Douglas Carswell may have given an undeserved victory to Ed Milliband, and he has certainly given a filip to Nigel Farage, for both of which he should ashamed. People seemed to have talked about that a lot. However, he is definitely taking Parliament closer to the tyranny of party, which is much worse, and people haven't really talked about that enough. I don't believe he's doing it cynically - there’s no doubting that he is a man of principles, but so was Lenin. Neither's happen to be mine.
I feel we are underplaying the constitutional impact not so much of what he has done, but how he has done it. We have had MPs defecti before - there are a
surprising number. They make excellent copy, and they are disastrous for parties. However, most don't resign their seats. In fact the last MP to do so was
Bruce Douglas-Mann in 1982. Reflexively people tend to think this is bad, arguing that MP's who switch allegiance should be forced to face their electors again. Apparently this is more 'democratic.' Obviously, I don't really care if it's more democratic. Douglas Carswell does. But where does this end: when Claire Short
resigned as a Labour MP, should she have faced the electors? When parties discipline members by withholding the whip, should that trigger an election? Should all the Liberal Democrats fight their seats anew after their volte-face on a manifesto promise?
Of course they shouldn't. We don't elect parties; we elect people. Their electors elected them; next year they get to vote again. Let us roll back party, not entrench it. Switching party shouldn't be privileged. If we believe in having independent-minded people in public life, in the power of Parliament over government, then we need less party, not more. If this becomes the norm, we move ever closer to party lists and the horrors that attend it.
The electors of Clacton elected Douglas Carswell. Turn down the Manor of Northstead and in the name of God, Stay.
