Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

My response to SPUGGIE J’s post at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/intermittent-custodial-sentence-22695-4.html#post288734 would take that thread off topic so as a response is warranted I have started this thread.

SPUGGIE J made the point that MP’s will, as a general rule, follow what the party Whips order yet they are supposed to represent their constituency and not just the people that voted them into office. SPUGGIE J also mentioned that wonderful word ‘independent’.

I have long held the view that party politics has no place in government if we are to have a true representation of the people. Shouldn’t we have 600 odd independent of party MP’s? Of course factions and groups would form but only for the debate in question.

The current system has a political party in power and the rest are in opposition. That implies to me that whatever the party in power proposes the rest will oppose on principle because they are the opposition. Doesn’t that strike people as rather odd?

There are many ways to achieve an objective, a right way, a wrong way and probably other ways that are somewhere in between. Different people have different views on how to reach an objective but surely there can only be one way that would be beneficial to the majority of the populace? You only have to look at some threads on this forum to realise that.

Not every bit of legislation that the party in power puts to the house is done the ‘right’ way so quite rightly the opposition oppose it. But what happens when something has been thought through thoroughly and is presented for debate? The opposition parties oppose it because they are in opposition.

That doesn’t strike me as democracy.

The art of debate is that one person presents his view on a subject and others either agree or not and then present their view. In the ensuing debate points are accepted and conceded as logical argument is put forth. The end result should be the ‘right way’ or as close as argumentative humans can get. Of course there will be some ‘horse trading’ and you will most likely get, “I will accept your point on so and so if you accept my point on this.” That sounds much more like democracy to me.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

I first must appologies to members for answering a thread that might by its content take it "off track" so a BIG SORRY.

I must thank JB for starting this because hit hits at something that really bugs me which is the polite answer. As I can also see the Hollyrood kids in their chamber I have always wondered if we have an elected dictatorship run by the Prime Minister First minister or whatever they call themselves.

There will be times when "polititions need to legislate for our own good but there are times that when the voting public need to be listened to when its something close to their hearts issues they feel strongly about. Ok if we dont like what has been passed by those in power we can always unseat them at a General Election when it comes.

My opinion is that if the majority of the population regardless of ethnic background religion etc etc etc. Parlament has a free vote system yet it is very rarely used so its time the people voice was heard. Given that members have the power of a private members bills but they are not very successful.

The house full of independents and dozens of cliques sounds like a house of horror yet thats the other end of the spectrum from what we have. So is there a happy medium or are we just going through the motions?

Regardless of who is in power there will always be legislation and actions that make us red around the gills but that is what we have which compared to some countries is heaven. Maybe there will be an "enlightened" seat of power but chances are it will be beyond my life time and maybe that of my daughter. So all in all its better the devil we know that that what we dont.

Should there be another option that will work better I aint heard of it but it could surface. The be all and end all is that despite what we think we do have the "mother of all parlaments" well alledgedly.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

The opposition don't need to oppose it. Take the education bill which the Conservatives helped get through. If a bill is 'right' and the opposition still vote against it, the majority government can get the bill through. It is democratic, it's not as democratic as it could be, but then I'd rather have this over proportional representation. At least this method provides strong stable government.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

I had a big debate about the self same issue - apparently it's called totalitarianism and apparently it doesn't work.

It's human nature to form bonds and coalitions, so there would be no such thing as an independent MP because they'd always need support and teams to get anything done.

When I was standing for council I did consider (for a very brief short second) standing as an independent. But, as it was pointed out to me, I would never be in the ruling party and I would never be able to contribute to major decisions.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

why's that?

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Because if you're not in the ruling party you don't make the decisions and as an independent a person would never be part of the ruling party.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Are there no 'private member bill type things' in local government? I really should learn how everything works :p

Although private members bills in national government aint much use are they ;)

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

At least those that do bring them forward are doing so through conviv=ction on their issue and might be something that their constituants feel strongly about. At least these MP's are doing what the people that voted for them want even if its "gunned down" in the house. This is what these people expect from their MP's and any Backbencher has any gumption he will try it for them once. Even the kindergarden up here in Auld Reekie has a few at it.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

As Gayle said a bunch of independents working together constitutes both an arrangement and a compromise, in other words a political manifesto. Two party politics provides clear decision makers and clear opposition and is transaparent. How do you know a bunch of independents aren't double dealing and horse trading things you never wanted to vote for?

