to focus on local concerns. Lib Dems have been able to capitalise on this, I think.

This is also often reflected in local elections, with a large number of Independent (i.e. not party affiliated) councillors elected.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Liberal Democrats fielded 629 candidates in the 2017 election - i.e. they stood in most seats. There is a long way to go (*) before this new party - should it actually become one - will be able to do that. An early general election would presumably lead to most/all of the eleven losing their current seats.

(* Yes, I know: 'a week is a long time in politics' etc. etc.)

Yeah, that's probably right.

It'd be odd for several of the new Independent Group MPs to have voluntarily committed political suicide, though, so presumably they have some sort of plan they think has a chance of working - even if it's just to do something else just now, then rejoin their old parties again later.

The Lib Dems are still the main non-Tory option in a whole lot of rural constituencies, from John O Groats to Lands End. Although they usually lose to the Tory option. Labour have made very few inroads into rural constituencies.

Several of them were likely facing deselection anyway. Jump or be pushed?

jk

Yeah, there's that. I think there must be more to it, though - paving the way for a bigger rebellion areound no-deal brexit, or laying the foundations for a new party, or something else along those lines.

I suppose they wouldn't be very competent politicians if they hadn't set things up to work in several different ways depending on how it goes, so it could well be all of the above.

I thought if you complained about gruel it was because of its thinness.

You're quite right. Every day is a lesson, thanks.

jk

This raises the issue of how metropolitan do the new independents come across as!

They’ve got a tricky space to fill, tribalism only seems to hold sway away from the centre.

The main achievement of the independent group is to add weight to threats by remaining remainers/people’s vote Tory and Labour MPs’ threats to leave to counter the influence of the ERG/hard right and Labour left/Brexiteers 

The top reason listed is notable relevant to our current predicament:

"The referendum format. A yes/no plebiscite reliably puts reformers on the defensive. Instead of attacking the status quo in general terms, which is always easy to do, they must suddenly pin their colours to the particular change on offer on the ballot paper, in this case the alternative vote, and then stick by it – warts and all. Australia's referendum on the republic in 1999provides a case study of how an impulse for change can dissipate over the detail, as voters fretted about whether they wanted the sort of presidency on offer, or a directly elected one instead."

If we ever get the chance to "pin our colours to the particular change on offer on the ballot paper" we'd likely see a very different outcome from "attacking the status quo in general terms, which is always easy to do".

Here's hoping.

But the trouble with the Australian vote was that it wasn't a simple yes/no question.

I think you misunderstood the analogy. There was popular support for change in Australia until such time as they had to vote yes/no on one particular achievable outcome (rather than simply voting in favour of change), whereupon the support dwindled.

However it will all come to nothing without more MPs acting. Potential joiners might be scared to lose their jobs, don’t really think there’s a problem or are cowed for some other reason. It really is a massive gamble in our non-proportional system to stick your neck out at all.

I really wish them luck and I hope they can be progressive. That might be difficult as they already have a fairly broad church, even with only 11.

I found this part troublesome as it is an opposite argument to that against the leave vote.

The Leave vote was not "a particular change on offer on the ballot paper". If we ever get to vote on anything specific, as opposed to the 2016 poorly defined generalities that meant different things to different people, the lesson from Australia would appear to suggest that levels of support for change might drop.

I agree.

Unfortunately in 2016 the yes/no choice put non reformers on the defensive. The lack of definition in the reform option made it attractive to many.

I was struck by the dissonance in that point when I read the article I linked.

They fear a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn and have been trying to bring him down from the start. They've attempted coups and smears but failed so far and this is another roll of the dice in defence of austerity, privatization, deregulation, low wages, etc, doing the bidding of their hero Tony Blair. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-... 

With Labour being softer on Brexit than the Conservatives the people who may be attracted to this breed of politics are more likely to have otherwise voted for Labour than the Conservatives. They won't necessarily have to stand in their current seats. If the upcoming GE is close then they only have to swing the balance away from Labour by say 5% in a few marginals to hand those seats to the Conservatives and ensure 5 more years of misery under a tory government.

