Keep Party Politics Out Of Government - Page 2

garinda · 09-07-2006, 22:51

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.

jambutty · 10-07-2006, 08:25

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.

SPUGGIE J · 10-07-2006, 09:10

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!

jambutty · 10-07-2006, 11:39

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.

andrewb · 10-07-2006, 12:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

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

andrewb · 10-07-2006, 12:17

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.

Tealeaf · 10-07-2006, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

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

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.

jambutty · 10-07-2006, 12:57

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.

Greg Pope · 11-07-2006, 14:15

It is with a great deal of trepidation that I enter this thread, but here goes anyway. In my experience the power of the whips in the Commons is greatly overstated and most of what they do is about advising MPs how to vote rather than forcing them to do so against their will. They actually have very little sanctions against an MP who wants to vote against his or her party - some Labour MPs have voted against the government hundreds of times since 1997 and no action has been taken against them by the whips. In any event, on the really big issues such as Iraq no MP would change their vote because of the whips. I voted for the war because I thought it was the right thing to do in all conscience. No whip would have changed my mind one way or the other and I don't think I'm unusual in that.

garinda · 11-07-2006, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Pope

It is with a great deal of trepidation that I enter this thread, but here goes anyway. In my experience the power of the whips in the Commons is greatly overstated and most of what they do is about advising MPs how to vote rather than forcing them to do so against their will. They actually have very little sanctions against an MP who wants to vote against his or her party - some Labour MPs have voted against the government hundreds of times since 1997 and no action has been taken against them by the whips. In any event, on the really big issues such as Iraq no MP would change their vote because of the whips. I voted for the war because I thought it was the right thing to do in all conscience. No whip would have changed my mind one way or the other and I don't think I'm unusual in that.

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?

SPUGGIE J · 11-07-2006, 15:50

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

jambutty · 11-07-2006, 16:04

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.

Greg Pope · 11-07-2006, 18:11

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!

jambutty · 11-07-2006, 20:00

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?

andrewb · 11-07-2006, 20:45

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.