I hope you will forgive the impertinence of a letter like this from a mere Conservative PPC. But when considering what column to write this week for this website, there was a single subject that suggested itself; to ask the three Labour MPs most respected by their opponents to consider defecting to our party.
Obviously, all of you will have been plagued with the question many times before by journalists. Political parties are by their nature big tents; every MP, even candidates, will have to swallow the odd unpalatable thing for the sake of what they believe to be the wider good, otherwise we would have 650 parties in Parliament. It is quite understandable that all of you have felt that whilst you disagreed with Labour on some issues, taken as a whole, you wished to retain party affiliation. And then there is the childish point-scoring employed when politicians, as the common term has it, “defect”. The very terminology reduces what is often a profound political journey to a cheap card trick; a score for this or that leader against his enemy. I know, from the courageous risks each of you have already taken in your political careers, that you would find this extremely distasteful. In writing this article in the form of a letter, I do not intend such point scoring. My contempt for both Quentin Davies MP and for the Labour Party on the matter of his defection came precisely because it was clear he had not made such a journey. Aside from his heartfelt Europhilia, Mr. Davies had nothing about him that would commend him to the Labour Party were he not a walking opportunity to score anti-Tory points. He has voted against gay rights, been fined for animal cruelty and is a supporter of the death penalty; as far as I know, he has not resiled from these positions. It is unclear to me what political philosophy of Mr. Davies resulted in the offer of the Labour whip. Surely being a Eurofederalist is not enough in and of itself?
In the case of each one of you, there is more for a Conservative supporter to covet than just a Labour scalp and some joshing at PMQs. I have admired you all for some time, and I am hardly the only one. This is not a line offered to make a point now. Last year, during the selection for the Battersea constituency where I finished in second place to our excellent candidate Jane Ellison, in the second round we were asked a question which came up in other selections: “Can you tell us which Labour MPs you admire and why?”
Not perhaps an obvious question, but a very good one. And members of the panel reading Conservative Home will back me up when I say that I answered “Frank Field and Kate Hoey”. On that occasion I forgot Mrs. Stuart, but the pressure was on and I was nervous. Still, the point remains that both I and plenty of other Conservatives have long admired the courage, the original thought, the libertarian defiance of authoritarian statism which each of you has practised. Mr. Field was asked to do the big job on welfare reform and then not permitted to carry his reforms through. Mrs. Hoey has been a staunch defender of civil liberties and of the countryside; I, and all other field sports supporters owe her a huge debt of gratitude. Mrs Stuart is most often in the news lately as Labour’s emissary to the committee drawing up the European Constitution, and who was a woman brave enough to blow the whistle on the power-grab despite the fact her own political career would then be kicked into touch. All three of you are known and respected as independently minded patriots.
I am sure that it is a highly developed sense of honour and ties to individuals that has kept all three of you on the Labour benches. I was, however briefly, a member of Labour myself. But I would ask you to ask yourselves, are you comfortable with a Labour Party that uses “citizens’ juries” paid £75 per person to decide on policy? Can you live with mandatory ID cards? Do you really believe that animal testing for cosmetics is fine, but hunting is not? Do you support 90 day detention without trial? And finally, can any one of you, elected with the trust of your constituents, sit by while Gordon Brown signs the European Constitution without the referendum he promised, alongside Blair, in the manifesto on which you were elected? Will you indeed stomach ceding the powers of your constituents to a centralising bureaucracy without their permission? I cannot believe it.
David Cameron is right to fight just one battle at a time. We must oppose this Constitution now, before ratification. What happens afterwards is a matter for that time. But it is the job of the Loyal Opposition to oppose the Government where it is wrong; and as you all know, on this matter of supreme importance it is horribly wrong. Were you to join us now, nothing could make the point more clearly. I do not concede that Brown, like Blair before him, cannot be made to give us a referendum. In this vitally important matter each one of you can help. You are, and have been for some years, respected and longed-for by Conservatives, not for cheap point scoring but because we believe your values align with ours and your courage would be an ornament to our party. I do appeal to you to think about it. Mr. Brown has placed us on a watershed. He is prepared to spin to Parliament that this treaty and the Constitution are different. All of you know better. I implore you to consider your positions and to consider joining the party that can put a stop to this.
Yours sincerely,
Conservative PPC for Corby and East Northamptonshire
This is a silly article. Almost as silly as Bercow and Mercer must now feel.
Posted by: James | October 25, 2007 at 09:09 AM
All fair points Louise but if they are as principled as I'm sure they are, they would resign as MPs on defection.
If there's one thing worse than the defections we've seen over the last few years, it's the pathetic site of such individuals hanging on to their cushy seats until a new berth is found for them on the other side.