They have ensured that their funding is opaque by setting up as a private company instead of a political party but presumably they are doing a job for someone and aren't overly concerned about what happens to their political careers afterwards.

So you think 3 Conservatives have left the Conservative party to support the, err, Conservative party!? 

You exhibit the kind of tribalism that they want to leave behind.

A mammoth indeed!

Ha, indeed. Well they've secured the votes of 8 formerly Labour MP's now haven't they. Watch these MP's throw their principles out of the door next time there is a vote of no confidence in Theresa May. I can't see how it helps their stated aim of stopping Brexit, Theresa May is more dependent on the ERG now. Their role is to help give the group credibility to attract the swing voters.

You're just smearing. No facts, just go after the people involved. Exactly the problem with Labour at the moment. 

I have no particular axe to grind for this group by the way. Their timing looks poor, their chances of developing a realistic challenge as a party are probably minimal. I certainly can't see how they can put together a coherent platform and manifesto given the range of view they represent now the ex-Cons are there. But the present two-party system is an antiquated disaster and needs to go, and I hope this may be a straw in the wind.  

I thought at the time the rejection of AV was a disastrous moment for British politics, and even more so now. (and I mean 'for' not 'in')

The Guardian link seems a little odd. It seemed to me that factors involved including self interest (FPTP suits the main parties) (tax, offshore funds...), a fear of change (reading about Brexit almost makes me think many leavers were seeing remain as change), a toxic agreement between the right's idea of stability and the left's rejection of something they didn't see a 'pure' enough (like the EU?), a rather strange idea of commitment from many who should have been supporting it (May, Corbyn etc). Wildly innacurrate ideas disscussed and not challenged on MSM.

It was a good dry run for Brexit, and of course (in retrospect) laid the seeds for UKIP to threaten the conservative party by taking modest numbers of votes.

I've seen this same exact line of attack from all my Corbynite friends and across social media today, nearly word for word. The lack of reflection by Corbyn-supporting Labour is by turns astounding yet par for the course. It actually doesn't matter what anyone thinks of this group of MPs; it's a symptom. Our two main parties are failing to carry the centre with them anymore, which means their chances of a majority government becoming less and less. Rather than take this onboard as an opportunity to broaden their appeal, May and Corbyn have simply doubled down, with the Corbyn attack machine in particular swinging into action, trying to blame the people they've left behind for their policies' increasingly narrow appeal.

Good luck with that.

I've been wondering exactly the same thing: how would they respond to such a vote? They certainly do not want a general election.

In reply to pasbury:

Progressive? Soubry stoutly defends the 'austerity' agenda of the Cameron/Osborne government (of which she was a member of course.) How could there be any agreement within this group on economic matters? Their claim is that they are 'post policy', but in practice that's just a stupid claim.

Cable has now said that the Lib Dem’s won’t field candidates in TIG constituencies if there is a General Election.

Do you think Zac Goldsmith will join, just so he can hang on to his seat?

I hope that they would make an exception for Zac Goldsmith.

A good point, no one seems to care a jot about this or where their money's coming from, AFAIK it's not even a Ltd company so we have no idea whose in charge or whose behind it.

But they're not a political party. Anyway, Luciana Berger has also said that even though they don't have to they'll be declaring who their donors are as if they were a political party. Because it's mid-way through a parliament they're not entitled to any short money from the government.

Even worse is seeing it from my local MP.  I can’t see much coming of my hope of meeting with them with regards a second referendum

They will need to become one if they intend to contest elections as a group.

Let's see what they actually do. In any case, in the interests of transparency, why wait? They have been formally organizing for a while already: 'Gemini A' was registered in mid-January.

At best it's woefully misguided, at worst it's out and out deflection from their own issues. The house is on fire and they're angry at the smoke.