Look in Hyndburn at the Independents who have stood. Adrian Shurmer, hard right and obsessive about roads and humps. Jack Cooper, genuine socialist and considerably left of the current centre. Matthew Hartley, anti-BNP demonstrator and Socialist Worker and now Nick Collingridge, conservative, cautioned for singing a racist song.

Just think of the cost in time and resources getting those 4 to agree to policies and them sticking together through it to make them work. Political parties are simply a way of aggregating like minded people in order that there can be some progress and that the public are more aware of what thier vote means.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

The Tories didn't support the Education Bill because it was right, they supported it because they had a new angle of attack on Tony Blair. If the Tories were so minded how come they haven't supported Labour on many more issues, yet opposed Labour on nearly every issue? Politically naive statment Cyfr. The Tories are there as effective opposition to hold the executive to account.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Also, Cyfr you're forgetting that there are three parties who have fair numbers in government and all you need is a few Labour MPs to abstain and the opposition, if they band together, win.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Quote:

When I was standing for council I did consider (for a very brief short second) standing as an independent. But, as it was pointed out to me, I would never be in the ruling party and I would never be able to contribute to major decisions.

But that wasn’t the fault of being an independent Gayle. That was because of party politics. If all councillors were independent of a political party then everyone would have a voice and those with the same view on an issue would win the day. If there were not enough in the majority with a like mind then some horse trading would need to be done. Surely that is better than blindly following the herd?

Our current democratic system may well be the best that there is (allegedly) but that doesn’t mean that it cannot be improved upon.

If all MP’s had a free vote on all issues instead of being told to vote the way the party wants, that would go a long way to improving the system.

However genuine proportional representation would go a long way to producing a democratic Parliament.

So would not having the PM SELECT his cabinet and junior Ministers. The ambitious MP will kowtow to the PM just to get a job in office and the extra salary that goes with it and they will follow the PM’s orders to keep it. The cabinet should be appointed by the MP’s and also sacked by them when necessary.

You seem to have hit the nail on the head g_jones and Gayle. The parties not in power spend as much time trying to do down the party in power to defeat them rather than tackling the issues that will benefit us.

Surely government isn’t about trying to do the other guys down? Shouldn’t government be about running the country for the benefit of the country not staying in power as long as possible regardless?

One final point I would voice. If our democratic system is so open to scrutiny then why is there a 30 years rule (and 50 years in some cases) for Cabinet documents?

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

A few is an awfull lot though. Thats why first past the post is so good at providing stable government. Take a look at the Iraq war vote, a huge number of Labour MP's voted against it, but it didn't matter at all because the government had such a large majority, though perhaps that example dosn't quite reflect my point because the Tories voted for the war too...

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

It wouldn't though. It would be so much harder to get bills passed. It may well be more democratic but that dosn't mean its good for the country.

As mentioned above i'm against proportional representation. Our current system means that people who represent us are winners, it provides stable government, and government that can effectively govern. We also have an actual representative that we vote for.

Perhaps i've misunderstood this, but allowing the parties MP's to select the cabinet wouldn't really help. The leaders usualy pick cabinet members that represent various factions of the party anyway...

Well thats the thing, not all policy is good policy. If policy is clearly wrong, if it goes against the parties manifesto which they were elected upon, if it removes civil liberties, we might well be damn happy that someone is opposing it and trying to defeat the legislation, rather than letting it through.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

You seem to have gone through my post with a fine toothed comb Cyfr but what stopped you commenting about my last paragraph?

I agree that it would be harder to get bills passed but those that do get passed will be supported by the genuine majority of the country and not forced onto us. Can I mention the proposed ID Cards as an example? Can I mention the bi annual budget? When was the last time that a budget was defeated? The Chancellor lays out his budget and come what may it is passed. It is only very rarely that some tiny part of the budget is defeated and he is forced to think again.

The party in power can push through any legislation that it wants regardless of any possibility that the nation does not want it. The House of Lords can only delay a bill because the Commons has the whip hand and the party Whips see to it that the party members vote as they are told and woe betide the rebels. They end up being censured by the Whips and even expelled from the political party. That’s not democracy – that’s dictatorship.

If only your view of Cabinet selection was true. But what happens is that the Cabinet is staffed by Tony’s cronies that he chooses and none dare to disagree with him for fear of losing their jobs and the high salary that goes with it. Whatever he says goes. Not the sort of democracy that holds any cheer for me.

