to intensely dislike the party whip system?

[WebDude]

My area MP is an out and out "Yes" man, given he has been a PPS to someone in the Home Office (so had to vote yes on ID cards, and stuff), and now a minister somewhere under Lord Mandelson, but even before he was so closely tied into the government, his voting record shows a tiny number (3) of votes against his party, as if he was one of the braindead politicians who cannot see right from wrong.

I assume most MPs feel they have to vote with their party, if only because they risk the wrath of the whips, their local party members, and to some extent, perhaps feel concern about how hostile things might be at home in the constituency where their partner {and probably some children} are living.

We've this week seen a bunch of politicians start campaigning, leaving a smaller number to debate and vote on bills, to simply "rush them through".

Last night saw the passing of the Digital Economy Bill, which many felt had too little scrutiny, and about which Mark Steel has put up a great video (about 10 minutes).

There will have been a number of compromises made (such as the removal of the 50p/month levy) just to get the bill passed into law without other parties talking for hours to block it.

However the central point, where party whips are concerned, is that they remove the option for an MP to listen to the public and reflect on their views, then make her/his own mind up, and feel confident that they can answer critics without needing to pluck some party line out to account for voting this way, or that.

So much seems now to be centrally controlled, these MPs are almost puppets on strings, voting in particular being one of the most transparent aspects, but being pushed to answer the public and have their comments criticised by the public, maybe one part of this Digital bill is that in future there will be fewer dissenting voices, as your internet access might be stopped, and any web site you build/ contribute to, could be blocked.

As the woman from Liberty on Mark Steel's video commented, what was suggested and what actually happened were two radically different things, and not good.

A sorry tale if the MPs and future government turn these "flexible" bills to their own ends, with the risk of "blackmail" for any MPs that want to step out of line and question the party view.

I don't see that the whips do anything in the interest of the public, in fact as far as I can tell they actually stand in the way of democracy. (Where did our say go?)

It does nothing to improve voter apathy when they can't see their votes being taken into account (and that's if the MP's turn up in the first place)

Interesting campaign on the 38degrees.org.uk site about requesting a change so if there are sufficient voters in an MPs constituency unhappy with performance, they can requesta "recall" - ie request a fresh vote.

It would have been interesting to see (when the Post Office closures were under consideration) how many MPs might have kept or lost their seats. Local man here obviously said "yes" but hypocrite was in local press saying he supported our local post offices.

I'm glad the other parties took note, but unfortunately the local man will have a lot of 'lifelong' support (unless people do feel really annoyed with him).

I don't think he's especially bad nor any more dishonest (on expenses) than other MPs, but do feel we need a change and having a fixed term and a number of other aspects could usefully be changed make MPs more answerable to electors.

That is a really good idea. Would give the voters their reassurance that their vote means something.

Up till now I haven't voted because I've been well aware that even if you vote them in based on their policies, doesn't mean they will necessarily follow those policies through. This hasn't exactly inspired me!

The whip system reduces MPs to being mere delegates rather than their constituents' representative. It's one advantage I guess is that the government once it has an overall majority is strong and certain. That is it's only saving grace.
I was thinking about this recently and came to the conclusion that we have been lucky in this country that we have checks and balances on our 'elected dictatorship' and we have never had extreme governments. More due to luck than design though.

Definitely luck, this system seems far too easy to abuse.

I think a lot of the "checks and balances" have been thrown out with various bits of legislation made over the past 12 years or so.

The worst thing is that even though abuse of the laws that have been made is limited, any vagueness in those laws could be exploited in future by some more hard-line government, and by then, the judiciary might be unable to make their comments known widely because the equivalent of a "D Notice" can potentially be slapped on any website the government of the time doesn't like.

While the suggests are about making laws "flexible" to adapt with technology, I suspect it means "flexible" for the Ministers to make decisions on what is classed as permitted or not permitted without any clear scrutiny even by MPs. Bodies like Ofcom will also be "under the thumb" and if they quibble with the government (just like the science advisors on drugs) then the government will simply ignore them, and bulldoze their plans into law anyway.

suggests -> "suggestions"