If we're to take the hit from Brexit, then I hope we smash the whole of our politics down with it and start again. Ctrl+Alt+Del.

I was genuinely impressed by the way Conservative central office and the local parties managed the message re their 3 defectors. Very positive language, thanking them for their contribution, sorry to see them go. Alistair Campbell would've been proud. Looked so much more professional than the angrier response from Labour. Even if you don't support them, you can see why they're an election machine.

Who do you worry might be funding them?

I keep seeing this thread and getting psyched about a trip to Utah.......... then I remember.

Who knows? But for the sake of transparency and openness the sources of any funding should obviously be declared.

Do you think otherwise?

I 'm not worried about it, it's simply a matter of openness, because they've set up as a private company there is no transparency, they don't have to follow normal parliamentary rules, as every other party (although they're not a party) would have to. So the question is, why not?

And how can this be right that everyone else is subject to openness and transparency, but this group isn't?

Funding? There doesn’t seem to be the need for any spending. You are just trying to feed a Mosssad conspiracy theory 

I didn't say they were a party, I'd like to know why they don't have to. Surely anyone that can influence our government  / politics should be governed by the same rules. I should hope they aren't entitled to any money from the government either.

<tin hat on> It would be very interesting to find out they were financially supported by the Israeli government   </tin hat on>

Of course I'm only joking, but without the need for any openness how do we know it's not the Russians?

Just what your Corbynite friends have to put up with day after day when they hear our entire media parroting tory attack lines without any reflection. As often as not those attack lines were handed to them by these splitters who said from the start that they wouldn't cooperate with Corbyn.

Maybe I am over egging it and their aims are just as they state. The most likely outcome is just the same, they'll prop up Theresa May in order to avoid an early general election while at the same time forcing her closer to the ERG, and they'll lose their seats at the next election but hurt Labour more than they'll hurt the Conservatives.

If Labour were to broaden their appeal by watering down their popular policies for the benefit of people who support austerity then there's no point. That's what the centre left is doing all over Europe and those parties are dying.

Bravo!

Who pays for the web site, and the publicity materials, amongst other things. You think they've set this up out of their own money?

We all know this to be true, but it doesn't excuse the Corbyn troll-machine indulging in the same whenever there's anything which could be perceived as critical of the leadership. It's whataboutery. Politics should partly be about effectively dealing with criticism, not just ignoring it and trying to discredit the source with your own attacks. I say "should"...

Neither Labour nor the Tories have a god-given right to votes, public support or trust. Make and win the argument. Convince the public of what you're trying to achieve and bring them along; don't just take your voters and even MPs for granted and then berate them when they've had enough. "They'll hurt Labour" - Labour are hurting themselves. When are Corbyn supporters going to offer any criticism of the man? What will it take? Criticism is healthy.

Ace. Well Labour can be in rude health then but not in government. It'll probably be the public's fault for not voting for them. Stupid public.

And neither do these defectors, surely they can prove their support easily enough though.

Well done for picking one line from my post about deflection and using it to deflect.

Website - count the links - fewer than ten static web pages! Even with a donate form it's difficult to be simpler than that. That is an easy day's work for a professional. Add the cost of some stock photos for backgrounds and a professional photographer for mugshots of MPs. 

£2000 even if web developer and photographer each paid £1000 for a single day of work.

Publicity materials - what publicity materials? They're not pushing leaflets through doors so any press statements and interviews are just the normal activities of an MP who willingly engages with the media.

Corrections

1. It does use a CMS so not static but that makes it quicker to produce the website. 
2. Also make that about twenty pages as MPs have their own profile pages.

Just a quick reply cos I've had a pint and I'm on the phone but yes it would be nice if politics was about convincing people with reasonable arguments but that's not the world we live in. The reasonable arguments are out there but most people are only going to hear the soundbites.

I don't think the way to a Labour government is by appealing to people that might be considering voting Tory. I think they need to appeal to the demographic that haven't voted for 30yrs because "they're all the same". 

