The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[RED-DOG]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

That's a great explanation Rich Thanks for taking the time.

[titaniumbean]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

so politics is full of self serving bastards 

shock!!!

[Jon MW]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

so politics is full of self serving bastards  

shock!!!

Tighty's explanation is accurate but possibly a bit incomplete.

Using a whipping system makes running the government a lot smoother and helps the individual MP's on the basis that mutual cooperation is more beneficial than everyone looking out for themselves.

An MP has 3 basic priorities:
1. What's best for their party
2. What's best for their constituency and
3. What's best for the country

But MP's will generally join a party because they believe in the same basic underlying principles that form the core of that party. So most of the time 1., 2. and 3. will be the same thing.

Even when there is a slight clash of priorities the principle of cooperation will mean voting for the whipped line means you help get this vote through in exchange for other MP's helping get through legislation that you do 'believe' in more.

So in general I don't think MP's are being quite the self-serving, subordinate drones that Tighty's post seems to paint them as. Particularly as a lot of the business of helping their constituents is going to be through committees and helpful letters and the like (i.e. not directly related to matters that happen in the main chamber).

EDIT: what I meant to emphasis was that most of the time the whip isn't really telling them how to vote, it's telling them how important it is to actually turn up and vote. It's only the really big issues that attract rebels that make it look like it's telling them how to vote but in the life of a parliament they're going to be a pretty small minority of the business transacted.

[DungBeetle]

Is there roles for actual people called 1st/2nd/3rd Whip?  I know there is a chief Whip.  I assume these are normal MPs?  Is it considered a desirable position?  What does it involve - going around reminding MPs or their obligation.  Bullying them?

[TightEnd]

each party has a whips office, containing 4-5 whips

yes desirable

and yes all sorts of tactics to get MPs to vote the way you want

[RED-DOG]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

so politics is full of self serving bastards  

shock!!!

Tighty's explanation is accurate but possibly a bit incomplete.

Using a whipping system makes running the government a lot smoother and helps the individual MP's on the basis that mutual cooperation is more beneficial than everyone looking out for themselves.

An MP has 3 basic priorities:
1. What's best for their party
2. What's best for their constituency and
3. What's best for the country

But MP's will generally join a party because they believe in the same basic underlying principles that form the core of that party. So most of the time 1., 2. and 3. will be the same thing.

Even when there is a slight clash of priorities the principle of cooperation will mean voting for the whipped line means you help get this vote through in exchange for other MP's helping get through legislation that you do 'believe' in more.

So in general I don't think MP's are being quite the self-serving, subordinate drones that Tighty's post seems to paint them as. Particularly as a lot of the business of helping their constituents is going to be through committees and helpful letters and the like (i.e. not directly related to matters that happen in the main chamber).

EDIT: what I meant to emphasis was that most of the time the whip isn't really telling them how to vote, it's telling them how important it is to actually turn up and vote. It's only the really big issues that attract rebels that make it look like it's telling them how to vote but in the life of a parliament they're going to be a pretty small minority of the business transacted.

Thanks Jon.

[titaniumbean]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

so politics is full of self serving bastards  

shock!!!

Tighty's explanation is accurate but possibly a bit incomplete.

Using a whipping system makes running the government a lot smoother and helps the individual MP's on the basis that mutual cooperation is more beneficial than everyone looking out for themselves.

An MP has 3 basic priorities:
1. What's best for their party
2. What's best for their constituency and
3. What's best for the country

But MP's will generally join a party because they believe in the same basic underlying principles that form the core of that party. So most of the time 1., 2. and 3. will be the same thing.

Even when there is a slight clash of priorities the principle of cooperation will mean voting for the whipped line means you help get this vote through in exchange for other MP's helping get through legislation that you do 'believe' in more.

So in general I don't think MP's are being quite the self-serving, subordinate drones that Tighty's post seems to paint them as. Particularly as a lot of the business of helping their constituents is going to be through committees and helpful letters and the like (i.e. not directly related to matters that happen in the main chamber).

EDIT: what I meant to emphasis was that most of the time the whip isn't really telling them how to vote, it's telling them how important it is to actually turn up and vote. It's only the really big issues that attract rebels that make it look like it's telling them how to vote but in the life of a parliament they're going to be a pretty small minority of the business transacted.

Why do 1 and 2 have to be that way round?

[Cf]

each party has a whips office, containing 4-5 whips

yes desirable

and yes all sorts of tactics to get MPs to vote the way you want

Is The Thick of It in any way realistic with its various portrayals? Malcolm Tucker being the most obvious example.

