Technology1 min ago
Chief whips
I am a recent convert to the world of politics, so am still very much confused by some of the protocols.
If I subscribe to a certain political point of view, I am free in the UK to join any party of my choice, is that correct ?
If I then run for election as an MP for that party, I agree to abide by its principles and beliefs ?
If then, once an MP for the said party, I strongly disagree with an issue they are trying to write into law, am I free to voice my opposition and vote against it ?
If this is so, is it the job of the "whip" to show me the error of my ways and leave me in no doubt that voting against my party would be a seriously negative career move ?
If all this is so, are we still a nation where one and all can express free speech and opinion ?
I'm confused, can someone shed some light please ?
If I subscribe to a certain political point of view, I am free in the UK to join any party of my choice, is that correct ?
If I then run for election as an MP for that party, I agree to abide by its principles and beliefs ?
If then, once an MP for the said party, I strongly disagree with an issue they are trying to write into law, am I free to voice my opposition and vote against it ?
If this is so, is it the job of the "whip" to show me the error of my ways and leave me in no doubt that voting against my party would be a seriously negative career move ?
If all this is so, are we still a nation where one and all can express free speech and opinion ?
I'm confused, can someone shed some light please ?
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by alb0679. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Very briefly the theory is that having been selected to stand as a candidate and been voted into office you are not speaking as yourself but as a representative of the electorate. The logic being that they voted for you as a member of your declared party and the things it says it stands for. The party meanwhile only selected you as it too thought that you believed in the things that it said it stood for. Your only real option if you truly believe that your oppostion to said proposal outweighs your duty to your electors is to vote against said proposal and once the final decisions have been made to resign.
Fitzer has the right of it. I would just add a few caveats.
You have the right (though not the duty) to apply to be a member of any party. They may not accept you even as a member, far less as a candidate.
Your adoption as a candidate is by a local comittee in the constituency where you will serve, and you may justifiably feel that your loyalties are to that local comittee more than to the national party.
Where a policy forms part of the manifesto of your party then you would find it difficult to justify voting against it in the House. It might be morally defensible if something major had happened since the election to cause you to change your mind over the issue. However, it is also arguable that any political party is an assemblage of (more or less) like-minded individuals who will see eye to eye on most issues and not at all on some others. To expect a doctrinaire toe-the-line attitude on every point is therefore unreasonable.
There have always been some issues on which Governments, while recommending one or other course of action, have allowed their adherents a free vote. The abolition/ reintroduction of the death penalty was a case in point. It may also be worth remembering when considering how much any MP truly represents their electorate that the death penalty was taken off and kept off the statute book despite clear evidence that a majority of the electorate (at least initially) were in favour of its retention/ reintroduction.
Finally (at last, I hear you cry!) it is also worth remembering that with our current first past the post system a considerable number of our MPs have been elected by a minority of the people in their constituency. They have a duty to represent all of them and sometimes this also may sway their votes in parliament.
You have the right (though not the duty) to apply to be a member of any party. They may not accept you even as a member, far less as a candidate.
Your adoption as a candidate is by a local comittee in the constituency where you will serve, and you may justifiably feel that your loyalties are to that local comittee more than to the national party.
Where a policy forms part of the manifesto of your party then you would find it difficult to justify voting against it in the House. It might be morally defensible if something major had happened since the election to cause you to change your mind over the issue. However, it is also arguable that any political party is an assemblage of (more or less) like-minded individuals who will see eye to eye on most issues and not at all on some others. To expect a doctrinaire toe-the-line attitude on every point is therefore unreasonable.
There have always been some issues on which Governments, while recommending one or other course of action, have allowed their adherents a free vote. The abolition/ reintroduction of the death penalty was a case in point. It may also be worth remembering when considering how much any MP truly represents their electorate that the death penalty was taken off and kept off the statute book despite clear evidence that a majority of the electorate (at least initially) were in favour of its retention/ reintroduction.
Finally (at last, I hear you cry!) it is also worth remembering that with our current first past the post system a considerable number of our MPs have been elected by a minority of the people in their constituency. They have a duty to represent all of them and sometimes this also may sway their votes in parliament.
1 to 2 of 2
