Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
Is it right for party leaders to bully their mp's on what to vote for.
in a free nation the mp should be allowed a freedom to vote what he feels his area wants.
if the mp is forced to vote against what he feels is right but on what the party leader dictates it defeats the true meaning of a ballot.
whats your view.
i feel the party leaders are well out of order.
Does anyone still believe that when they vote for an MP they are voting for someone who will represent them?
Cameron has proved he is not a Conservative any more than Blair was Labour (new or old). Does anyone still believe that we live in a democracy?
Our votes and our wishes count for nothing.
I'm afraid it has become true to say that if someone is willing to stand for parliament, then that alone provides an overwhelming reason not to vote for them. Oh, and yes, they are all the same.
I agree, MPs should have the right to vote for what they believe and not be whipped into voting for the party line. As you say, it makes the ballot pointless, because it is rigged.
There is a distinct lack of democracy in the UK and the EU structure is even worse. What we need is a good clear out, get rid of all the government and start again, with a simpler system, with no parties. MPs would be elected on their own merits and vote according to their own moral compass.
"What we need is a good clear out, get rid of all the government and start again, with a simpler system, with no parties. MPs would be elected on their own merits and vote according to their own moral compass."
That's precisely what we don't need. The result would be chaos. Who would appoint government Ministers, who would be responsible for taking the big decisions - often urgently required - when there was a threat to national security? Your system would mean that a vote would be required on virtually everything, and within a short time we would be in the most enormous mess.
I really despair when I see posts like yours - you quite obviously haven't even taken a second to consider the implications of what you propose.
"in a free nation the mp should be allowed a freedom to vote what he feels his area wants"
Well, just to nitpick for a moment, a lot of MP are 'she' not he, but moving on....
It would be quite impossible to run democracy on the basis of each MP voting according to conscience, or voting only in his or her constituents' interests. There are matters in Parliament that affect the entire nation, and MPs usually stick to the party line on those matters. They don't always do so - sometimes there are free votes, and sometimes individual MPs will abstain.
Over a very long time it has all worked pretty well, although of course all democratic processes might be improved - nobody on earth has so far come up with the perfect system of government.
A vote would be taken, amongst elected MPs, to decide the various posts and the Government would run as it does now. We would just be removing the damaging party system.
"I really despair when I see posts like yours - you quite obviously haven't even taken a second to consider the implications of what you propose".
I'm entitled to an opinion, even if you think it's stupid.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but this is a discussion forum, and if you voice an opinion you must expect it to be examined and commented on. I didn't use the word 'stupid' by the way, please don't put words into my mouth.
"A vote would be taken, amongst elected MPs, to decide the various posts and the Government would run as it does now."
Are you seriously suggesting that all Ministerial posts would be subject to a vote - have you any idea how long and complex such a process would be? There are currently around 120 government Ministers, and if the occupant of each post was decided on a vote it would all turn into a nightmare - who would chair cabinet meetings,and what would happen if a particular Minister made a complete hash of the job - who would decide that a re-shuffle was required?
You haven't thought this through at all, robgf, which is why I said what I did in my earlier post.
Surely the point is that if an MP is 'blackmailed' into voting differently to his conscience, then democracy (as we pretend to have) is meaningless.
I use the word blackmailed specifically, as one of the things whips use is threats of being removed from lucrative post and committees in the House. Vindictive.
Three -line whips really suggest that democracy is dead.
"Is it right for party leaders to bully their mp's on what to vote for"
Of cause it is, because its happening all the time, and that includes local politics, and very few 'elected' have taken a stance against it. If they have, then its usually a severe brow beating or rejection, with 'must tow the party line' thrown in. Now there's true democracy for you?.
When an MP or councillor, usually on election day or the follow up to that, tells their constituents that they are there to serve them, then thereafter promises are broken in favour of the party or the elected member themselves opinion, there there must be something seriously wrong.
Locally to me, we have had a bunch of 'new' first time MP's, as well as local councillor's. This in the main was due to the previous members not providing satisfactory services to the public. Some were voted out by their own parties, others thought the best solution was to not stand again. Some even tried to go Independent. It is becoming very apparent that these same new members, are now struggling to honour their promises to the public, because the party wants first preference on how, what or why decisions are going to be made. The public have very little say on the matter or issues being raised in their name?.
All those years ago, when some of the top politicians of the day, deserted their parties to form a new party under Jenkins and the like, people began to think that politics in this country was going to change. It didn't and hasn't!.
And as for the vote on Europe, our local newspaper have already approached some of the MP's. At present its a sit on the fence situation. Some seem to suggest that at present they may vote for and others have suggested that they will vote against?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.