Seven Labour MPs resigned from Party

Replying to a few different points -

Phantom of London - not understanding is a poor reason to keep the status quo, education on a different voting system and how it treats votes more equally is key. There are many different systems, some more immediately transparent and understandable than others.

Latecomer - I don’t buy the naivety of voters not realising that a coalition is likely to be formed with the party that has won the most seats. The current system forcing ‘negative votes’ is a massive issue, though. They were wrong to imagine that their vote would be taken that way (and should have thought more about that beforehand) but a system which has more parties and ones which would have allowed them a positive vote for that party is the answer, not a system which forces ‘negative’ voting.

Oxfordsimon - points all taken although you, yourself admit that there are systems that keep the constituency link. On lists of fodder candidates, any party doing that will lose support if that is what voters do not want. The chances of parties springing up in response is increased and voters get a chance to vote elsewhere instead. Many is the constituency under FPTP stuck with a similar type of MP under the current sytem anyway. I agree that there shouldn’t be automatic replacement after resignations and such, as there should be a chance for a new vote under current circumstances, again there are ways of doing that through a new constituency vote if a constituency link is maintained. On your last point, I see ‘trading’ as a good thing (others may not) but a manifesto is a starting point, to me, not a fixed thing.

Confirmed, Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston have joined the independent group.

Anna Soubry jumping ship was always on the cards like Luciana Berger she has had a lot of hate and trolling for a different reason.

The Anti-Semitic views and being against some of the actions of the state of Israel are differing things in my view. It could be we deplore the actions of ISCIS but likely have many Muslim friends who we get on well with and know how they interpret their faith is far different from the radical views held by certain fanatics.

A lot of the historic issues relate to the creation of Israel bang in the middle of a load of Muslim countries as Neil as above.

I vote Tory so I'd class myself as right wing but I'd never want to be considered in the same category as the far right neanderthal knuckle draggers.

With this new party and the Labour Party's issues with alleged Antisemitism I wonder if the new party might reach out to David Miliband if he ever left his job at the International Rescue Committee in New York. David as a former Foreign Secretary would give the party a lot of extra credibility and would be a clear choice as leader even over the younger and highly rated Chuka Umunna. But David would need to find a seat if he wanted to return to Parliament and having him as leader outside of the Commons might cause issues. Also David is on a rumoured 300k salary in NY so would take a financial hit if he went back into front line politics and could take up business/media interests and a likely seat in the Lords when he does leave his current role.

It’s hard to say I support them as they haven’t outlined their policies (nor formed an actual political party yet), but I support their intentions. Politics in the UK is a tired business. The results from the last few general elections (and referendum) indicate we are a country divided.

No party has had a comfortable win since Tony Blair won in 2005 (the Tory win in 2015 was hardly comfortable) and that indicates that the current parties aren’t working - they simply don’t represent enough people in order to secure a comfortable majority.

The thing is, the Labour Party keeps moving more to the left and the Tories keep moving (or trying) to move further to the right. Both have in fighting and internal differences on a way forward. Yet they both seem to forget that Tony Blair won by moving towards the centre and that David Cameron won by doing exactly the same.

The Tory party is a party that is publicly divided and Labour offers no strong alternative. I’ve always said Labour offers progression and then the Tory party come in to sort out the finances afterwards, and that has largely worked.

But now it isn’t and rather than spend time working on fixing their own parties and resolving issues, a group of MPs have opted to say ‘sod it’ and start afresh. Which frankly, is quite refreshing and it doesn’t surprise me if people are watching with interest.

Post Brexit we need something new and a party with a clear direction for the future. Any party that offers something new and different to Labour and the Conservatives at this stage is going to get interest... and what better way to offer something ‘new’ by being something new?

Good luck I say. UK Politics is in desperate need of a shake up.

As an outside observer I have often felt there should be five main national political parties in UK rather than two and a half so that people would feel more represented by who they vote for. Trouble with this is that the centre party would always be the power-broker, and therefore present in all coalitions, effectively becoming a permanent party of government even if only a small minority voted for them,

Exceptions that don't negate the rule. Look at the FDP in Germany, spent like 30 years in government with less than 10% of the vote. Or the Christian Democrats in Italy, they were there in most governments for 40 odd years. 

In Italy the Christian Democrats were the largest party, not a third party and they were more a broad church (literally) from centre right to centre left, rather than being specifically centrist. 

Germany has had the centrist party, the FDP, in coalition for only four years since the millennium. It is no longer seen as a major potential government player. I can see how those invested in either left or right don’t like a strong centrist party but, to me, it neuters the extremes with that being a good thing.

Why didn’t these politicians just cross the floor to the Liberal Democrat’s, their aims seem to be identical, like new Labour was Liberal Democrat’s in different clothing, has their name now became so toxic to the voters, that these 11 thought it be easier to start a new movement?

However I can see many more politicians from all 3 parties, joining this 11, buoyed by the early success of Macron. They say a day is a long time in politics, at the moment an hour is an eternity.

Not sure about the others, but I think Chuka Ummuna wants to be a Macron figure and he couldn't do that using the Lib Dems as a base - I doubt they'd make a Johnny-come-lately party leader.

I know there are PR systems that do keep some form of constituency link - but I have never been convinced by their merits. 

If we were to move to a revised system, I would far rather explore a run-off mechanism - so that you have a second round of voting between the top two candidates in the event of no candidate securing 50% first time round.  That way every MP can be certain of having secured 50%+1 of the votes cast - thus increasing legitimacy.  I prefer run offs over ranked candidates as it allows for further scrutiny of the top two candidates and a more informed choice.  I appreciate this means more voting - but I am happy to find 10 minutes to do that.

I would also get rid of postal voting on demand - there should, of course, be a postal vote system - but it should be under limited circumstances.  Voting should be done as close to the end of the campaign as possible - so that candidates can be tested and votes cast accordingly.  Postal votes are too open to fraud and are cast without full knowledge of the candidates and their campaigns.

I do believe that the manifesto is the only chance that voters have to assess a party platform. And I don't find post-election trading to be democratic - you can end up with a government platform that was never tested by the electorate and I do not find that acceptable.

I know that things like voter ID and creating equal sized constituencies have proved controversial - but I have never understood why.  It should not be easier to vote than it is to take out a library book or apply for a travel card - we already have Voter ID in Northern Ireland (and it is common in many other European democracies).  The NI system does not cost voters anything in terms of acquiring the required form of ID and has not diminished turnout. And as citizens, our votes should have equal weight.  So constituencies should be roughly equivalent in size (10% tolerance is fine).  It should not be desirable to have a system with the significant disparities that have long been part of our boundaries.

Yes, I do spend a lot of time thinking about our electoral system. I have looked at many alternatives and they tend to have more flaws than the FPTP option that we have.  It needs some improving - but not scrapping.  

The Scottish system was an attempt to design something that would prevent one party from dominating. On that test, it has failed. I also find it over-complicated.

I have to disagree with regards to Voter ID - there is zero evidence of voter suppression in the case of NI - which is far more pertinent than any US examples. I don't think having to show your polling card or similar is too much to ask anyone who wishes to participate in our electoral system. I know of a number of people who were almost denied a vote because of human error in terms of marking up the register in the polling station - anything that makes our voting system more robust is a good thing. It isn't to do with attempting to deny anyone their right to vote, it is about making sure that those voting are actually entitled to do so. Telling a polling clerk your name and address is not enough.