Actually, you’re voting for a person rather than a party. That explains why they are allowed to change sides or become independent without the need for a by-election.
No doubt there are other jobs out there that allow this, but I’m pretty certain that when I took a job as a maths teacher, I couldn’t just decide one day that I didn’t fancy doing it anymore and walk into the English department and declare that I’m one of them now. 
Actually, no Dextrous when i vote in a general election, my ‘cross’ goes to the party whose policies i agree with overall, not whether the leader of that party, can ‘entertain’ us, or has a nice smile, or can have a 'drink with the lads.
Leaders come and go very quickly, and so they should if they can no longer lead the team.
That’s the problem lately, the teams don’t want to sing from the same hymn sheet so, the gaffer keeps changing 
However the majority, back when Putin invaded, supported Ukraine and supported support for Ukraine. So we can set aside your narrow, blinkered views.
Which is fortunate as letting Putin have his way would have only served to encourage his next steps to re-unite the old USSR. Don’t worry you people of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - when Putin’s tanks roll into your countries we have confirmation from Foxy that he is really quite sure that he doesn’t care what happens to you.
You might think that you’re voting for a party, but you’re actually voting for a person (ie the local candidate) who is “currently” a member/representative of that party. Hence, he/she can jump ship and stay in a nice little earner of a job with a very healthy pension scheme, whenever they want.
As can be seen from defections from time to time. Or those who “lose” the party membership … I.e. “fired”, but don’t have to quit their job.
I don’t make the rules Anise. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Sounds like you’re talking about by- elections Dextrous.
You’d hope so, but sadly not. You are voting for a candidate to represent your local constituency. They may well be eg a Labour member now, but they can change their affiliation whenever they want.
For example, when those Tory MPs quit the party and joined Reform, there weren’t any by-elections.
Feel free to Google this yourself.
FWIW, I think that this is a disgrace and totally against the idea of democracy.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10527/
I’m sure you think you’re right Dextrous, but in a general election, i will carry on voting for the party that i believe are concerned about national issues, rather than local issues.
Local by-elections are another matter. 
You’re missing the point Anise. In a general election, you may think you’re voting for a party, but you really are not. The same is true in a by-election.
The election slip has the candidate name first, then the party they’re “currently” saying they represent. If you were voting for a party, you wouldn’t even need the name of the candidate on the slip.
All of the following constituencies who voted for the Tories and who subsequently got a Tory MP “hired” no longer have a Tory MP, but a Reform one.
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-01-15/full-list-the-former-tories-who-have-defected-to-reform-uk
There have been no by-elections in these constituencies. The result of the GE stands.
And some leaders are brought down by the power of social media… 
Surely its a bit of both - you can have an excellent local MP who happens to belong to a party that you may not otherwise vote for. But he/she has a proven track record in working for your locality that its worth setting aside party concerns for this candidate. Equally, the candidate for your preferred party might be pretty unknown to you yet because he/she espouses the views of your preferred party that candidate will get your vote. Both scenarios are possible and probably neither are great.
But the UK’s constituency and FPTP general election structure has many worse flaws.
I agree. I was simply trying to correct the misconception about what one is actually voting for in a GE.
It may be a misconception but like Anise I tend to vote for the party and it’s Mandate … now in the US it is obvious that you are voting for the leader , and it’s to be hopes he’s an asset … over here they backstab the moment they think they may not win an election with the leader they’ve got. I’m thinking of Corbyn here amongst many others.
I’m sure most people vote for the party that they prefer, or even just the party that will do the least damage. 
Just a pity that it turns out that the candidate can defect once they get elected, if they do wish, and there’s pretty much bugger all the constituency can do about it until (s)he quits or the next GE.
(@Lincolnshire - tagged you in as I think you’d like this concept….). Can’t remember where I heard it (probably a radio comedy show), but someone suggested that we should all vote for the person or party that we’d least like to win, and whoever gets the least votes wins. Although an amusing idea, it’s probably got a fairer and more PR outcome than what we have now.
See this is why we’re all on to a hiding … as a voter we’re trying to be be fair, logical, openminded and evenhanded over what will be best for the country.
Sadly, the politicians have no such restrictions and are not.
I’m sure many of them do enter into matters with the best of intention. But, as my father used to claim, a significant number of them develop “powerosis”.
If I was 30 or 40 years younger I’d get into politics but without all the noble illusions.
By pure coincidence, I’ve just read this quote by an American philosopher, Eric Hoffer…
"‘Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’”
Sounds very apt.
Brill Idea. Do a Truss. PM. For 49 Days.
And. Press YES. This time only.
And Live Happily Ever After.
A-Men & Women.
