[cressida]

When I vote in an MP to represent my constituency I expect him to vote for what his personal opinion is, and not what the Whips coerce him to vote for -

what is your opinion?

[Fogey]

I agree, an MP should be representing me not his leader.

[evildrneil]

Originally Posted by Fogey

I agree, an MP should be representing me not his leader.

The only way to do that is to elect independent MPs and get rid of the party system. The way things run at the moment MPs are party representatives first with people representatives a very distant second...

[Funky_Gibbon]

Devil's Advocate time

Non-independant MPs stand for election based on the policies of the party they are part of, not their own personal opinions. If their personal opinions are different from those of their party why are they a member of that party?

And if an MP gets elected to office because of the policies of their party and on the back of support from their party shouldn't that MP vote in favour of the policies he stood for?

*having lit touch paper, stands well back*

[hank]

Perhaps the way forward is to have secret voting in Parliament. Then the whips would not be able to coerce their flock into voting the party line.
Part of the present problem is that MPs do not have enough power, they are just cannon fodder for the whips.

[Dexkdes]

Originally Posted by Funky_Gibbon

Devil's Advocate time

Non-independant MPs stand for election based on the policies of the party they are part of, not their own personal opinions. If their personal opinions are different from those of their party why are they a member of that party?

And if an MP gets elected to office because of the policies of their party and on the back of support from their party shouldn't that MP vote in favour of the policies he stood for?

*having lit touch paper, stands well back*

That argument assumes a "black and white" scenario, which isn't the case. At the end of the day, a candidate can have all the support in the world, but if the MP doesn't do anything for their constituents, and indeed they don't vote for them, they wont get elected.

Being an MP is more nationalised than is required, and MP's once again need to feel accountable to the people they represent, because that's what they do. They don't represent the Labour party or whatever, they represent their constituents at a National level.

[HeadingNorth]

Originally Posted by hank

Perhaps the way forward is to have secret voting in Parliament. Then the whips would not be able to coerce their flock into voting the party line.

The major, major bugbear with this is that neither will the constituents know how their MP has voted. He could be getting elected on a platform of improved social care and then voting to close every hospital, school and care home in the country, for all anyone would know.

It's an idea that I once thought of myself until this flaw was pointed out to me. I've not yet come up with a scheme whereby the constituents will know how an MP voted, but his party Whips will not.


The major flaw with independent MPs is that it's simply impossible for them to know enough things about enough subjects, or to scrutinise every single Bill, independently. Martin Bell was elected as an independent and did very little - not, by any means, because he was lazy, but because without the support of a party behind him, and having to attempt to scrutinise every piece of legislation entirely by himself, he found the task completely beyond him. It would be beyond anybody. They would, in the end, be forced to collaborate, which would mean some equivalent to the Whips' Office telling them what the collaborative decision on Bill XYZ was, and therefore, how they should vote.

It's not an ideal system. It's not even within smelling distance of an ideal system. Unfortunately the obvious and easy ways of improving it, turn out not to help.

[melthebell]

if i aint got a whip i suppose id have to use my hand.

errrrrrrrrrrrrm

[melthebell]

i aint seen any walnut whips for a while mind

[lyndix]

Originally Posted by melthebell

if i aint got a whip i suppose id have to use my hand.

errrrrrrrrrrrrm

You only came on this thread cos you thought it were a bit kink didn`t you???

Me too...................................bend over!!!!

[Elmambo]

The Whip system is corrupt and is responsible along with the spinelessness of our MP's, for the ill's which have infected our governments over the years. It effectively means, you do as the PM, senior Cabinet say or you have no political future. This is just a step away from dictatorship.

The US, has a better system, their equivalent of Ministers, Cabinet, etc., are from outside Senate or Congress, they have in theory nothing to gain or loose by supporting the Government. Well that's the idea !!

[Funky_Gibbon]

Originally Posted by Elmambo

The US, has a better system, their equivalent of Ministers, Cabinet, etc., are from outside Senate or Congress, they have in theory nothing to gain or loose by supporting the Government. Well that's the idea !!

Apart from their extremely well paid jobs you mean? They all work at 'the pleasure of the President' which means they do what the President says or they get sacked.

[HeadingNorth]

Originally Posted by Funky_Gibbon

Apart from their extremely well paid jobs you mean? They all work at 'the pleasure of the President' which means they do what the President says or they get sacked.

The advantage to the US system lies more in the Congress not being beholden to the President for their places - or, indeed, beholden to any member of the government executive. They are, first and foremost, beholden to their constituents, who will pick a replacement if they're not happy.

That said, I dislike the US system for several other reasons outside the scope of this thread. I doubt that a perfect - I sometimes doubt that even a reasonably satisfactory - system could ever exist!

[MR BENN]

whips and MP`s ..........the mind boggles




*gets coat*