Parliament and the Party Whip, for or against and why

[G-Megas-Doux]

In the UK the House of Commons is a legislative body that is elected to represent the people of constituencies. As a body it is supposed to represent the public's opinions on a wide variety of matters and to reflect the majority of the electorate. Politics is a network of alliances of people who believe similar things on some issues and differing things on other issues. Sometimes the electorate votes for the party and sometimes for the individual. Either way the people that are sent to Westminster have a responsibility to the public to consider matters and reach their own conclusions.

My reason for pointing out the above would be that the whole point of a committee or legislative body is that all viewpoints are to be considered so that the best approach is adopted. Currently the Party politics is designed around a theoretical outlook on a limited number of matters however parties have a spectrum that is still quite broad thus meaning that there cannot be consensus on all issues.

When a consensus on a particular issue is unlikely and the leadership of a party have decided the course they wish to follow then the Party whip is applied to gain the voting numbers in a hope of winning the action for the vote or against the vote. Regarding bills on ethical matters, the point on devolving the question from the executive authority to the legislative authority is not only to show consensus but to show equal culpability.

If Parliament takes a vote on military action, or police action or even euthanasia then the true decision of the body or responsibility of the body cannot be fairly assessed when the whip is applied. First to note is that a politician can refuse to accept the whip. However refusal will lead to punishment by exile to the back benches. So a principled stand removes the person from access to policy formulation and even making a positive contribution from the inside. Second to note is that a politician accepting the whip without question or consideration is not doing their job. So we end with a dictatorship in Parliament without real debate or evolution of policies.

The idea that a minister or shadow minister should resign for disagreeing on one or several policies is laughable. They can still implement the policies as passed by Parliament however they should be afforded the right to oppose the motion without consequence. Intimidating a public official is illegal, why shouldn't threatening the cabinet position of the MP also be considered the same thing?

Feel free to argue for or against the position. If you would like to vote, I have included a poll.

[Gaidin]

If Parliament takes a vote on military action, or police action or even euthanasia then the true decision of the body or responsibility of the body cannot be fairly assessed when the whip is applied. First to note is that a politician can refuse to accept the whip. However refusal will lead to punishment by exile to the back benches. So a principled stand removes the person from access to policy formulation and even making a positive contribution from the inside. Second to note is that a politician accepting the whip without question or consideration is not doing their job. So we end with a dictatorship in Parliament without real debate or evolution of policies.

The idea that a minister or shadow minister should resign for disagreeing on one or several policies is laughable. They can still implement the policies as passed by Parliament however they should be afforded the right to oppose the motion without consequence. Intimidating a public official is illegal, why shouldn't threatening the cabinet position of the MP also be considered the same thing?

Feel free to argue for or against the position. If you would like to vote, I have included a poll.

The ability to represent the people in a representative body and for a party to apply consequences to their own party member's actions have always been two totally different concepts.

[Simon Cashmere]

There shouldn't be a parliament with question time and boring speeches - the politicians should be out working in their portfolios. Actual Parliament - is an expensive bad pantomime, where the mug taxpayer, spends many millions to let groups of the elite scream insults across at each other and make cheap sarcastic remarks. Why does that help democracy, and why does it help anyone? Keep elections and voting - and just have the politicians there to vote, not to make these stupid speeches. If they want to make stupid speeches let them do it at a press conference. UK/Australia/NZ parliaments are nauseating. US Congress is a little better because at least they are polite - but those modelled on the UK system - it's like watching the worst behaved class in a school that has been sent the substitute teacher.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I'm divided on the issue of Whips, but I can see why they are there. The dominant faction in the party needs to enforce its will on the others e.g. 'Old Labour' factions in 'New Labour'. Otherwise the opposition would see where the holes are and jam a wedge in there. I expect without Whips on his side Cameron, whilst not losing the Vote, would have been even more embarrassed after the Same-Sex Marriage Vote. In the end it depends on what faction you sympathise with I suppose.

[Gaidin]

What you get without an effective Whip is...well...look at John Boehner in the last four years, having to propose and then table bill after bill after bill because his own party won't even vote for it and the only way he can get some useful things passed is to cross the aisle to the Democrats, and party-wise in our country that's somewhat embarrassing, at least for the Republicans anyway.