Should we do away with the Whips?

[Hairyloon]

True, but most people don't vote for a person, they vote for a party...

Upon what data do you base that assertion?

I think it is more true to say that most people don't vote for a person, they vote against the party they don't want.

 

if large enough percentage of the constituency makes their feelings known on an issue and the MP continues to follow party line then the constituents should have the right to remove their consent for this person to represent them in parliament.

How should the constituents make their views known?

Certainly they can write, but are those that write likely to be representative of the general population? Or are they just a vociferous minority?

 

I did say this should only happen if a certain percentage of their constituents want them removed, where this percentage is large enough to prevent malicious or nuisance removals from office but not so large that removing an MP from office becomes unattainable.

Have you ever tried to depose your MP?

Have you ever even heard of anybody trying?

 

The electorate are entitled to call a public meeting if they want to. If you are bothered about it, call one to discuss your MP's continued office, and put it to the vote.

Granted, such a meeting would not legally oblige an MP to step down, but if the vote is convincing, then it would be difficult for him not to.

[esme]

How should the constituents make their views known?

I suggested a possible mechanism here.

...This could be done in libraries, if any remain open, over a monthly period.

 

You go to the library, verify you are on the electoral register and that you haven't voted this month, then at the end of the month a count of the votes is made and if it exceeds a critical value then the MP is deselected.

 

I'm sure enough volunteers could be found to do the counting.

Certainly they can write, but are those that write likely to be representative of the general population? Or are they just a vociferous minority?

The use of the term "vociferous minority" is, I feel, an emotive term and has no place in this discussion.

 

For example, how can we be sure MP's weren't elected in the first place by a "vociferous minority".

 

The MP in my constituency didn't achieve 50% of the vote.

 

The local turnout was under 62% of the total.

 

So my MP was elected by around 31% of the local electorate.

 

31% is not a majority and given that the people who have opinions and want to express them are the ones who go and vote, would that make them a "vociferous minority" ?

 

In my opinion, no - ok, saying "the people who have opinions and want to express them are the ones who go and vote", is probably an over generalisation, people may have voted for other reasons, I just can't think of them.

 

Would it make the result any less valid if they were a "vociferous minority" ?

 

Again in my opinion, no.

 

However I feel the use of the term "vociferous minority" is being used emotively to dismiss the the possibility that the local electorate may wish to express their opinions at other times and not just at a general election.

 

Another example, if a minority of the constituency expressed their opinions in support of their MP, should these opinions also be dismissed as belonging to a "vociferous minority" ?

 

Of course they shouldn't.

 

So, please, lets discuss this rationally and leave the emotional phrases to one side.

Have you ever tried to depose your MP?

Have you ever even heard of anybody trying?

The only way to do this is to wait for a general election and either vote for someone else or stand against them.

 

So yes to both questions, but only at a general election.

The electorate are entitled to call a public meeting if they want to. If you are bothered about it, call one to discuss your MP's continued office, and put it to the vote.

Granted, such a meeting would not legally oblige an MP to step down, but if the vote is convincing, then it would be difficult for him not to.

I disagree, it would be remarkably easy for an MP to remain in office after such a vote, no matter how convincing the result.

 

They can simply ignore it for one.

 

There is absolutely nothing you can do to remove them from office before the next general election.

[Hairyloon]

However I feel the use of the term "vociferous minority" is being used emotively to dismiss the the possibility that the local electorate may wish to express their opinions at other times and not just at a general election.

If you read my post properly, you will see that I am not dismissing the possibility that the vociferous minority do not represent the general view, I simply reject the assumption that they do.

They may, or they may not. What they should be doing is putting forward constructive argument in favour of their position, and what the MP should be doing is considering those arguments.

This is why it is right to have elected representatives and wrong to have absolute democracy: policies should be formed because they are right, not because they are popular.

The electorate are entitled to call a public meeting if they want to. If you are bothered about it, call one to discuss your MP's continued office, and put it to the vote.

Granted, such a meeting would not legally oblige an MP to step down, but if the vote is convincing, then it would be difficult for him not to.

I disagree, it would be remarkably easy for an MP to remain in office after such a vote, no matter how convincing the result.

 

They can simply ignore it for one.

I would like to see an MP stay in office if (say) 80% of his constituents turned out and voted for him to go.

