Member Defections: Automatic By-elections

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore]

That is my point. While a lot of us, as advocates of constituency areas, do our best day in, day out, advocating on behalf of our constituents and campaigning on the local issues that matter to give us the biggest advantage possible by building up our authenticity on those issues, a good proportion of the electorate vote based on the political party with which the candidates are associated.

In 2019, a good proportion of the electorate could not stand the possibility of a Labour Government and voted to get Brexit done, which we advocated for. I know from conversations on the doorstep that there was an element of the electorate who had never voted Conservative before, but who decided to vote for us in 2019 based on the national offering. That builds into my point that, whenever an individual defects—as happened recently north of the border, with the defection of a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament to the Liberal Democrats—a by-election should be triggered. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrat policy is on that.

Trust is at stake, because too often disillusionment builds up among the wider electorate, and defections exaggerate that.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I was following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments closely and agreeing with them until he got to the point about Prime Ministers, because is it not a consistent position that if a hon. Member changes their political party there should be a by-election, therefore if there is a change in leader, as the Conservatives have got into the habit of doing, there should be a general election?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely take the view that a defection at the local constituency level should trigger a by-election, which will ultimately restore the voters’ ability to decide who they want to represent them, whether that is the individual who has changed political party or someone else. When there is a change in the leader of any political party, it is up to the MPs of that party to determine whether that individual represents the party in the role of its leader. That applies to all political parties. The reason is that when an individual goes to vote at the ballot box, they are predominantly voting for two things: the individual who represents them at a local level, and the political party. The name of the leader of that party is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.

I believe that there is a difference, regardless of who is in charge politically at a national level, between a change of leader and a change in the direct relationship between the constituent and the individual who represents them while standing on behalf of a political party. As I say, the name of the leader of the political party is not on the ballot paper, so I think there is a difference.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again and I do not wish to push this point too far, because I personally do not think that there should be a general election if the ruling party changes its leader. However, the thrust of his argument was that what is in people’s minds when they vote is the political party and the name of the leader; he said it was about the difference between Boris Johnson and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If that is important, and the leader changes, and so does the party’s political programme—that relates to the wording on the ballot paper of the political party and has been there since the Representation of the People Act 1969—I think there is a solid argument for holding a general election. It is not an argument that I completely agree with, but I would be interested to hear his response to it.

[Robbie Moore]

I thank the hon. Member for that point, but my point is that when a general election takes place, the individual voter casts their vote for an individual associated with a political party, which has a mandate—if it gets into power—based on a manifesto. The party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper. It is the manifesto that is associated with that political party. I do feel there is a difference.

I am strongly of the view that if an individual Member of Parliament associated with a political party decides to change course and stand for a different political party —crosses the Floor of the House—an automatic by-election should be triggered, which ultimately gives their constituents the right to choose. That is slightly different from the debate about political leadership, because a party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I could not be more delighted to go into details about different voting systems. The hon. Gentleman will know that AV is a preferential system, not a proportional one. I am talking about proportional representation. AV would have been a better system than first past the post, but a proportionate system would be even better. It has long been in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that that would mean fairer representation and more people having their say.

[Graham Stringer]

I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.

[Lisa Smart]

Many people, when talking about tactical voting, mean voting to stop somebody: a person has a preferred party or candidate, but lends their vote to somebody else to stop a third party they really do not want getting in. There are many different proportional systems—indeed, we have different systems in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and I would happily debate many of them, but I think it would test the patience of this Chamber if I were to get further into the weeds about my favourites. I recommend the Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform panel from the Liberal Democrat spring conference, where a number of us spent the weekend. I very much enjoyed being on that panel, which did get into the weeds. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but I assure hon. Members that it was a packed house with standing room only.