Quote:

Well thats the thing, not all policy is good policy. If policy is clearly wrong,

In whose opinion? Who is to say that a policy is wrong? You? Me? Him? Her? Different people have different views on a specific issue. That is where the freedom to debate and vote comes in - to determine if a proposal is a good one or not or at least acceptable. Sadly the party Whips have the last say and not the MP’s. What is so democratic about having someone tell you how you should vote?

You see we have a mini parliament in this thread. You have one opinion and I have a different one. Who is clearly right? You are from your viewpoint and you are wrong from my viewpoint. Conversely I am right from my viewpoint and I am wrong from your viewpoint. To resolve the issue we need 600 plus people who have been charged by the public to debate the issue and then after sufficient debate, vote on it. What if I could tell some of them how to vote and so could you but I could tell more than you could.

By definition proportional representation would mean that those with the most backing of the public would be in Parliament. That is not the case today and hasn’t been for hundreds of years.

Democracy is a system where the majority rules. That means the majority of the public. Never once since the last war has a government been in power that has had more votes cast for it than the rest put together. Not MP’s but votes cast by the public. Some democracy! Proportional representation would go a long way to bringing our governing system closer to a real democracy.

In a typical General Election out of an electorate of 41,095,649 - 31,221,362 votes were cast. 13,697,923 voted Tory. Labour gained 11,532,218 votes. To gain a democratic majority the Tories would have needed to gain at least 15,610,682 votes. Yet the Tories won the election with 339 seats over Labour’s 269.

In the same election Lib gained 4,313,804 votes but only 11 seats. They gained one third of the votes that Labour did yet Labour had 24 times the number of seats. Some democracy!
Figures taken from http://www.election.demon.co.uk/geresults.html

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Imagine if you will that all Accy Web members were independent representatives of our own Accy Web government.

How much would we get done?

Not a great deal in my opinion.;)

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

That is very true garinda because too many people bring in irrelevant points or drift right off topic. We all do it and I do mean we. We don’t have a ‘Speaker’ to keep us in line as we put forward our points. Of course being in the written form the ‘Speaker’ would have to delete parts of posts, so that it would take forever to get to a point where a vote is called for. The other point is that we are on-line at different times and that would and does stretch a debate into days or even weeks on just one topic.

It would be a different matter in an auditorium.

The current debates in Parliament are a farce and only pay lip service to a democratic debate. The passing of a bill introduced by the ruling party is a foregone conclusion because of the Whips. All the rhetoric spouted in the House may well have some valid objections to parts of a bill but the Whips carry the day for the government regardless.

The other point that I would raise is that there are too many ex barristers as MP’s. Barristers and lawyers deal in words and they are good at it. They can take a simple statement and spin it into a totally different meaning.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

The whips are aptly named for the job they do and it is verbal lashings they use instead of a bull whip or a cat of nine tales. A govenment will always force the legislation through regardless and even when the House of Lords object they use the the fact that what the commons says goes to get it through.

Even comprimise is not ideal as it waters down what is put for and can in some cases be worse or weaker than what was on offer the first time round. When it comes to farce the "West Lotion Question" is the best example there is and as we have our own so called Paliment up here it is more relevent than ever. As I mentioned in another thread its almost like payback when MP's other than the English vote on matters that do not concern them. That is a humungous farce and is undemocratic! How can it be democratic if my MP votes for a bill the govenment puts forth that has no relevence to his constituents just so the govenment can get the bill through? To me they shold not vote on it nor should the govenment regardless of political colour expect them to as its akin to a back door dictatorship.

I for one think that the whole carry on is obsurd and that England Scotland Northern Ireland (if they can stop the childish bickering) and Wales have assemblies and devolved power cannot go it alone. It aint going to break up the UK as it would be like the Commonwealth with each having its own parliment but with the Queen as head of state. Does this make me unfaithful to my country no as all I want is a fare just democratic system that works for all. Yes there will be arguments yes there will be falling outs but that is life and politics The theory that we are stronger united is a a bit outdated as there is devolved power to all the countries of the UK.

As parliment is busy with its cliques and infighting (The Fifer and PM) than how can we move forward with what the people want and/or need? Govenment decide what we should have reguardless if we want it or not and yet we have no direct recourse and have to accept it as is. That is not true democracy.

So all in all I agree with Jambutty its a farce a big bulbous unwielding you are getting it regardless farce which needs fixing. This is the 21c not the 19c!

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Our current form of government has been with us for hundreds of years but that is no reason why we shouldn’t look at it again and see if it can be improved and it can.

