Discussion Thread: More free votes in the House of Commons

This is an archived discussion thread for the "More free votes in the House of Commons" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.  

liviaoldland 1 month ago

bill_gedim and 7 more liked this.
Independent voting is an essential aspect of democracy. Without the stranglehold that party whips have on Parliament, the electorate can be better represented. We have seen that this grip on Parliament has resulted in many unpopular decisions, most notably the Iraq War. Millions marched on the streets and the outcry was ignored. Free votes enable MPs to fully listen and act on the electorates' opinions and make them arguably more accountable for their actions. 
MPs can use their own experience and expertise to inform decision making. By using considered evidence and their own conscious they're able to better represent the public. This would create a Parliament with more reasoned deliberation, arguably debates would be better attended and the quality of discussion improved. 
MPs should be free of party whips. They should have the right to a free vote on every subject, otherwise it just makes a mockery of our democratic system. It shouldn't even be up for discussion, it should be already a part of our system.

bill_gedim 1 month ago in reply to liviaoldland

peaksteve and 2 more liked this.
Agreed. Whipping should be a criminal offence. It is unquestionably a form of corruption. 

There have been cases of MPs receiving payments or other inducements to lobby or raise questions on behalf of commercial organisations. Clearly, this is, and should be, regarded as a very serious criminal offence. On the other hand, do not party "whips" also use threats and promises to induce MPs to follow the party line? Should that too not be regarded as a criminal activity, deflecting MPs from their duty to act as honourable and independent representatives of their constituencies? 

The offence is particularly severe when the party line is contrary to undertakings made at the time of election. Too often the party leader decides to abandon commitments and change policy. MPs are then required to vote accordingly. Disgraceful!

StefanB 1 month ago

peaksteve and 5 more liked this.
This is fundamental to the democratic process. Free votes using the individual intellects of MP's. Government would have to win support by reason and debate and not by bullying. This does not go far enough though. I believe that the party whip process should be outlawed entirely, and the need for rapid decisions can occur only when emergency powers are invoked.

blingmun 1 month ago

peaksteve and 6 more liked this.
This suggestion is flawed. Party whips can control MPs because the vast majority of voters elect not a particular individual but their local Conservative, Labour or LibDem MP. So if Joe Bloggs, Conservative MP is deselected by his Party, his safe Conservative seat will go to someone who is more likely to toe the party line. Unless he is exceptionally well known in his own right, standing as an independent, he will lose his seat in Parliament.

This proposal - as it is presented - does nothing to change the relationship between whips and MPs and merely hopes that whips will in future be more willing to allow the Government's agenda to be watered down by its own MPs (MP who owe their positions to the electioneering of the party, not their own charisma and good looks).

If, on the other hand, constituents had power of recall then MPs would suddenly have something to worry about besides the whips. It's easy to imagine the conservation between the MP and the whips about Iraq or the EU Constitution. The whips insist that this really is crucially important for the Government. The MP replies simply: "If I vote for this war in Iraq or for this Lisbon Treaty, there'll be a petition for my removal in place by tomorrow, a by-election within a month and I'll be slung out of Parliament within 8 weeks. No deal amigo, I'm voting with my conscience (and my constituents!) on this one".

TGH 1 month ago

peaksteve and 1 more liked this.
I don't want MPs to rely on their own judgement - I want them to inform Parliament what the views of their constituents are and then be free to express their own feelings on the subject. If MPs are given a free vote and only give their personal views where's the representation?

corneiliusc 1 month ago

2 people liked this.
The whip is fundamentally anti-democratic .... if groupings of people cannot agree by informed consensus, they have no business enforcing 'consensus' nor being forced into 'consensus' and the issue has to remain open for discourse until consensus is realised. There are advantages to this approach, in that in-depth deliberation, exploration and learning are transparantly part of the process.

Truth 2 weeks ago
VOTE = CONTRACT = CONSENSUAL SLAVERY.

Don't VOTE, you give away Sovereignty to a bunch of self serving people.

Elizabeth 1 week ago in reply to Truth
And not voting achieves something better? As a friend of mine said, 'Representative democracy is the worst system except all the others.' It would be nice if we didn't need a government, but, if some people are going to wind up governing the country, we might as well elect them. If you don't like being asked to choose from a list of appalling candidates, we need a 'None Of The Above' option on ballot papers.

marycurran 1 week ago
MP's are dominated by party whips. One particularly pernicious example of this was when Independent MP Bob Spink proposed Early Day Motion 637, about 3 weeks ago, hoping to start a debate in Parliament about the threat posed to UK civil liberties by the planned EU Public Prosecutor (one of the very few things where we still have a veto) . Deplorably, only 8 MP's so far have supported him over this; the rest were doubtless obeying party whips. 
The text of Early Day Motion 637, which speaks for itself, to follow in another post which will follow directly.

marycurran 1 week ago in reply to marycurran
EARLY DAY MOTION 637
That this House notes with concern that Article 69E, Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters, of the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), a judicial body in charge of investigating, with the power to order national police forces to initiate investigations; further notes with concern that the EPPO will have extensive powers and will not be accountable to the UK Parliament; believes that the creation of such a powerful undemocratic body would show complete disregard for the common law system in the UK; and calls on the Government to ensure that UK enforcement authorities continue to have sole jurisdiction in this
country.

John Edwards 1 day ago
MP's should represent the views of all the electorate in their area. Therefore sometimes it may mean voting against their own party policy. Remove the whip and force all MP's to keep in touch with all the people they represent not just the party activists !!!

jamesdudeney 1 day ago
This is a great idea in principal, but the MP's are there as our elected representatives, and should not be voting on either their party lines, or on personal experience & opinion. They should instead be canvassing the electorate to give a truly representative vote. However, that WOULD be democracy, so I won't hold my breath!

gerryhawkey 22 hours ago
Recently this country has entered a war, which is regarded by many as an illegal war. This was done without a free vote in the house of commons. Without a free vote, MPs cannot register what is their true opinion without jeopardising their careers. Each MP that is sponsored by a party is tied to the opinion of the party leader. That is if he or she has any hopes of advancement or even of party support at the next election. To buck the system is political death.

Reactions

luminesca 2 weeks ago

From Twitter via BackType

just voted for more free votes in the Commons to make the #POWER2010 Election Pledge, do the same at http://tinyurl.com/yamas6h