Is it fair?

The OP asks "is it fair?" There is very little fairness in British politics.

The Electoral Commission has released its latest figures for political donations. In the last three months of 2018 £10.4m was given to political parties - £1.9m more than in the previous quarter. Most of it, £7.4m went to the Conservatives, who received more than four time as much in donations as Labour (£1.6m). The increase is almost certainly linked to speculation about a possible early election.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/donations-and-loans-to-political-parties/quarterly-donations-and-loans

No-one said that MPs should be just mouthpieces for their constituents.

However, if the MP is neglecting constituency duties because they appear to their constituents to be interested in only one thing - with which the majority of their constituents disagree - and are not interested in any other problems which their constituents have, then they will be on shaky ground at the next election.

MPs are not delegates who just act as mouthpieces for their constituents, they are elected to use their own judgement as to what is in the best interests of their constituents, as Anna Soubry has done by speaking out against the threat of brexit.

Having said that, I think in normal circumstances, it would probably be right for Anna, and her colleagues who have resigned from their parties, to resign and fight by-elections. However we do not live in normal times. This is, without a doubt, a time of national crisis, unprecedented in most of our lifetimes.

The last thing we need right now is the diversion of a string of by-elections. Time is running out for us to address the pressing need to - firstly, stop a "no-deal" brexit, and secondly, to stop any kind of brexit altogether because any kind of brexit will irrevocably damage our country and blight the futures of our children and grand-children.

She may have very decided views and has no hesitation in airing them constantly - and presumably, as you say, she may not have time left over for her constituents or even listen to their views.
The MP who treats their constituents with disdain is on shaky ground - especially one who has just left their party.

Jalima1108 Yes, at the next election they will have to stand as an independent candidate and reach the criteria for standing, standing against the new candidate for the Tories. Obviously the Conservatives in Broxtowe now have to find another candidate which I believe they are already doing. We have a very popular and sound Labour candidate in Greg Marshall however, and it is quite likely voters will see his dependable and trustworthy character and wisdom with more clarity after this shock and vote without a party allegiance being a priority.

What Jalima says.

Quite a few including Soubry have really only left their Party because they don’t agree with us leaving the EU.
They should all face a by-election really, but if there is a GE
This year, that will be a test as to whether their voters really want them or not.

An MP is voted for as an individual person
That's not necessarily the case Shinyredcar

In a GE most voters will vote for the party despite the candidate; however, when one lets them down and fails to represent the views of the majority of their constituents, then they may well get ousted at the next election.

I wonder how many people have voted Conservative without realising that their Tory candidate was, or would become, a member of the "party within a party" which is the ERG.

If you want to check your MP, here is a list.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42719026

Shinyredcar
An MP is voted for as an individual person. Yes of course. A person who has made promises. Then breaks them.
But Anna Soubry used the local Conservative Party. She played it strategically by jumping in when the Labour Party were obviously losing favour with the country and so she picked a marginal seat to fight - Broxtowe, where the local Conservative Party and Office went all out to work very hard for her. Had she stood as an Independent then or since I am sure she would not have been backed by them and subsequently not have achieved the votes to get her elected. Remember, they back her with a lot of time given freely and a lot of money which they raise themselves by fundraising and from their own donations. She was supported by these people's money to run her election campaign. It was money they earned. She was happy to let them spend their time and money on her so she could get into Parliament. She owes them loyalty. As it is the seat has remained somewhat marginal. She won it the first time after several recounts. With a bit of luck maybe we can get rid of her now.

Urmstongran. If you would like to privately message me I can give you an honest and true account of her visit to me after a builder left my house badly damaged and also took money falsely. It is almost funny except that at the time I could not believe it had happened! However, it happened to many others so I knew it was real! I did contact some colleagues and Senior Psychiatrists I worked with at the Institute of Psychiatry for advice! Interesting....

I missed out that Soubry used Broxtowe to get a seat at the time when the nation was turning against the long Labour rule and Broxtowe was considered to be reasonably marginal so she made a strategic move, sucking up to the local Conservatives who have continued to support her very strongly. It has remained a fairly marginal seat so without these loyal Conservatives she could well have lost her job. There are people who work long hours at the office for nothing. She did not consult them or explain but just walked out on them after all they had done for her. She owes her Parliamentary career to them. To decide suddenly (she'll say it wasn't sudden, probably) to turn away from these people whom she definitely used in order to get her seat in Parliament, just sickens me. I am not a Tory voter, but I do respect a lot of the people who have worked for our constituency on both sides.

Oh god Tillybelle she’s far worse than I thought! Thank you for your post. The woman’s shameless!

An MP is voted for as an individual person whom you wish to represent you.

For some years, candidates have joined political parties and show this on the ballot paper if they want to use the Party's workers and finance for their campaign. It is shorthand for the way they think. It is not binding them to anything so far as the voters are concerned.

Their party may take a different view and de-select them for the next election if they change or leave the party, but they are still the individual person who stood for election and was voted in.

There used to be lots of Independents, many of them well-respected long-serving MPs. Because we now have so many career politicians the fashion has changed.