[esme]

If you read my post properly

I believe I did read it properly, but feel free to correct any misinterpretations you think I'm making.

you will see that I am not dismissing the possibility that the vociferous minority do not represent the general view, I simply reject the assumption that they do.

They may, or they may not.

I'm not assuming they do or do not represent the general view.

 

If I did, I would be forced to reject the assumption that the 31% of people who elected my MP at the last general election, gave my MP a mandate to represent my constituency at parliament, but by the rules of the election they did and I accept that.

 

Despite them being a vociferous minority of the local electorate.

 

If 31% of the constituency express an opinion now then this has absolutely no weight whatsoever.

 

But that same 31% can elect a person to office during a general election.

 

Once a vote has been cast then the electorates opinion ceases to matter despite it being good enough to elect people to the highest office in the land it is now a matter of no regard.

What they should be doing is putting forward constructive argument in favour of their position, and what the MP should be doing is considering those arguments.

I've put forward constructive arguments on several issues to my MP, my MP is in a safe seat and will not go against the party whip no matter how much sympathy he has for my position because he will be replaced if he does.

 

There is no way, if even large percentage of constituents express an informed opinion, to guarantee that your MP will represent those views in parliament if the party whip wants them to do otherwise.

This is why it is right to have elected representatives and wrong to have absolute democracy: policies should be formed because they are right, not because they are popular.

And who decides if a policy is right ?

 

For example there are policies being enacted by the current government which are not just unpopular, knowledgeable people are stating they are flat out wrong, similarly the previous government enacted policies that were unpopular and knowledgeable people said were wrong.

 

So how do you measure the "rightness" of a policy ?

 

Further, come general election time, how many manifestos will feature policies that are considered to be right rather than policies that are considered to be popular ?

 

At general election time all the unpopular policies are quietly shelved and all the populist policies are once more rolled out, we will be promised literally anything we want, in order to secure our votes.

 

Once in office, there is no guarantee any of these policies will see the light of day despite them being the reason at least some of the people voted for them.

 

This is not just, it is not fair and it certainly isn't democracy, it's a dictatorship where we periodically get to choose the people who tell us what to do.

I would like to see an MP stay in office if (say) 80% of his constituents turned out and voted for him to go.

So would I, it would make an amusing story in the papers for about a week, there would be endless threads on these very forums discussing it, then it would be forgotten because nothing further would happen.

 

The MP could leave office, I agree, however they could equally likely make a public statement such as "I'm sorry you think I have failed you, I shall redouble my efforts on your behalf" and return to business as usual, and there would be absolutely nothing you could do beyond wait for the next general election.

 

Even this idea, say we get the requisite number of names on an ePetition to have MP's debate this in the house.

 

There is no way we can guarantee our MP's will utter even one word on this issue, we could get ten seconds of silence and paper shuffling before the speaker moves on to the next issue, and that's it the petition is over and done with, the debate has been had, the issue is closed.

 

Even if we get the requisite number of names to allow us to put legislation before parliament there is no way we can guarantee the MP's will vote the way we want them to, a vote will be made and the legislation will die on the floor of the house if they don't want it passed.

 

However I believe we should at least try, despite my personal belief that it is a futile effort.

[Hairyloon]

If you read my post properly

I believe I did read it properly, but feel free to correct any misinterpretations you think I'm making.

you will see that I am not dismissing the possibility that the vociferous minority do not represent the general view, I simply reject the assumption that they do.

They may, or they may not.

I'm not assuming they do or do not represent the general view.

 

If I did, I would be forced to reject the assumption that the 31% of people who elected my MP at the last general election, gave my MP a mandate to represent my constituency at parliament, but by the rules of the election they did and I accept that.

No, that does not follow, but you are right: the MP does have a mandate.

 

What they should be doing is putting forward constructive argument in favour of their position, and what the MP should be doing is considering those arguments.

I've put forward constructive arguments on several issues to my MP, my MP is in a safe seat and will not go against the party whip no matter how much sympathy he has for my position because he will be replaced if he does.

And that is why we should curtail the whips.

 

This is why it is right to have elected representatives and wrong to have absolute democracy: policies should be formed because they are right, not because they are popular.

And who decides if a policy is right ?

History?

But the world is not so black and white. A policy is rarely right or wrong.

