Remove the undemocratic whips system

Proposer
philipjohn
State

Rejected

Vote Score

-20

Age

3709 days


@philipjohn edited housing.md - about 10 years ago

title: Housing layout: policy

published: true

Empty Properties

Residential properties that have been empty for more than 12 months will automatically attract a 100% increase in council tax.

A landlord of a property that has been unnocuppied for 12 months or more can, once the property has been occupied for 12 months or more, claim a 6 month rebate on the council tax paid before the property was occupied.

Government-backed lending schemes will be offered to landlords with unnoccupied residential properties that require refurbishment or repair in order to get them back into use.

@philipjohn edited index.md - about 10 years ago

Your contribution doesn't have to be huge; we need starting points before we get into all the detail.

@philipjohn edited housing.md - about 10 years ago

title: Housing layout: policy

published: true

Empty Properties

Residential properties that have been empty for more than 12 months will automatically attract a 100% increase in council tax.

A landlord of a property that has been unnocuppied for 12 months or more can, once the property has been occupied for 12 months or more, claim a 6 month rebate on the council tax paid before the property was occupied.

Government-backed lending schemes will be offered to landlords with unnoccupied residential properties that require refurbishment or repair in order to get them back into use.

Rental Sector

We will investigate the benefits and feasibility of rent stabilisation through limiting rent increases. It is hoped this will ensure affordable rents in places where property prices are pricing people out of the area.

@philipjohn edited index.md - about 10 years ago

Your contribution doesn't have to be huge; we need starting points before we get into all the detail.

@philipjohn edited democracy.md - about 10 years ago

Limit the number of ministers, abolish Parliamentary Private Secretaries and further place a limit on the number or percentage of ruling party MPs that may serve in Government. Granting Government jobs to MPs has been used increasingly as a way to help ensure more MPs 'tow the party line' often in the face of staunch opposition from constituents. Limiting this tactic will help to ensure more MPs remain more accountable to their electorate, not the party.

Ban unelected Lords from serving in Government.

Whips will be abolished. Every vote will be a free vote giving MPs the freedom to properly represent their constituents.

@philipjohn edited housing.md - about 10 years ago

title: Housing layout: policy

published: true

Empty Properties

Residential properties that have been empty for more than 12 months will automatically attract a 100% increase in council tax.

A landlord of a property that has been unnocuppied for 12 months or more can, once the property has been occupied for 12 months or more, claim a 6 month rebate on the council tax paid before the property was occupied.

Government-backed lending schemes will be offered to landlords with unnoccupied residential properties that require refurbishment or repair in order to get them back into use.

Rental Sector

We will investigate the benefits and feasibility of rent stabilisation through limiting rent increases. It is hoped this will ensure affordable rents in places where property prices are pricing people out of the area.

@philipjohn edited index.md - about 10 years ago

Your contribution doesn't have to be huge; we need starting points before we get into all the detail.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

RE WHIPS:

I hate the whipping system, but I'm not sure it's as easy as banning it. It's like political parties - I would much rather have a House of Commons full of Independent MPs, but even then they would gather into their own groups of like-minded MPs and you would still end up with them forming into 'parties' (by some other name) in order to organise and ensure legislation was passed.

Similarly even without formal Party Whips, or formally whipped votes, party leadership could still make it clear the 'line' that they are taking, and there would always be an expectation that their MPs follow that line. Anyone that doesn't may suffer very subtly: not being selected for the Committee on which they'd like to sit; not being made a PPS or a Junior Minister; not being allocated a decent office in Portcullis House (apparently that's at the whim of Party Leadership - ie the Whip's Office); not having a Cabinet heavyweight come and visit their swing constituency when they're hoping to be re-elected; leadership putting pressure on the Association to not reselect them at the next election. There are numerous discreet and not so discreet ways the leadership can manipulate and cajole their MPs to do their bidding. It's awful, but I think it would continue for as long as parties exist.

Ultimately constituents will (hopefully) reward MPs who demonstrate they have independence of spirit and are better at representing their own interests than that of their party leader.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 1 February 2014 20:56, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:


You can merge this Pull Request by running

git pull https://github.com/philipjohn/manifesto whips

Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94 Commit Summary - Housing - Adding rent stabilisation - Remove undemocratic whips

File Changes - M democracy.mdhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94/files#diff-0(2) - A housing.mdhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94/files#diff-1(17) - M index.mdhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94/files#diff-2(1)

Patch Links: - https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94.patch - https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94.diff

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94 .

