They were elected on the basis of one party’s manifesto but are now a member of a different party.
The terms of their representation have significantly altered without a mandate from their constituency. Imo, they should be made to seek a reaffirmation of their mandate in those circumstances. Not to do so would be undemocratic.
That is why you shouldn’t vote for the party, but for which individual will best represent you/your local area 
That’s more relevant for local elections.
Do you also think that after a new leader of the ruling party is elected, they should face a general election too?
That’s a little bit more clear cut as it’s accepted that we don’t vote for a PM.
It is also accepted that we don’t vote for a party. The system of electing Members of Parliament predates parties.
However, if you strengthen party as an institution that dramatically, the MPs may as not well represent a constituency at all. The constituents get no vote on the party manifesto, nor any deviations from it. There is no principle of accountability left.
It is also difficult to think of how such a rule could be implemented that would not amount to the party leadership having the power to immediately remove any internal opposition, by withdrawing the party status of an MP that opposes them, forcing a by-election.
That is one of the most startling deviations between the Canadian and UK versions of the Westminster system. In Canada, that election is at the very least a strong norm.
So your saying that MP’s should do what you want, and if they don’t there should be a by-election?
Yes, although that makes standing on a particular party’s manifesto meaningless when in reality it is constitutionally binding once incorporated into a Queen’s speech.
Erskine and May would agree with you, however. It’s just my opinion that this is what should happen.
Exactly. If we follow your same principle, it is often not the party themselves that people even remember, but the leader of that party.
So if you were to implement one, you’d have to implement the other.
David Davis calling for him to go, in Parliament.
Cromwell allusion, or am I mis-remembering?
Yes I do because I am currently paying for it. I watch perhaps one show a year across all their channels and use the website for news and sport. But given the opportunity I would be happy to use none of it.
I just want that choice without running the risk of going to jail because my cat accidentally changes the channel when sitting on the remote.
Often when I have a day off I stick Ken Bruce on my phone and listen along in the background, trying to do Pop Master. I also check BBC Sport to see what’s going on, although there are lots of alternates for that.
As an expat living in the States, I’m not sure how I would pay for the Beeb? Is there a mechanism for that? One of the TV channels I have is BBC America and I pay for that as part of the overall TV package.
It was. It was also more recently used by Amery to Chamberlain in 1940 apparently (folks on twitter talking about it)
Taken from the mail
"It is the first defection from the Tories to Labour in 15 years, since Quentin Davies jumped ship. It comes amid claims that Mr [Johnson]wept as he begged MPs for more time last night.
The PM is alleged to have broken down in tears as he met wavering backbenchers yesterday - with one reportedly saying he ‘knows he is finished’."
Bahahahah and this twat thinks he’s the next Churchill, people should remember this when he acts all Churchillian…
You can’t be sent to jail for non payment of the licence fee, the court would only consider you for a fine. You can however be sent to prison for non payment of that fine and any other court costs you are liable for.
The BBC iplayer should be available worldwide for a similar price to Netflix. I’d much rather pay for it than the rubbish on NF.
Unsurprising, but the screenshot itself is hilarious…