I will move on to the need to change and reform the House of Lords. It is simply indefensible that unelected peers continue to make laws for life in a modern democracy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing it with a chamber that has a proper democratic mandate—one that reflects the country it serves, rather than the Prime Minister of the day. In a general election, the power sits with electors over who their MPs are. If they do not like something that their MP has done, they can choose somebody else at the next general election. Voters have precisely no power to do so with Members of the House of Lords. There are peers currently sitting in the House of Lords who have moved parties, and there is no mechanism to remove them for doing so.

Thirdly, the ministerial code must be enshrined in law. The fact that scandal after scandal has come out of previous Governments, and indeed this one, shows why there should be a set of legally enforceable expectations for Ministers and those in positions of power. Without that in law, we cannot guarantee that they will act with integrity, especially given that former Conservative Ministers are leaving the party rather than allowing themselves to be held to account. Right now, Ministers who act corruptly or behave improperly face, at worst, a quiet resignation and a comfortable future elsewhere. That is not accountability. Enshrining the ministerial code in legislation would mean that there are real consequences for those who abuse the public trust.

The recipient of a number of these defections is Reform UK, but it is not a party of insurgents challenging the establishment. It is more accurately described as a scrapyard for the very people who were the establishment and failed. Rather than accepting the public’s verdict on their failures in government, those politicians are seeking refuge in a party that wants to make us all less safe by dragging the UK out of the European convention on human rights, asking for payment for NHS services and platforming conspiracy theorists. Although by-elections for those who defect may not be mandated, the voters in those seats have the ultimate power—the power of their vote, come the next election—and I hope they will use it at every available opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.

One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.

As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.

Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.

This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.

[Graham Stringer]

I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another.

As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern.

Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament.

The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are putting in place the youth guarantee, which helps young people into work. It is a serious issue. I remind the hon. Member that on the Conservatives’ watch one in eight young people were not in education, training or work.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Q12. The National Audit Office report on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which came out on Monday, surprised none of us in its conclusion that the Department for Transport’s lack of engagement with mayoral authorities, local authorities and other involved parties in the north of England was leading to poor programming and a lack of investment in the rail system. We in the north of England deserve a rail system fit for the 21st century, not the 19th century. Investing in the rail system will enable growth in the north of England, which will benefit the whole country. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the slowness of investment in the rail system so that we can get that growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. We are implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which is long overdue, providing homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections. Through that, we will strengthen regulation to protect leaseholders from abuse and poor service, which she has highlighted; bring the injustice of fleecehold to an end to protect up to 1.75 million households; and make sure that leaseholders receive standardised service charge documentation, making it easier for them to challenge unreasonable bills. The hon. Lady makes good points, and that Act will help to change things.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Q5. This country can be proud of its history of religious tolerance and religious freedom. The quid pro quo for that is the right to criticise religion. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no introduction or reintroduction of a blasphemy law, either by statute, judicial overreach or a non-statutory definition of Islamophobia?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and it is important that I do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The freeze was introduced by them. That is why it is coming in next year.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Q12. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), when he was an official, produced a devastating report on the Home Office. Reading it, it shows a Department characterised by disarray and defeatism. There have been 12 Home Secretaries over the past 30 years. Some were better than others, but none managed to get the Department to deliver the services that people should be able to expect in this country. Will the Prime Minister give the new Home Secretary the necessary resources and policy interventions to ensure that she can be successful?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. She is bearing down on the challenges at the Home Office—most of them inherited from the last Government. We will make the changes necessary, and I have every confidence in the Secretary of State to do so.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The most fundamental thing, apart from specific recommendations or specific changes, is the underlying strength of the country and its services. That is true nowhere more than in the national health service. That is why the Budget, which has been attacked a lot, put in the resources to begin to turn the health service around. We can have the forums, the structures and the processes, but the underlying strength of the country is the most important thing.