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

I agree they'll still do it, but it's much easier WITH the whips system, which provides the party leaderships with a ready made tool to bully and cajole MPs. We should take that away tool from those... tools.

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

There's 3 file changes wrapped up in this one pull request. Can you separate them please.

I agree with @PaulJRobinson in that it's not as simple as 'abolishing the whips' – politicians should be free to collaborate together in this collective vote-as-one-block way if they so choose.

However it might be worth removing any formal recognition of whips within parliament (such as official job titles and associated salaries), but I'm no expert on how this works.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

@frankieroberto @philipjohn yes, I think there is some housing stuff included here accidentally.

Regarding the main thrust of the PR; I agree, whips are evil. Regarding subtle influence, I think we need to widen the scope a little, and make it illegal to seek to coerce any MP into voting a particular way. That way, whips are banned automatically, and if it can be shown that subtle influence is happening, then investigations can be done, etc.

I figure there is some existing electoral law we can use here - I guess it's illegal to make a member of the public vote a particular way. Why should that be any different in the Commons? (or Lords, or local councils, etc etc)

πŸ‘ from me as is, but I'd like to see it extended as well.

@philipjohn edited democracy.md - about 10 years ago

Limit the number of ministers, abolish Parliamentary Private Secretaries and further place a limit on the number or percentage of ruling party MPs that may serve in Government. Granting Government jobs to MPs has been used increasingly as a way to help ensure more MPs 'tow the party line' often in the face of staunch opposition from constituents. Limiting this tactic will help to ensure more MPs remain more accountable to their electorate, not the party.

Ban unelected Lords from serving in Government.

Whips will be abolished. Every vote will be a free vote giving MPs the freedom to properly represent their constituents.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

Sorry chaps, must have messed up my branches. Now fixed.

I like that idea @Floppy so I tried to find something along those lines but so far coming up empty handed. Not entirely sure I'm using the right phrases to search... any ideas?

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/_data/assets/electoralcommissionpdffile/0004/71887/Policepocketguide2014web.pdf looks relevant.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

Also, offences are listed in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2 - search for "Personation" for the start of the section. I can't see anything in there that explicitly states that it's illegal to exchange a vote for favours or prospects; there is obviously stuff on direct bribery, but I'm not sure about the more implicit stuff. Anyone else know?

@philipjohn edited democracy.md - about 10 years ago

Limit the number of ministers, abolish Parliamentary Private Secretaries and further place a limit on the number or percentage of ruling party MPs that may serve in Government. Granting Government jobs to MPs has been used increasingly as a way to help ensure more MPs 'tow the party line' often in the face of staunch opposition from constituents. Limiting this tactic will help to ensure more MPs remain more accountable to their electorate, not the party.

Ban unelected Lords from serving in Government.

A new criminal offence will be created outlawing the influencing of the parliamentary vote of any sitting MP. There will be no exceptions, making this offence apply to lobbying and partisan whipping.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

How's this, folks?

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

I think that's a bit wide. Doesn't that make me asking my MP to vote a certain way on a certain issue illegal?

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

I guess it does. An exception for constituents probably wouldn't cut it either, would it? Otherwise, campaign groups would find their jobs more difficult... I'm wary of restricting it just to political parties, but would you say that's the right way to go?

E.g. "A new criminal offence will be created outlawing the influencing of the parliamentary vote of any sitting MP by a political party, other MPs or the Government."

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Influencing parliamentary votes is how democracy should work...

A limited policy of reforming parliamentary roles and removing official support / recognition of whips might get my vote. Needs a bit more research though – i.e. what do they do (officially) at the moment?

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

Can I be a gigantic pain in the backside and change my mind? I'm coming round to the idea of a simple PR stating "Every vote in the House of Commons should be a free vote". The government should have to convince and persuade and build a fresh coalition of votes from across the House on every Bill put before Parliament. I wouldn't ban whips. Whips would still exist in order to be the government's people on the ground who go around trying to build those coalitions. But because every vote is a free vote they have to use persuasion rather than coercion.

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

@PaulJRobinson How is that different from the status quo?

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

Because the vast majority of votes at the moment are whipped votes. Very few are considered 'matters of conscience' and given a free vote. I propose that all votes are free votes, but that the Whips (the roles/positions) continue to exist in order to allow the government to gather together enough votes (from whichever parties) in order to pass their legislation.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 10 February 2014 11:23, Frankie Roberto [email protected] wrote:

@PaulJRobinson https://github.com/PaulJRobinson How is that different from the status quo?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-34621273 .