[Jon MW]

What is the point of a whipped vote, isn't it a contradiction in terms?

Party politics and party discipline are incredibly powerful forces in our parliamentary democracy, and also in others too.

While an MP is elected to represent their constituents, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that, the vast majority of the time, how an MP votes on various issues will be determined by their party’s whip and not by what their constituents want.

The reality is that an MP who regularly votes against their party’s official position on a given issue will soon find themselves ostracised by the party. Until the seismic shift of Corbyn winning (largely because the voting system neutered what the party apparatus wanted and put the voting in the hands of £3 members) that happened to the hard left in the labour party, even those who were MPs. on the other side, the eurosceptic right (bill cash etc) had no chance of advancement, many left for UKIP etc because they were not conforming to the party view

Indeed, in many ways, it is an act of political courage for an individual MP to defy their party and vote the way their constituents want, or according to their own conscience. Or career suicide.

What this means is that if a party has an official position on a given issue, its MPs are expected to vote that way if the issue comes up for a vote in the legislature, even if majority opinion in an MP’s constituency differs. While this might seem wrong on the surface, one could counter-argue that voters in that constituency knew what the various parties’ positions were on each major issue, and so it would be expected that whoever they elect will vote according to that party’s position.

so politics is full of self serving bastards  

shock!!!

Tighty's explanation is accurate but possibly a bit incomplete.

Using a whipping system makes running the government a lot smoother and helps the individual MP's on the basis that mutual cooperation is more beneficial than everyone looking out for themselves.

An MP has 3 basic priorities:
1. What's best for their party
2. What's best for their constituency and
3. What's best for the country

But MP's will generally join a party because they believe in the same basic underlying principles that form the core of that party. So most of the time 1., 2. and 3. will be the same thing.

Even when there is a slight clash of priorities the principle of cooperation will mean voting for the whipped line means you help get this vote through in exchange for other MP's helping get through legislation that you do 'believe' in more.

So in general I don't think MP's are being quite the self-serving, subordinate drones that Tighty's post seems to paint them as. Particularly as a lot of the business of helping their constituents is going to be through committees and helpful letters and the like (i.e. not directly related to matters that happen in the main chamber).

EDIT: what I meant to emphasis was that most of the time the whip isn't really telling them how to vote, it's telling them how important it is to actually turn up and vote. It's only the really big issues that attract rebels that make it look like it's telling them how to vote but in the life of a parliament they're going to be a pretty small minority of the business transacted.

Why do 1 and 2 have to be that way round?

lol - to see if anyone noticed :p

[TightEnd]

each party has a whips office, containing 4-5 whips

yes desirable

and yes all sorts of tactics to get MPs to vote the way you want

Is The Thick of It in any way realistic with its various portrayals? Malcolm Tucker being the most obvious example.

i don't know, expect there are grains of truth in it hyped up for dramatic effect

i gather that the portrayal of spin doctors by Ianucci was often based on a truth

"this house" was a play at the national which showed the workings of the whips office during the 74 two elections year

saw that, and it was brilliant and apparently accurate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21776131

[TightEnd]

this is from the guardian

its a bit academic and a bit wordy, but i wondered what people think?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/jihadism-western-policy-jeremy-corbyn-isis?CMP=share_btn_tw

its an attempt to decry the notion that "it is mall the west's fault" which underpins the notion that we got policy badly wrong on iraq and afghanistan and sowed the seeds of ISIS

[horseplayer]

[nirvana]

this is from the guardian

its a bit academic and a bit wordy, but i wondered what people think?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/jihadism-western-policy-jeremy-corbyn-isis?CMP=share_btn_tw

its an attempt to decry the notion that "it is mall the west's fault" which underpins the notion that we got policy badly wrong on iraq and afghanistan and sowed the seeds of ISIS

Decent article and pretty fair I think.

I don't think he challenges the notion that our policy may have been wrong or that it might have helped sow seeds etc. I think he just draws attention to the fact that it isn't the only causal and that it shouldn't be used as a reason to do nothing.

He also mentions hand wringing from Corbyn and that's what I detest about all the responses to ISIS - the right also appears to just hand wring and spout some rhetoric without actually bringing forward a plan to deal with a problem (whether we're one of the causals or not)

They make the more centre leaning lefties sound positively hawkish, probably out of the embarrassment they feel at Corbyn as a leader and appointments like Ken Livingstone.

As the days go by, I'm more disappointed by Corbyn and the words of that nirvana fallacy article speak more loudly to me.

[nirvana]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

[arbboy]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.