Talk:List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation

Cross the floor - changing parties?
Why does this list include members who have left their party or lost the whip? Surely a member 'crosses the floor' only when going into active opposition to his / her party - by joining the other side (joining the party or joining a new party)? Would that not exclude most of the members here, who have not changed sides but fallen out with their own side? --Rbreen (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some whipless MPs go on to operate as basically independents or even group together as an informal party - the Whipless 9 in 1994-1995 were one such who found that they could combine with the opposition to defeat the government on specific policies. The effect is much the same as those who bother to join another party or form a formal new one that they may be the only member of. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding those who have had the whip removed is causing confusion for some. Perhaps separating them would be a good idea? Rsloch (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian Sedgemore
Is he missing for any particular reason? 87.194.252.72 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends if Parliament was still sitting. Over the years a number of retiring MPs have left their party during the election campaign and it's tricky to track who was and wasn't technically still an MP when switching. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Headings
Since this whole article is identified as being a "List of...", can we simplify and shorten the sub-headings by removing "List of.... from the beginning of each? Ground Zero | t 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding intro notes for certain parliaments
I'd have a bash at this but the template looks like it will break. It would be useful to include introductions that note a) when there's a lot of confusion about precise party labels e.g. 1916-1922 when a lot of MPs wandered between the Coalition and non-Coalition wings of each party without always being clear and/or doing the same thing at Westminster and in the constituency; and b) when parties merged and thus all the MPs were fused together e.g. 1859, 1912, 1968, 1988. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

High time this article was reshaped
Let's be clear - an MP who loses the whip briefly because of disciplinary issues isn't actually crossing the floor; nor even if it is for the rest of their career. (For example, Eric Joyce's speaking and voting record is not different to a typical Labour MP.) It's only 'crossing the floor' if the MP clearly declares opposition to their previous policy. The article would be far more useful if it stopped being a list of MPs who nominally changed partisan allegiance, and restricted itself only to those who actually made it clear it was a case of changing sides. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Four years later) I concur. Maybe the best way is to re-title the article and tables rather than losing information, but there is a difference between cases where the whip is withdrawn for a period and a politician actually crossing the floor. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with, changing the name of the article would proberbly be the best way forward. As there are already indervidual titles to each sub-list, having a more general article title would most likely be best. Although, the potential issue is links to this article specifically referencing "crossing the floor" PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What about changing the article name to List of British politicians who have changed party or List of British politicians who have changed party affiliation? Or maybe it has to be List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation, as the article is only about people currently in legislatures. Bondegezou (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of those, I think the best would be List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation because it clarifies that the members of these lists are/were at the time elected. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds to me like a good idea. But given we've taken 4 years and 5 months to get this far, let's give everyone else a little time to pitch in.
 * Everyone else: are you OK with a move to List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation? If not, say so soon. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging people who have previously shown intrest in this article.           PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the move. Ground Zero &#124; t 12:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just thought, maybe do it without "elected" in because this article has members of the House of Lords which is unelected.
 * That complication has come up before with some other article titles, and I think we ended up just ignoring it!
 * Okay. Sounds good.PoliceSheep99 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, have made the change, and tweaked the lead section to match. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC) I've just changed the section titles to be consistent with new title. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Updates needed
David Steel is back in the LibDems and Lord Heseltine has had the Tory whip withdrawn. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Members of Parliament who were suspended from their parliamentary party
Should this section be kept separate, or integrated with an explanation in the notes?PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I like having it separate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitting apart historical information
With the current political situation plus the splits in the 1900s this page is getting ridiculously long. Given that context is useful (and actually only one of the sections is truly ridiculous), I'm wondering whether it should be split by date. Maybe pre and post 1900 unless anyone has any objections?

We can make the new page the historical one "List of elected British politicians who have changed party affiliation (pre 1900)" so that the reader gets what they expect to get.

Thoughts?

--Philipwhiuk (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * PS - I'm very flexible on the date - it just needs to be something sensible IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipwhiuk (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I entirely support splitting the article in some way. It is too long. We could do by date, or we could do by assembly. If by date, I note our by-election list articles split at various points in the nineteenth century (there were a lot of by-elections back then), 1900, 1918, 1931, 1950, 1979 and 2010. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Making sense of the New Party - Baldwin and Brown
I've been trying to make some sense of the New Party changes. New Party (UK) lists Oswald Mosley, Cynthia Mosley, Oliver Baldwin, W. J. Brown, Robert Forgan, and John Strachey as coming from Labour when the party was formed in 1931, adding that Baldwin and Brown "resigned after a day".


 * Baldwin's article says he "was briefly associated with Oswald Mosley's New Party, but soon repudiated Mosley and rejoined Labour". The Rush database only describes him as Labour in 1929-31. He is listed here (both Lab-New and New-Ind) as "left after one day", but there is nothing about him rejoining the party.


 * Brown's article says "the following day, he resigned from the New Party", but his entry in the ODNB says "Although he decided against joining the New Party, Brown resigned the Labour whip in March 1931". The Rush database says " 	Sat as Ind. Lab. for latter part of this service" with no note about the New Party. He is not listed on this page, either as Lab-New-Ind or Lab-Ind.

Any ideas which of these are accurate? I haven't yet tried to delve into contemporary reports, but I could try that if needed... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Baldwin was the Labour candidate defending (and losing) Chatham at the 1931 election - the sitting MP had gone over to National Labour but couldn't get the Conservatives to withdraw and so stood elsewhere; the New Party also stood. It's commonly listed that he was in the New Party for one day but it's difficult to find details on the web. |||requestHandler|||anyWords|||exactPhrase|||dateTo=1931-03-31|||dateFrom=1931-02-27|||sortby=dateAsc This piece from a Melbourne paper notes that the Labour NEC did formally expel some of the MPs who founded the New Party; perhaps Baldwin's brief membership meant he was below the radar and so easily readmitted to the fold. This article notes he had resigned from the Dudley Labour Party a few days before the New Party was formed which may explain the constituency shift. Perhaps he would not have been taken back at Dudley but the wider Labour Party were willing to put up with him. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

PCCs
Hasn't David Munro, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner, left the Conservatives and is now an independent? Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris Skidmore
Some editors have listed Chris Skidmore as switching from Conservative to independent. Skidmore resigned as a Conservative MP. He did not in any meaningful sense sit as an independent MP. I cannot see any citations given saying he did that. Other MPs in the past have quit in protest and aren’t listed here as changing affiliation. I am concerned that Wikipedia is inventing details that aren’t verified or meaningful. Bondegezou (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. His statement does not mention resigning from the Conservatives, only resigning as an MP. Also the Commons does not have him sitting as an independent: https://members.parliament.uk/member/4021/career
 * doktorb wordsdeeds 09:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed him for now, but happy to hear further discussion on the point. Bondegezou (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)