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

But isn't the whipping system fairly unofficial? i.e. all votes are technically 'free votes'.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

I have no problem with people trying to build consensus, but the shadowy world of trading benefits and influence for toeing the party line must be stopped. Whether I get a corner office overlooking the Thames shouldn't be affected by whether I voted in line with my party. I'm sure there must be proposals out there on this. Will look around.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

No each party makes clear distinctions to their MPs for each Bill that goes through Parliament: Most are whipped votes (you're expected to follow party line unless very good reason not to eg an MP made it clear during their election campaign that they disagreed with that particular element of their manifesto - many 'rebel' Tories make it clear they want to leave the EU when they get elected even though it's not official party policy); a Three Line Whip (you will bloody well turn up and vote along party lines or expect to be removed from the party) or a free vote (ie no official party line on the matter, for example this afternoon's vote banning smoking in cars with children is a free vote). There may well be others of which I'm not aware. I have no idea if there is a Two Line Whipped vote for example.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 10 February 2014 11:35, Frankie Roberto [email protected] wrote:

But isn't the whipping system fairly unofficial? i.e. all votes are technically 'free votes'.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-34621953 .

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

Better clarity here on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

In the United Kingdom, there are three categories of whip that are issued on particular business. An express instruction how to vote could constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, so the party's wishes are expressed unequivocally but indirectly. These whips are issued to MPs in the form of a letter outlining the parliamentary schedule, with a sentence such as "Your attendance is absolutely essential" next to each debate in which there will be a vote, underlined one, two or three times according to the severity of the whip: - A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting. - A two-line whip, sometimes known as a double-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip. - A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission not to attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances and may lead to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MotionofConfidence and supply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LossofSupply. The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary dramatically among parties and legislatures. Disobeying a three-line whip is by definition a newsworthy event, indicating as it does a potential mutiny; an example was the decision on 10 July 2012 by 91 Conservative MPs to vote against Prime Minister David Cameronhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DavidCameron on the issue of reform of the House of Lordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReformoftheHouseofLords .[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip(politics)#citenote-16

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 10 February 2014 11:41, Paul Robinson [email protected]:

No each party makes clear distinctions to their MPs for each Bill that goes through Parliament: Most are whipped votes (you're expected to follow party line unless very good reason not to eg an MP made it clear during their election campaign that they disagreed with that particular element of their manifesto - many 'rebel' Tories make it clear they want to leave the EU when they get elected even though it's not official party policy); a Three Line Whip (you will bloody well turn up and vote along party lines or expect to be removed from the party) or a free vote (ie no official party line on the matter, for example this afternoon's vote banning smoking in cars with children is a free vote). There may well be others of which I'm not aware. I have no idea if there is a Two Line Whipped vote for example.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 10 February 2014 11:35, Frankie Roberto [email protected]:

But isn't the whipping system fairly unofficial? i.e. all votes are technically 'free votes'.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-34621953 .

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

But as it says, these are indirect instructions, and are part of the party system, not parliament itself.

I'm not sure you can (or should) legislate on how a party negotiates internally on how their MPs vote.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

I think there are two issues here;

1) Whipping coerces MPs to vote a certain way, sometimes against their own wishes or those of their constituents (read: Iraq War). It flies directly in the face of representative democracy (caveats to that aside).

2) Whips are effectively Government agents. I've just remembered there's a more official name for them, Lords of the Treasury with First Lord of the Treasury being the PM, Second the Chancellor and the others are whips. Appointing them increases the size of the Government, strengthening the Government's hold on the Commons. The size of Government has doubled since 1900[1].

Those are the reasons for proposing the whips system be dropped, by whatever means we think best.

interestingly, this stood out to me from your comment @PaulJRobinson: "Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances and may lead to expulsion from the party." One approach might therefore be to use a mechanism akin to unfair dismissal to outlaw party expulsion on those grounds. That would allow whips (although honestly for reason 2 above I think they need to go) but eradicate the fear MPs associate with rebelling.

An interesting way to think of this whole issue is around "parliamentary supremacy" (as much as I hate that phrase) - that supremacy is based on representation, and an unrepresentative Parliament (i.e. one controlled by the leadership - via whipping - of three parties who have a combined membership less than that of the RSPB[2]) cannot justifiably be the supreme legal authority.