The hon. Lady asked about the exercise this autumn. I very much hope it will not be the last; the inquiry recommended that they happen on a regular basis. It will be the first for many years and we want to make sure we learn as much from it as possible. In terms of funding for local resilience forums, they play an important role and we were able to put some increased resources into local government in the next financial year. That area, like others, will have to be considered in the round in the spending review that will be published later this year.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I am less sanguine about the report than my right hon. Friend. The report, or what is part of a report—it is difficult to assess when we do not know what the rest will say—has been too expensive and has taken too long to produce. From reading it, it does not seem to me to include some of the fundamental questions that I and my constituents would like answered. What was the cost-benefit analysis of the decisions taken during lockdown, for instance? What about lockdown itself? Was that a benefit or a disbenefit? What was the cost of effectively closing down the NHS, apart from for covid patients? Where did the virus come from? Did it come from China, which most of the evidence seems to indicate? Those questions are not being answered. Furthermore, I do not believe that setting up a new quango in conjunction with the Cabinet Office, which has no experience of service delivery, will be the answer to any future epidemic. The report does not answer the questions I would like answered.

[Pat McFadden]

I hope my hon. Friend does not think I am sanguine; I am not sanguine at all. Anyone who reads the national risk register should not be sanguine because, as I said in my statement, we live in a world of risk and vulnerability. As for the inquiry’s work, the inquiry is independent and is not instructed by the Government on the specific areas it goes into. It has 10 modules, as decided by the inquiry because it is independent.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The Paymaster General knows how much I respect conventions, but that is ultimately a matter for the other Chamber.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give way.

We should not be surprised that the Labour Government have only introduced this short Bill because they have no clear plans for wider Lords reform. In 2022, the Prime Minister endorsed Gordon Brown’s plans for an assembly of the nations and regions, but now that has been kicked into the long grass. Labour grandees such as Lord Blunkett have warned it risks mirroring “gridlock” too often seen in the United States. Lord Mandelson described the plan as a

“multi-layered cake…barely been put in the oven yet, let alone fully baked.”

Lord Adonis observed that within Labour,

“there is no consensus on reform”

and that it will be “difficult and controversial.” Even the current leader of the Lords, Baroness Smith, admitted this year that an elected Chamber risked

“losing the primacy of the Commons.”

Therein lies the dilemma for the Labour party and its new-found Commons majority. Perhaps Labour Ministers are starting to realise that Lords reform is challenging and difficult.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I will make some more progress and then I will give way.

In 1999, the reforms recognised the challenge. In this July’s King’s Speech background brief, the Labour Government asserted that the continued presence of excepted peers is “by accident”. That is simply not true. In 1999, Labour’s Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, told the other House that the presence of hereditaries was an intentional anomaly; it would ensure a future Government undertook proper and considered reform of the Lords. His fellow architect, Viscount Cranborne, called that

“the sand in the shoe”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 791.]

Now, this Labour Government want to declare war on the past without a clear target in sight. As they cannot agree on what to do, the Prime Minister has gone for this chipolata of a Bill, the mantra of change serving as a tiny fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. The emperor has no clothes—perhaps other than from Lord Alli.

[Graham Stringer]

The right hon. Member is making a case on shifting sand, which seems to boil down to one of people not having had time to consider the issue. First, this reform has been in two Labour manifestos, one in 1997 and one this year, and it had overwhelming support from the electorate. Secondly, the compromise reached between the Labour party and the Conservative party in 1999 was nothing to do with the good work done by many hereditaries; it was to stop logjam, because the House of Lords was threatening to hold up Labour’s programme and throw the Salisbury convention aside.

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

The purpose of the 1999 compromise was to ensure that we did not remove hereditary peers without considering the wider consequences. That is precisely my concern with the approach being pursued by the Government. This meagre Bill is not motivated by considered and enlightened principle. Labour wants to remove the independent and experienced voices of excepted peers so that it can parachute in a wave of new Labour cronies. It is change in the name of an Executive power grab, not change to serve the British people.

The excepted peers are immune from the needs of political patronage. They work in the public interest for the good of the nation. Edmund Burke once described them as

“the great Oaks that shade a Country”.

The same, I am afraid, cannot be said of the saplings of the new Labour intake.