Keep Party Politics Out Of Government

jambutty · 08-07-2006, 13:39

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.

SPUGGIE J · 08-07-2006, 18:49

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.

andrewb · 08-07-2006, 21:50

Quote:

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.

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.

Gayle · 08-07-2006, 21:56

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.

Madhatter · 09-07-2006, 01:08

Quote:

I would never be able to contribute to major decisions.

why's that?

Gayle · 09-07-2006, 09:17

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.

andrewb · 09-07-2006, 11:07

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

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

SPUGGIE J · 09-07-2006, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

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

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.

g jones · 09-07-2006, 13:11

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.

g jones · 09-07-2006, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyfr

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.

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.

Gayle · 09-07-2006, 13:26

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.

jambutty · 09-07-2006, 13:55

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?

andrewb · 09-07-2006, 15:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle

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.

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...

andrewb · 09-07-2006, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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...

Quote:

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.

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.

jambutty · 09-07-2006, 17:17

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