Refs 1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubadm/457/45703.htm 2. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/06/party-political-system-decline-lord-odonnell

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

There is another counter argument to @philipjohn's point above that perhaps hasn't been articulated yet: All MPs (other than Independents - and there are few of those) stood for election on the basis that they back a particular party manifesto. In return for backing that manifesto they get support of the party machine, and the name recognition, that helped them get elected. They didn't have to do that. They could have stood on their own banner as an Independent, but we all know they probably wouldn't have won.

So they did the deal with the devil, and now they're in Parliament. Those constituents who put them there made a choice to put a Con/Lab/LD/Green etc to represent them. Doesn't the Party who helped them get into Parliament (and those constituents who put them there) have the right to expect the MP to vote in line with that manifesto?

Speaking for myself I made a decision to stand for election to Council in 2011, and I did so under a party banner. I was elected despite nobody knowing my name, but because they wanted someone from that party to represent them, and to implement that particular manifesto. Now in 2014 I would rather be an Independent and go against my party. But that wasn't what voters elected me to do. So I shall serve the remainder of my term to fulfil my duty to them, and continue on that basis for the next 15 months. I think that's the honourable thing to do.

So one could argue that Whips help ensure that MPs are fulfilling their promise to those who elected them. MPs took the party support and resources when it suited them during the campaign, and now they should fulfil their side of the deal.

with kind regards, Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 10 February 2014 19:02, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:

I think there are two issues here;

1) Whipping coerces MPs to vote a certain way, sometimes against their own wishes or those of their constituents (read: Iraq War). It flies directly in the face of representative democracy (caveats to that aside).

2) Whips are effectively Government agents. I've just remembered there's a more official name for them, Lords of the Treasury with First Lord of the Treasury being the PM, Second the Chancellor and the others are whips. Appointing them increases the size of the Government, strengthening the Government's hold on the Commons. The size of Government has doubled since 1900[1].

Those are the reasons for proposing the whips system be dropped, by whatever means we think best.

interestingly, this stood out to me from your comment @PaulJRobinson: "Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances and may lead to expulsion from the party." One approach might therefore be to use a mechanism akin to unfair dismissal to outlaw party expulsion on those grounds. That would allow whips (although honestly for reason 2 above I think they need to go) but eradicate the fear MPs associate with rebelling.

An interesting way to think of this whole issue is around "parliamentary supremacy" (as much as I hate that phrase) - that supremacy is based on representation, and an unrepresentative Parliament (i.e. one controlled by the leadership - via whipping - of three parties who have a combined membership less than that of the RSPB[2]) cannot justifiably be the supreme legal authority.

Refs 1.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmpubadm/457/45703.htm 2.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/06/party-political-system-decline-lord-odonnell

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-34668017 .

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

It's a fair point, but it assumes that parties stick to their pre-election promises and manifestos, which we all know they do not. Especially in this case where there is a coalition agreement which supercedes everything pre-election (and even that's not being stuck to, I don't think).

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

I see this as an attempt to reduce the influence of party politics in general. I agree that whips are an essential component of party politics, but it's party politics that has people disillusioned. It's explicitly not something we believe in here (we are aiming for direct democracy in the long run), so removing the influence of the whips is a step along that road.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

Good point, well made. Here's my rebuttal :) 1. "They could have stood on their own banner as an Independent, but we all know they probably wouldn't have won." This is a weakness of the party political system, so rather than except the whips as necessary result, we should seek to fix the broken system instead. 2. "Those constituents who put them there made a choice to put a Con/Lab/LD/Green etc to represent them." With the caveat that I need to offer more than presumptions, I think it's widely acknowledged that most voters don't know what's in the manifestos they're voting for. 3. "Doesn't the Party who helped them get into Parliament (and those constituents who put them there) have the right to expect the MP to vote in line with that manifesto?" To start with, it is accepted, I believe, that party members don't always believe in the tenets of the official manifesto - you only need to look at the conference policy votes to see dissenters to the official line Secondly, the party has NO right whatsoever to influence the commons. it is the democratically elected body representing the people - only the people have the right to influence it. 4. "But that wasn't what voters elected me to do." I'd disagree - whether they chose a party because their own views broadly align with that party is of no consequence. Elected representative are there to represent, in the best interests of their constituents, not in the best interests of themselves or their party. I can't find it but I'm sure I'd submitted a PR that includes the proposal to give MPs tools to better consult constituents on issues, for this very reason. We need to encourage more representative politics and less party politics. 5. "and now they should fulfil their side of the deal" Whether explicit or implied, there can be no such deal - it devalues the democratic election and leads to apathy.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