If you analyse it you will see that the design is such that it makes it extremely difficult, if not actually impossible, to effect any meaningful change to the way that the government is formed. You are asking the people who have the authority to make a change to make a change that will be detrimental to them. It’s a bit like asking the CEO of the business that you work for to take a pay cut and spread the money around the workers. It just won’t happen.

Would President (in all but name) Blair agree to the Cabinet and junior Ministers being nominated by the House? To do so would be to relinquish much of his power and he would never, ever do that and nor would any other PM.

The country’s best hope of getting a different and better government (short of an actual bloody revolution) is to support the Liberals. They are in favour of proportional representation - naturally because they would gain by it as would some of the other minor parties. If enough Lib Dem MP’s get into office to affect the balance of power then there would be a chance.

I didn’t start this thread to champion the cause of the Lib Dems, it’s just that as the third largest party they could bring about a necessary change given the support of the public.

I have three bees in my bonnet – a free vote for MP’s on all issues, proportional representation and the Cabinet and Junior Ministers appointed by the House.

No doubt most MP’s belonging to the party in power would still vote with the government but it would be their choice not an order to do so.
Proportional representation would ensure a fairer representation of the people in Parliament.
The Cabinet would not be populated with the PM’s cronies and thus the PM’s misuse of power would be curtailed.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Does it not make sense to have people who completly understand the words of law, to be in charge of producing legislation?

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Jambutty, can you please explain to me why more democracy is better? I really do not understand it. You need some sort of democracy, full democracy is just.. it wouldn't work!

If you could have the most democratic system ever where everyone in the country voted on issues and produced the issues etc, would that make the country better for the people? no it wouldnt.

For example, if you could vote to have £1million in benifits then crap loads of people would vote for it, they arnt polititions, they don't care where it comes from.

If you have people in parliament make legislation then have everyone in the country vote on wether it should be made law, then your following Lukes 2nd face of power, where the government still really have all the power, as they set what can be debated.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

No. It is called a conflict of interest. Democracys are usually based on the concept of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary; is is called the seperation of powers. Unfortunatley, in the British system, the executive now dominates the legislature and both of these are dominated by lawyers. Who pays the lawyers? The taxpayers! Hence Tony Blair (lawyer) can pass European Human Rights concepts into UK law and who is the biggest beneficiary? None other than his Mrs Cherie Blair.

We do not ask policemen to be judge & jury, so why the hell do we tolerate barristers and solicters making laws? The only place for these characters in parliament is in the role of parliamentary draftsmen, i.e. going through bills with a fine tooth comb prior to them becoming law. Otherwise, the golden rule is this:

If your MP is a lawyer, then he/she is rotten & he/she is corrupt.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Quote:

Does it not make sense to have people who completly understand the words of law, to be in charge of producing legislation?

On the face of it you could well be right Cyfr except that in my view the law should be clear and unambiguous, not full of words that most people cannot make head or tail of. After all if the government passes a law and the ordinary person cannot understand it, how can they be expected to obey the law? Yet ignorance of a law is no defence.

As one eminent Scottish judge put it several years ago – “The law should say what it means and mean what it says.” Clever barristers can twist the meaning to something entirely different.

So not in charge of producing legislation but as the backroom boys that do the actual drafts for the approval of the House.

In fact you have presented me with a classic example of how something can be twisted to mean something else.

Quote:

If you could have the most democratic system ever where everyone in the country voted on issues and produced the issues etc, would that make the country better for the people? no it wouldnt.

You are quite right such a way would be unworkable but I am not suggesting that.

Unless I have got it wrong democracy is government by the people through ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. Where we have it wrong is the way that the results of an election are manipulated. Is it fair that a constituency of 50,000 people has the same power as one with twice that amount? Our system is based on the number of seats won not votes cast and thus can never be truly representative of the majority of the people who actually vote.

Quote:

For example, if you could vote to have £1million in benifits then crap loads of people would vote for it, they arnt polititions, they don't care where it comes from.

People do not directly vote for a particular bill so your point is not relevant as is your final paragraph.

Quote:

If your MP is a lawyer, then he/she is rotten & he/she is corrupt.

I wouldn’t go quite as far as to say that Tealeaf but I take your point onboard.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

So it isn't true they have a little black book, full of all the mischief members have been up to, which they use to ever so gently encourage people to toe the party line?

Or are the people that vote against their parties goody goodies with no skeletons in the closet?:D

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

No need for the trepidation Greg call it insider knowledge that can benifit the masses. :)

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

If that is the case Greg Pope, why have Whips in the first place? What is a 3 line whip vote all about if not to make the party members vote along party lines?

