MP Nicholls, blasts “selfish” floor-crossing

In his maiden speech to the House of Assembly, St Thomas MP Gregory Nicholls, the new home affairs and information minister staunchly defended proposed anti-defection legislation, framing it as a vital shield for the “democratic legitimacy” of the Barbadian voter.

​The MP, a long-standing member of the Barbados Labour Party (BLP), argued that representatives who switch sides after being elected under a party banner are committing a “betrayal” of the constituents who supported that party’s specific manifesto and ideology.

 

​Nicholls dismissed critics who claim the bill silences freedom of expression, asserting that the collective mandate of the voters outweighs the personal whims of the individual representative.

 

​”We do not stand here in our own names,” the MP said, noting that while independent candidates run on their own merits, party-affiliated members wear their party’s mandate as a ‘badge of honour’.

 

​”If elected representatives are allowed to switch sides at the drop of a hat… it effectively overturns the decision of voters. Anti-defection laws prevent the betrayal and preserve the electoral mandate of the people.”

 

​Drawing on regional and national history, the MP cited the collapse of governments in Guyana and past political shifts in Barbados — specifically the 1989 DLP backbench split and more recent defections — as cautionary tales. He characterised many instances of “crossing the floor” as being motivated by “naked, selfish, personal reasons” including ministerial ambitions or financial gain. He did not give specific examples.

 

​The rookie St. Thomas MP took aim at recent political movements, suggesting that current floor-crossing is being used as a “dishonest solution” to fill a leadership vacuum within the opposition, rather than reflecting genuine ideological shifts.

 

He slammed as a “ramshackle” argument the fact that the current Constitution does not recognise political parties arguing that the entire structure of the government, from the appointment of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, inherently recognises and relies upon the function of political parties.

​

The lawyer-politician ended his speech by emphasising that the law does not prevent a representative from leaving a party, but simply requires them to seek a fresh mandate from the people.

 

​”This law requires you to go back and get your mandate from the people who have put you here,” he said. “What can be undemocratic about giving the people the final say?”