All very good points indeed. With reference to James' earlier point regarding direct democracy, I suppose the point we are arguing over here is on the basis that we stick with a representative system. I'm very much in favour of moving away from representative towards direct democracy. I think we now have the tools to do this. Direct Democracy would certainly negate the need to discuss this particular point about the value of the whipping system. Nevertheless that's what we're discussing here. I have a few more thoughts on each of @philipjohn's points above: 1. Agreed: I would like to fix the system to improve the chances for smaller parties and independents to get elected. I think electoral reform, and funding reform, will help. 2. I agree that most voters probably don't know what's in the manifesto of the MP who gets elected. That information is freely available though. I also agree with James that much of what MPs are asked to vote for isn't in a manifesto (eg the Coalition Agreement). But where a Bill does match a manifesto commitment, public ignorance of that manifesto does not justify ignoring that commitment. Otherwise you end up with lots of scenarios replicating the Lib Dems reneging on their tuition fee pledge. 3. "Only the people have the right to influence it". Coalitions built behind closed doors after an election which bear no relation to manifestos are at odds with this concept. But how else to deal with a Hung Parliament? Can't keep on holding election after election. 4. I'm very supportive of better tools to enhance consultation with residents. 5. I think politicians do have a responsibility and a duty to fulfil the role that constituents elected them to do. Unilaterally declaring a switch of positions like Nick Clegg with tuition fees, just erodes trust. Perhaps the whipping system helps force MPs to maintain that trust, by sticking to their election commitments.

OK so in summary: I favour Direct Democracy - which would allow us to get rid of whipping. In the meantime let's have more free votes relating to non-manifesto commitments.

On 11 February 2014 10:57, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:

Good point, well made. Here's my rebuttal :) 1. "They could have stood on their own banner as an Independent, but we all know they probably wouldn't have won." This is a weakness of the party political system, so rather than except the whips as necessary result, we should seek to fix the broken system instead. 2. "Those constituents who put them there made a choice to put a Con/Lab/LD/Green etc to represent them." With the caveat that I need to offer more than presumptions, I think it's widely acknowledged that most voters don't know what's in the manifestos they're voting for. 3. "Doesn't the Party who helped them get into Parliament (and those constituents who put them there) have the right to expect the MP to vote in line with that manifesto?" To start with, it is accepted, I believe, that party members don't always believe in the tenets of the official manifesto - you only need to look at the conference policy votes to see dissenters to the official line Secondly, the party has NO right whatsoever to influence the commons. it is the democratically elected body representing the people - only the people have the right to influence it. 4. "But that wasn't what voters elected me to do." I'd disagree - whether they chose a party because their own views broadly align with that party is of no consequence. Elected representative are there to represent, in the best interests of their constituents, not in the best interests of themselves or their party. I can't find it but I'm sure I'd submitted a PR that includes the proposal to give MPs tools to better consult constituents on issues, for this very reason. We need to encourage more representative politics and less party politics. 5. "and now they should fulfil their side of the deal" Whether explicit or implied, there can be no such deal - it devalues the democratic election and leads to apathy.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-34743986 .

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

On the bigger question, I'm not convinced about 'direct democracy' vs 'representative democracy'.

Even if we were to favour the former though, I’m not sure that abolishing whips is the best way to achieve this, or even if it's workable. You can't ban MPs from voluntarily voting with their party / a group...

I can't support this PR as it stands.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

I'll respond fully later, but on this one: "You can't ban MPs from voluntarily voting with their party / a group..." this PR isn't doing that, it's attempting to do prevent parties from restricting MPs voting freedom. They can vote with their party if they wish to, but they shouldn't be forced to by a system of bullying and threats.

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

@philipjohn the PR bans 'the influencing of the parliamentary vote' – this seems crazy. It would make writing to your MP to try and persuade them to vote a particular way a criminal offence!

I can understand the desire to have more independently minded MPs, but I don’t think you can achieve this by simply banning parties from asking their MPs to vote as a block. You could, for instance, make all parliamentary votes secret ballots – however I think this would be terrible.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

Yeah, I agree here. We need to limits the power of the whips, but this is far too broadly written as is. As @frankieroberto points out, it would make asking your MP to vote on something illegal, which is far too broad. I'm also πŸ‘Ž as currently written, though I agree with the principle.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

Wouldn't returning to my original suggestion deal with that? edae5e728b78d93bba1b0a235d9c0cc249c414c8

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

Your original suggestion banned whips, and made all votes 'free votes', but gave no suggestion as to how this could be implemented – parties could simply rename whips, declare all votes free, but give strong suggestions as to how their MPs vote, which in effect is what we have now.