Wasn’t someone suspended from the House a while back because the MP didn’t vote as the government wanted?

Wasn’t one MP deselected for the same reason and he now stands as an independent?

Officially you may be right about the Whips official standing but there is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. Please no flack from animal rights people. It’s a metaphor.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Just to clarify a couple of points. Firstly, there is no black book in the Government Whips Office. Legend has it that the Conservative whips had a black book in order to blackmail recalcitrant MPs into voting, but we have not got one. No-one has been suspended from the Commons by the whips - the only person with the power to suspend is the Speaker and would only do so if an MP behaved badly in the Chamber or was found to have breached the rules by, say, taking bribes.

A lot of votes in the Commons are not of mind-blowing importance (I'm sorry but it's true!) and MPs do most of their work in committees well away from the bits you see on TV, and the advice of whips is usually welcome. A 3 line whip means that you "have" to vote with your party, but I return to my previous point that there is little they can do to you if you refuse. And in any case, on the really important issues MPs should be able to stand for themselves in conversations with the whips - if they can't they are in the wrong job!

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Much obliged for clearing up the point of who can and cannot suspend an MP from the House. I had a feeling that it was only the Speaker but I wasn’t sure. I am now!

However I see that you chose not to answer the question - Wasn’t one MP deselected for the same reason (refusing to vote on party lines) and he now stands as an independent?

Quote:

A lot of votes in the Commons are not of mind-blowing importance (I'm sorry but it's true!)

It is rather sad that you consider a lot of the votes to be of no real importance. The votes will be important to some person or group.

Quote:

and MPs do most of their work in committees well away from the bits you see on TV,

So all the decisions are made in Committee and the debate and voting is nothing more than a showcase to be rubber stamped.

There may well be little that the Whips can do directly if a party member rebels but as I said before there is more than one way to skin a cat. A word in the right ear and the rebel gets deselected after due process. Or put another way – vote as you are told or you could loose your job. Not that a Whip would ever say that I’m sure, but there are ways of getting the message across. On the other hand if an MP has aspirations of joining the Cabinet or becoming a junior Minister a hint from a Whip to say it may be possible would have the MP voting with the party if he or she was considering an alternative. The same system is prevalent outside of politics. Cross the boss and you don’t get promoted.

Quote:

A 3 line whip means that you "have" to vote with your party,

What happened to democracy?

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Democracy is still there, if you read what he said. The "have" is in quotes for a reason, the party suggests you have to, but the MP's mainly don't listen, because there is very little the party can do to force them to vote how they want.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

When I was going through the selection process to be a candidate in the local elections I was asked if I understood the Whip process. I had to be honest and say that I didn't have a clue what the chap was talking about. So it was explained to me. Then I was asked what I would do if my views conflicted with the views of the Whip. I told them that I would not go against the party, neither would I go against my own views so therefore I would abstain from a vote and find some other route to achieve my objectives that did not conflict with the party line.

Although this is hypothetical in some way because I never got elected therefore it never got tested I was still accepted as a candidate and therefore one can only assume that my answer was satisfactory.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Yes democracy of a type is still there Cyfr but it is a form of democracy that only pays lip service to a true democratic government.

The have in quotes that you refer to is included in the sentence relating to 3 line Whips where MP’s “have” to vote on party lines. They can dissent but rarely do because of the de-selection “Sword of Damocles” hanging over them not to mention the no chance of advancement.

Don’t forget that the PM has the final say on who gets a Cabinet or ministerial post and the high salary that goes with them and he is hardly likely to appoint someone if they didn’t follow party lines. Any MP who has aspirations of improving their lot will kowtow to the party lines even if he doesn’t agree with some of them.

Most MP’s have gone into politics as a career and will do what is necessary to keep their job. Fortunately there are a few who see politics not just as a career but as a means of genuinely representing their constituents. These are usually called either independent or rebels.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

if the ruling party an be outvoted by the others then I wouldn't care, If the ruling party were bigger than the others put together like labour used to be here before we kicked the dinosaurs out then it would be a problem.
Only four more dinosaurs to go now, one labour, three conservatives. then we'll have a decent town council.

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

Let's face it, not too many statesmen these days. Political polarization is rife - on both sides of the Atlantic. I'm not for pure democracy - which is mob rule. But a well informed electorate can make a big difference. Vote the bums out!

Re: Keep Party Politics Out Of Government
 

The question that has to be asked is "do they want a well informed electorate?" Especially if their political career depends on it we will get more cow pats spindoctered advice selective information etc etc etc.