 

And further, come general election time, how many manifestos will feature policies that are considered to be right rather than policies that are considered to be popular ?

And there you illustrate one of the fundamental flaws in democracy.

 

This is not just, it is not fair and it certainly isn't democracy, it's a dictatorship where we periodically get to choose the people who tell us what to do.

 

Right with you up until the last point. This is not a dictatorship.

I would like to see an MP stay in office if (say) 80% of his constituents turned out and voted for him to go.

So would I, it would make an amusing story in the papers for about a week, there would be endless threads on these very forums discussing it, then it would be forgotten because nothing further would happen.

Possibly. I think he would not get off so lightly. I'm sure rent-a-mob would be happy enough to set up protest outside his house and office.

Shall we try it and see?

[esme]

sorry I did a few edits while you were posting

[Hairyloon]

If you read my post properly

I believe I did read it properly, but feel free to correct any misinterpretations you think I'm making.

you will see that I am not dismissing the possibility that the vociferous minority do not represent the general view, I simply reject the assumption that they do.

They may, or they may not.

I'm not assuming they do or do not represent the general view.

 

If I did, I would be forced to reject the assumption that the 31% of people who elected my MP at the last general election, gave my MP a mandate to represent my constituency at parliament, but by the rules of the election they did and I accept that.

No, that does not follow, but you are right: the MP does have a mandate.

 

What they should be doing is putting forward constructive argument in favour of their position, and what the MP should be doing is considering those arguments.

I've put forward constructive arguments on several issues to my MP, my MP is in a safe seat and will not go against the party whip no matter how much sympathy he has for my position because he will be replaced if he does.

And that is why we should curtail the whips.

 

This is why it is right to have elected representatives and wrong to have absolute democracy: policies should be formed because they are right, not because they are popular.

And who decides if a policy is right ?

History?

But the world is not so black and white. A policy is rarely right or wrong.

 

And further, come general election time, how many manifestos will feature policies that are considered to be right rather than policies that are considered to be popular ?

And there you illustrate one of the fundamental flaws in democracy.

 

This is not just, it is not fair and it certainly isn't democracy, it's a dictatorship where we periodically get to choose the people who tell us what to do.

 

Right with you up until the last point. This is not a dictatorship.

I would like to see an MP stay in office if (say) 80% of his constituents turned out and voted for him to go.

So would I, it would make an amusing story in the papers for about a week, there would be endless threads on these very forums discussing it, then it would be forgotten because nothing further would happen.

Possibly. I think he would not get off so lightly.

I'm sure rent-a-mob would be happy enough to set up protest outside his house and office and keep it in the news for a bit.

Shall we try it and see?

[Vague_Boy]

Do you think having the Whips in Parliament is democratic, why should our representatives be harried into voting a certain way?

Certainly a very old fashioned way of forcing MPs to do what you want.

 

Money, ackers, sponduliks, that's the modern way.

 

Just ask Stephen "taxi cab" Beyers.

 

Three disgraced former Cabinet ministers at the heart of the 'cash-for-access' scandal are in line for lavish golden goodbye payments and seats in the House of Lords, it emerged last night.

 

All three were caught on film offering to help private companies access Government in return for thousands of pounds a day.

 

Mr Byers' said he was 'like a cab for hire' and boasted that he had helped National Express and Tesco gain favourable Government decisions - claims denied by ministers and the companies.

 

Mr Hoon said he was looking to turn his Government contacts 'into something that, bluntly, makes money'.

 

Miss Hewitt said she had helped a firm she is paid by win a place on a Government taskforce investigating its area of business.

LINK

 

Ladies and gentlemen, these are the type of people you may (if you're a total gullible fool) be relying on to look after your interests.

 

Which they will do. But cash only, no cheques.

[Hairyloon]

sorry I did a few edits while you were posting

 

No worries.

I seem to have re-posted instead of editing... do you want to delete the surplus?

[esme]

If you have a better description than dictatorship I'll cheerfully use that

 

I'm all for protesting outside an MP's house however I think the police would move them on in fairly short order, after all a protest outside Parliament is to be expected, a protest in a leafy suburb is a civil disturbance

 

and I think your 80% is a tad high, 31% elected my MP, 31% ought to be able to remove them

 

but my brain has packed up, so I'm off to bed, I'll see if this makes any more sense to me tomorrow