I think the most constructive thing to do would be to allow the current system to continue, but to look at the incentives for MPs to follow their parties, such that they're more likely to feel able to rebel. For instance, at the moment party leaders can appoint their cabinet from amongst their MPs, which basically allows them to decide who gets a big pay rise and more responsibility. So one idea might be to separate the Executive (i.e. the Government) and the Legislature (i.e. Parliament) more, with politicians transferring between these through some process other than the patronage of the Prime Minister.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

Just had a conversation with @francisdavey, who has suggested an "Open Whip" system which might be an interesting compromise between the need for whips to keep a party together, and the desire for transparency and accountability. Currently, unless someone leaks the whip, nobody outside parliament knows which votes are whipped and to what level. Could we make it a requirement that the whip must be published openly, preferably at the same time the MPs get it? Is that a middle ground that gives us a way forward on this?

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - about 10 years ago

@floppy sounds good

On 20 March 2014 08:54, James Smith [email protected] wrote:

Just had a conversation with @francisdaveyhttps://github.com/francisdavey, who has suggested an "Open Whip" system which might be an interesting compromise between the need for whips to keep a party together, and the desire for transparency and accountability. Currently, unless someone leaks the whip, nobody outside parliament knows which votes are whipped and to what level. Could we make it a requirement that the whip must be published openly, preferably at the same time the MPs get it? Is that a middle ground that gives us a way forward on this?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/94#issuecomment-38145599 .

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - about 10 years ago

@Floppy that seems like something which should be encouraged, but I'm not sure how it could be enforced (or if it should be). We can already tell whether an MP voted with their party or not, after all.

Floppy

@Floppy - about 10 years ago

Yes, but the question is whether they were told to or not. More transparency can only be a good thing here. I'm not too worried about enforcement at this point, more the principle.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - about 10 years ago

I want to agree to that as a short-term compromise, my thinking being that it'd change nothing in the Commons at all but might show the public that their MPs aren't working for them, but the party.

However, I am cynical enough to be almost certain that the general public would know about as much about "open whips" as they do about the present system (i.e., diddly squat). That leaves us in the same position where the party decides and public opinion gets brushed aside (I'm gonna have to bring up Iraq again on that point...).

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 10 years ago

This is drawn too widely at the moment. How about: - Whips are allowed as a necessary evil for the operation of parties (while they exist) - The whip must be published openly when given to party members - Make it illegal for voting record to be considered when: - allocating benefits (offices, etc) - considering people for posts (e.g. in executive) - dismissing a person from a party (i.e. unfair dismissal)

frankieroberto

@frankieroberto - almost 10 years ago

@Floppy I'm not sure how 'to be considered' is workable – very hard to prove either way.

Better in my view to examine the system of punishment / benefits themselves: - dismissal from a party is a party political matter, not something I believe should be legislated - allocating offices is really important – perhaps shouldn't be the privilege of the Prime Minister (technically the Monarch, but in practice the PM) – instead perhaps subject to the vote of Parliament, or directly elected, or approved by a committee?

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 10 years ago

The dismissal thing may not be workable, I admit.

Perhaps the only way to remove the influence of party loyalty is to take decisions away from the parties, as you suggest. Random allocation of offices seems obvious, and the idea of more separation of legislature and executive seems good, but would need a much larger PR than this to accomplish.

philipjohn

@philipjohn - almost 10 years ago

A quick win on that might be to have Cabinet appointments subject to approval by a Commons vote.

PaulJRobinson

@PaulJRobinson - almost 10 years ago

Apparently before it used to be the case that any Cabinet (or ministerial) appointment was subject to constituency approval. It was considered 'swapping sides' because the MP would no longer be free to vote in favour or genuine constituency interests as they would be obliged to vote alongside Government. So an MP would call a by-election before accepting such a post. I quite like that idea!

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/causes.html

philipjohn

@philipjohn - almost 10 years ago

@PaulJRobinson Wow, that's interesting!

philipjohn

@philipjohn - almost 9 years ago

I'm aware this is dead, but I thought it worth sharing thoughts I blogged today that go some way to the reasoning behind the suggestion of abolishing whips. http://philipjohn.me.uk/2015/05/11/majority-government-powerful-government-the-stability-fallacy/

Floppy

@Floppy - almost 9 years ago

Nice. I'd still like to see this turned into something workable one day :)