These three individuals I would hope would have the self-respect to resign immediately. If not, they would be following the same, well trod path.
Posted by: Steve | October 25, 2007 at 09:18 AM
I'm sure our PPC will be delighted to read this article. Presumably you'd be just as happy if someone suggested your Labour opponent defected to us, putting you out of a job?
Posted by: Birmingham Tory | October 25, 2007 at 09:22 AM
I did meet Frank Field once. I thought him a true gentleman, a man of integrity. He is a Christian whose faith leads him to honest politics, what a rarity! My only comment about Louise Bagshaws suggestion is that it would be out of character for him to cross the floor except in the most extreme circumstances; but then perhaps such circumstances are here.
Posted by: John Lindley | October 25, 2007 at 09:32 AM
I would be delighted if my Labour opponent changed his mind on just about everything and defected to the Conservatives!
But I fear it's unlikely.
Posted by: Louise Bagshawe | October 25, 2007 at 09:34 AM
If a defector resigned and then came over, they would still have to prove themselves before being given the opportunity to join our candidates list.
In my opinion, you cannot trust defectors, despite being well principled.
It would be like marrying an adulterous mistress - could you ever trust them 100%
Posted by: John Craig | October 25, 2007 at 09:34 AM
EDM 670
ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
17.01.2007
Field, Frank
'That this House notes that those polls that have questioned the English report a clear majority in favour of an English parliament; and further notes that it is this issue, and not Scottish independence or even House of Lords reform, that is the issue that voters now put at the top of their priorities for constitutional reform.'
....................................
29/09/2007 The Times
'The Tories are in fact an English party in all but name and their leader doesn't seem to realise this. All bar three Tory MPs sit for English constituencies. Making the English question his big idea could give Mr Cameron the kind of electoral launch for the general election that he gained last time he was in Blackpool seeking the Tory leadership.'
Frank Field
Sounds like a useful sort of a chap.
Posted by: englandism | October 25, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Birmingham Tory wrote:
"I'm sure our PPC will be delighted to read this article. Presumably you'd be just as happy if someone suggested your Labour opponent defected to us, putting you out of a job?"
Fair point. However, I would expect our new member to endorse our excellent PPC, whilst campaigning in a seat elsewhere in the country. Like Louise, I am big admirer of both Frank and Kate. But Gisela has fought against the badly needed reforms the Conservative Party has had to make in Birmingham, in housing in particular. Housing is a major success story in Birmingham.
She needs to recognise the achievements of the Birmingham Conservative Group and make friends with certain Edgbaston councillors before she could even be considered the outgoing Conservative MP for Birmingham Edgbaston.
We have a fine PPC in place, and I want her to take the oath as the member for Birmingham Edgbaston. Gisela would be welcome of course...but somewhere else. That of course is a problem for the party nationally to resolve.
Posted by: Derek Johnson | October 25, 2007 at 09:49 AM
I don't think its in good taste to invite defections. A defection must be a decision of conscience and made by the individual of their own volition. In a democratic society every MP has the right to change their political allegiance in just the same way as the electorate are free to change their vote. However that decision cannot be encouraged from the outside. For the record, a certain person, I won't name my source, once told me that Frank Fields has been thinking about a volte face for some time.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 25, 2007 at 09:50 AM
Great idea.
Those brought up in 1950s Old Labour households would feel very comfortable having such folk in a Tory administration. With similar nostalgia, couldn't you brainwash Gwynneth Dunwoody into a more Tory frame of mind. Now there's a real politician. Pity about her politics!
Posted by: Ken Stevens | October 25, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Field and Hoey are too conservative for Cameron anyway. Stuart might be another matter.
Posted by: David Lindsay | October 25, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Lovely idea but isn't it better having three "Conservatives" on the Labour benches giving us a notional 6 votes rather than have them cross the floor and have them replaced by clueless Labour loyalists? We'd end up with just the 3 votes.
Posted by: James Cleverly | October 25, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I think it extremely unlikely that any of these 3 would ever defect to the Conservative party nor would I really want them to. Whilst they are obviously principled people who have sacrificed their career advancement for their beliefs all three have voted on for measures which most Conservatives would oppose. Far better that they follow their consciences and vote with us on the rare ocassion when we are in agreement.
The actions of people like Quentin Davies and Shaun Woodward are an absolute disgrace and apart from a few days headlines have brought little benefit to the Labour party.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | October 25, 2007 at 10:22 AM
"The actions of people like Quentin Davies and Shaun Woodward are an absolute disgrace and apart from a few days headlines have brought little benefit to the Labour party."
