On September 27, the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) gained its second member of the British House of Commons. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
On September 27, the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) gained its second member of the British House of Commons. See this story. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
A second member of the House of Commons? I didn’t know UKIP had a first one!
I thought they already had one. Also, did not know that upon changing party affiliation in Great Britain it triggers a by-election.
At any rate, look for the UKIP to become a strong party within the coming years and decades. They could replace the Liberal Democrats as the 3rd largest party in the UK. I understand they already have more members of the EU than do the Conservatives and the Labour Party.
As I also understand, the UKIP is strongly “anti-immigrant.” There is also, from what I read upon researching the internet, a strong silent opposition among many British citizens for a immigration policy that just allows any and everybody to come to that country.
If the GOP eventually gives in and embraces such a policy in the United States, this is going to give encouragement to such a party here. But I’m afraid that due to the harsh election laws in most states, it is going to be hard for such a party initially. However, if the feelings toward an open immigration policy gets to the fervor like it was during the abolitionist period, the Dems & Reps will have to increase the ballot access laws to keep such a party from getting on the ballot. The people, when really stirred up, will only stand for such much of anything.
I don’t want anyone to interpret that I am anti-immigrant. I’m not. I know our nation’s history. We are all immigrants of one kind or the other. But it is one thing to stream across the border, and another thing to do it properly like most did in the 1800’s.
A change in party affiliation does not trigger a by-election. Resignation from Parliament does.
Until fairly recently, ballots in the UK did not include party labels, and in a legal sense, candidates are standing as individuals.
In Parliament members sit on benches opposite each other separated by a wide aisle. The Speaker, who in the UK is strictly neutral, sits on a platform between the two benches. The government supporters (currently Tories and Lib Dems) are to the right. The opposition (Labour and all the other minor party MPs) are to left. When an MP switches parties they are said to “cross the aisle”.
Some MP’s may resign their seat as a matter of honor, since it permits the voters to affirm whether they support the switch. It is not dissimilar to what Phil Gramm did when he resigned his House seat when he joined the Republican Party, and ran in the special election.
Jim Riley: Thanks for the explanation. So as a “matter of honor” this MP resigned and this is what triggered the “by-election.”
Speaking of Phil Gramm when he resigned and ran again as a Republican, didn’t Strom Thurmond also resign after the had won the U.S. Senate seat either in 1952 or 54 by write-in, so the Democratic voters of South Carolina could approve of him? Or am I confusing my history? I know that when he was elected by write-in, he naturally chose to sit with the Senate Democrats. It was in 1964 when he switched to the GOP and probably was the one person who kept George Wallace from winning South Carolina in the 1968 presidential election as the AIP nominee.
The EVIL minority rule gerrymander systems in the USA are all derived from the EVIL minority rule gerrymander system in ye olde English (now UK) House of Commons.
Due to the larger parties in the UK, the minority rule percentage is about 20 percent – compared to about 30 percent in the USA (since the SCOTUS gerrymander cases in 1964).
A plurality of the votes in a bare majority of the gerrymander areas for CONTROL.
—-
Remedy – P.R.