Clearly Corbyn doesn't either! Unfortunately for you and him, there are quite a lot of us and Labour won't win with that approach. The ludicrous thing is I, and many others, are desperate for a better option but Labour is ignoring us. TIG it may be. 

Not sure if Emily Thornberry's attitude is going to placate matters and it certainly makes me think that certain elements of the Labour Party are getting less accepting of MP's that don't toe the party line:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47346008

The Labour mantra appears to be purity in defeat 

Did anyone else click into here hoping for a crack climbing thread?

Terminology like 'Defectors', 'Splitters' and 'Crush them' is bad enough, but reference to 'Our leader' just makes me think that Labour is heading down a path whereby anyone who isn't Pro-Corbyn is automatically deemed less worthy.
 

I hope you will see through the media misrepresentation and realise that Labour's policies are just pretty sensible reversals of the right wing ideological overreach that has been going on in this country for the last 30 odd years. 

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ 

However, the Conservatives are always going to be more attractive than Labour to people who are attracted to right wing politics. It does seem that Tony Blair managed to coax a fair few over but in that same period the number of people voting in UK general elections dropped by 7 million. 7m people who haven't been feeling represented by politics is quite a pool of potential voters as well.

There is an indication that this group is still interested though as 3m extra voters turned out for the EU referendum in 2016 and that goes a long way to explaining why it would be electoral suicide for Labour to be seen as the party opposing Brexit. Especially as the marginal seats that Labour needs to win are mostly leave voting areas.

Do you think they're representing their continuants?

What if they'd defected to some other party, let's say the BNP, would that be fine?

I can understand Lucinda, but one of the Labour women was cought out lying about some anti-Semitism accusation, which turned out to be recorded and false, and yet she stood by what she'd said.

One of the Tory women stood on a "the people have voted and I'll do everything in my power to see that vote respected".

so while they are standing for what I want, i.e. to remain in the EU, they don't have my respect.

And asking them to stand in a by-election is only asking their constituents to reaffirm their support. If they all get voted back in then, how could anyone argue with their stance, and a great deal more people might join them.

I suspect though, they'll be seen for what they are and they'll all lose their seats, apart from Soubry who was voted in on her stance in the first place.

Haven't got a clue, but from what I can tell, they certainly think they are.
However, that isn't the point that I was making about the article in question and that was that Thornberry's attitude stinks and it's therefore hardly surprising that some Labour MP's are jumping ship.
 

I suspect all will keep their seats. They were voted in because they were representing Labour's ideals, not Corbyns. As long as they don't change their viewpoint and with a good local campaign they'll be in. Don't confuse popularity for Labour policies, with popularity for Corbyn himself as it's leader. Labour leaders have come and gone many times in the last 10 years, voters aren't that attached to them. 

The point being we don't know do we?

And since they we elected on the tails of Corbyn and the manifesto, the only honourable thing to do is to prove to everyone, they have the support of their constituencies surely.

Since Corbyn has been instrumental in changing the direction of Labour away from Blairite, Tory Lite, I'd propose part of the support for Labour is to do with that.

I don't doubt they do, but that make things even worse, if that actually aren't. Putting themselves above their constituents and above the party, seems to be at best self delusional.

The question still remains, do people vote for a party or for the individual, in their case they've decided is was the former, without asking the question, or allowing people to let them know.

As far as I know, calling a by election now is not a requirement and would lead to the seat being unrepresented in the house for over a month. There is even a chance that these by-elections plus the Newport by-election could be delayed until the council elections in May.

Maybe these MPs feel there are some important upcoming votes that their constituents need representation for?

Or they were elected in spite of Corbyn. There is a lot of tribal loyalty and inertia in how people vote. If you think everybody who votes Labour does so because they like what Corbyn and his supporters have done, said and stand for then I think you are very wrong.

They will have to face their electorates soon enough. All this faux outrage demanding instant by-elections is just trying for political advantage by pushing them into an election before there has been any time to establish and communicate a separate identity.