In the Euro Elections no Independent candidate could campaign in the huge constituencies we have, so we are stuck with a Party Lists voting system and we couldn't vote for an individual if we wanted to. Not very democratic.

eazybee. Thank you!
You express everything I think and feel and say it so much better than I ever could.

I think people in Broxtowe have a right to feel used. Anna Soubry has not even lived in Nottinghamshire let alone in the Constituency of Broxtowe as she promised she would and made such a big issue about when standing for election here the first time. She bought a place in Bramcote so the address was on the election paper in time, lived there a short while then moved to Leicestershire and her big house with her husband. The second sudden election did not give her time to move back to Broxtowe and pretend to be one of us, so she had to reveal that, despite saying MPs should live in their Constituency, she didn't even live in the same County, let alone the constituency. She has abused local people by shouting at them at length and humiliating them but will straight away cry "law suite" if anyone complains about her screaming at them. There was strong speculation that Broxtowe was being used as a stepping stone to Ken Clark's Rushcliffe constituency just over the river Trent, expecting him to retire. That wise man did not oblige and then Cameron, having caused the chaos, cowardly stepped down to dump the job into the lap of Theresa May to bravely carve out whatever Brexit means. (Apparently it means not mentioning anything to do with Defence because apparently the EU Defence Union is to remain. Remain without the British public having any knowledge about it or any public discussions on the matter. Thus EU Defence Union remaining = Brexit without exit.)
The ascendancy of Theresa May threw Anna's ambitions into desperation and soon, as we saw, she began to flounder.
Having voted to trigger Article 50, she then starts to campaign to stop Brexit. Thus she is showing no loyalty whatsoever to the Leader of her Party or support to the woman who was landed with the worst parliamentary job in the west, let alone her Constituents whom she led to beleive she would support.

"What UK Thinks" shows results of more than fifty polls carried out by reputable polling companies.

All the evidence is that, for the last eighteen months or more, most voters, if asked would chose to remain in the EU. The much vaunted "will of the people" has changed

A) you have to ask who is obtaining and collating that evidence

and

B) that statement flies in the face of local feeling round here. Leavers dislike Brussels more and more as negotiators like Tusk insult us and remain intransigent regarding the backstop and the way they can ties us to the EU indefinitely.

The Remain attitude certainly among the people I know/associate with, now tends to be "I have accepted it. Just get on with it!"

Good post eazybee

If it was only ‘advisory’ why is the government hell bent on doing it then? If they didn’t have to do it you’d think legal brains such as Geoffrey Cox and others would have told then ‘no’ from the outset.
Why is it happening then? Does anybody know?

You are correct humptydumpty the EU referendum was advisary, otherwise the status quo would have had to be protected by a supermajority as was the case in the first Scottish devolution referendum where "yes" won but could not be enacted because the "yes" vote was not supported by 40% of the electorate.

It is true that David Cameron said he would act on the EU referendum result, but he had absolutely no right to do so. It is also important that under our constitution, no parliament can commit a future parliament to anything and our present parliament is not legally bound to follow through.

The quitters often point to the fact that the 2017 parliament contains a majority of Tory and Labour MPs whose party manifestos proposed "delivering brexit". This is a spurious argument. Parties never follow through with all sections of their manifestos. Voters under our FPTP system very often only have the choice of these two parties and will vote on the basis of "lesser of two evils" which does not mean endorsing every item in a manifesto.

We also now know that the referendum result was influenced by foreign interference, illegal spending and outright lies, and should be declared null and void if the Electoral Commission had any teeth.

All the evidence is that, for the last eighteen months or more, most voters, if asked would chose to remain in the EU. The much vaunted "will of the people" has changed.

In spite of all that this government has followed through and negotiated a deal for leaving the EU. That deal might be approved by parliament, but it should only be legitimised if the people are allowed to have a Final Say - a choice between the deal and remaining in the EU.

POGS thought you were not playing with me to day!

My 2nd sentence

" If they leave the political party on whose manifesto they were elected on then it is a tougher decision."

says what you just said

PECS

' If an MP votes against their part whip so be it, they may have a vote of conscience or be taking account of something that affects their constituents more than the nation as a whole.'
----

It is not about voting against the Whip! That is not the issue at all.!

Some of the ' 18 ' ' RESIGNED the Whip ' meaning they are now Independent MP' s.

If an MP votes against their part whip so be it, they may have a vote of conscience or be taking account of something that affects their constituents more than the nation as a whole.
If they leave the political party on whose manifesto they were elected on then it is a tougher decision.

Parliamentary rules do not say they must resign the seat.

Unfortunately the debacle over membership of the EU is dominating all news and parliamentary activity. All sorts of bill are slipping in , under the radar and other important issues ignored.

Changing the current parliamentary codes would seem way down on the agenda!

Sorry to re-visit this but is it not the case that the referendum was 'advisory'?

A more dignified manner?

eazybee

' The Labour MPs have apparently resigned for different reasons, and in a rather more dignified manner, but perhaps they should also stand as Independents.'
---

They are now Independent MP's.