Malcolm Dunn, very true. Those who defect ought to be made to fight an immediate bi-election. Davies was elected on a Conservative platform and it is a violation of voters wishes to have him representing them as a Labour MP. Would Davis have crossed the floor if he had to put his case before his constituents first? Of course not! Such naked opportunism should not be encouraged.
Posted by: Tony Makara | October 25, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I'd love to have Claire Short in the party. Is she even still an MP? She reminds me of when a few Ministers had some redeeming qualities. It's been such a long time that you can forget they weren't always the utter shower they are now.
Posted by: Simon R | October 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM
No I think the 'citizen juries' are a horribly Marxist idea, and it goes against the grain of my Englishness that its like someone dragging their fingernails down a blackboard. But this need for Citizen Juries is really an admittance by Brown of Labour’s corruption of Parliament, for Brown’s Stalinism has so corrupted our 'representatives' in Parliament that he needs to stage some ‘consultations’ in order to find out what people think. But as we know, Brown only seeks advice to fit with the views he already has, so making these loathsome Citizen juries as useless as our so called representatives who sit on the Labour benches.
I also loath the idea of ID cards, which seems to be little more than needing a passport to walk down your own street, and again is the sign of Labour Government failure. For we only need passports to walk down our streets because Labour have failed to ask travellers to this country to present their ID’s at the border, and our border controls having collapsed, it means we all have to carry our papers. It also changes the relationship between citizen and state, where the state rather than being the servant of the people, now takes upon its self to license us, which again my Englishness rebels against.
As for 90 day detention, it again goes against my English culture of Habeas Corpus
Everything this Labour government is goes against the grain of who I am, as an Englishman I loath it, it seems we have some more Norman rulers ruling us again.
As for Kate Hoey, Frank Field etc, I have a lot of time for them, but crossing the floor of the House diminishes the person doing it and all they may stand for. It would be better if the Conservatives supported any Labour rebels to become independents, in that way the Conservative party could work with and support them, but their views, which are important, won’t get diminished by the resigning the Labour party whip, in fact it might just give them a much better platform to advance their views.
Posted by: Iain | October 25, 2007 at 11:55 AM
A poor article, weak subject and badly written. Not up to usual conhome standards.
Posted by: Matt | October 25, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I for one won't criticise Louise for writing this article/open letter. Thousands of people are seeing through the sham that is Gordon Brown's Labour Party on a daily basis and are very much examining their beliefs in light of the shambles this country has become.
Labour politician are no different in my book. If the likes of Frank Field decided that it is the Conservative Party that best reflects the solutions and aspirations he holds for Britain, we will know that this is a serious and credible politician who has done a lot of soul-searching in reaching such a view. One certainly couldn't compare any Field defection with that of Davies or Woodward. Frank Field cannot be described as a naked opportunist like those two individuals.
Since being dumped on the sidelines for a decade by a Labour Party that bottled welfare reform, the last ten years in Frank Field's life constitute the biggest waste of political talent I can ever recall.
There is a job of work to be done to clear up the mess this country finds itself in. As a Conservative, I for one won't turn away people of ability to complete this task.
Posted by: Derek Johnson | October 25, 2007 at 01:27 PM
Is there not some irony in describing Jane Ellison as excellent and then slagging off Labour as Europhile.
MPs are elected to represent their constituencies, if they switch, they should resign and restand. These guys like being MPs so not much chance of that then.
What's perhaps more concerning is that fine independent minds like Stuart, Field and Hoey won't emerge on Tory benches when CCHQ seeks to impose candidates on constituencies.
Posted by: TaxCutter | October 25, 2007 at 01:48 PM
To be fair to the author though, Frank Field's views below look very Tory to me!
http://www.labourhome.org/story/2007/10/24/10596/139
Posted by: TaxCutter | October 25, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Those people are all socialists. They may ooze common sense, and I know it's depressing that we don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing, but they are still too far from the party on crucial issues.
Posted by: Adam- | October 25, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Your request to three in question is rather silly.
Such a request should be done confidentially, you put them in an impossible position to respond to such a public invitation
Posted by: Richard Calhoun | October 25, 2007 at 03:08 PM
I have always admired Frank Field, and, were he to join us, I am sure he would do so for genuine reasons. I also know "Conservatives" who vote for Kate Hoey, although her fans in our party appear to be mainly obsessive pro-hunt supporters. Whilst I cannot comment on Gisela Stuart, Frank Field would be a great defection to us.
Posted by: Chris Buckwell | October 25, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Really, TaxCutter? "He says that the 'mega rise' in young single parents started after Thatcher's destruction of male manufacturing jobs." He's right, of course.
Posted by: David Lindsay | October 25, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Louise after reading that article I wouldn't be at all suprised if you remained a ppc after the election.
Posted by: Annabelle Thomson | October 25, 2007 at 06:38 PM