What is the point of parliament?

[Kizzy]

What is the point of Parliament?

January 16, 2014
On Monday, something happened in the House of Commons that should cause electors to wonder what parliament is for. The motion before the house was that “a commission of inquiry be established to investigate the impact of the government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty”. At the vote the government was defeated by 125 votes to two. The result: nothing at all – it wasn’t reported and the government is ignoring it.
So what is parliament’s role meant to be? The textbooks will say it is to hold the government of the day to account, particularly on any legislation brought forward. But the chances of influencing that legislation are negligible because the government commands a whipped majority at every stage of a bill’s passage through the commons. Certainly, parliament can make its voice heard, but it can hardly change anything that the government has decided to do. The only rare exception is when there is a revolt on the government benches which is backed by the opposition, and even then when the government lost a vote on that basis last year on the EU budget, it still ostentatiously dismissed the vote as merely ‘advisory’.



“the most effective way of making progress is greater awareness among the electorate of how Parliament actually performs, or fails to perform. If the public understood more transparently how the corrupting influence of patronage actually works, how the power system turns everything to its own advantage, and how the genuine objectives of democratic elections are so readily thwarted, a lot of these unedifying practices would have to be curbed.”

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2014/01/what-is-the-point-of-parliament/

[Vicky.]

What is the point of Parliament?

January 16, 2014
On Monday, something happened in the House of Commons that should cause electors to wonder what parliament is for. The motion before the house was that “a commission of inquiry be established to investigate the impact of the government’s welfare reforms on the incidence of poverty”. At the vote the government was defeated by 125 votes to two. The result: nothing at all – it wasn’t reported and the government is ignoring it.
So what is parliament’s role meant to be? The textbooks will say it is to hold the government of the day to account, particularly on any legislation brought forward. But the chances of influencing that legislation are negligible because the government commands a whipped majority at every stage of a bill’s passage through the commons. Certainly, parliament can make its voice heard, but it can hardly change anything that the government has decided to do. The only rare exception is when there is a revolt on the government benches which is backed by the opposition, and even then when the government lost a vote on that basis last year on the EU budget, it still ostentatiously dismissed the vote as merely ‘advisory’.



“the most effective way of making progress is greater awareness among the electorate of how Parliament actually performs, or fails to perform. If the public understood more transparently how the corrupting influence of patronage actually works, how the power system turns everything to its own advantage, and how the genuine objectives of democratic elections are so readily thwarted, a lot of these unedifying practices would have to be curbed.”

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2014/01/what-is-the-point-of-parliament/

Whats a whipped majority?

[arista]

Kizzy
I thought
at last she has a Great New Thread

Sad to see its just a bitter / Out of Work
old New Labour failed MP

[Kizzy]

Whats a whipped majority?

Majority Whip: In effect, the assistant majority leader, in either the House or Senate. The Majority Whip’s job is to help marshal majority forces in support of party strategies and legislation. The party caucus elects the whip.

[Vicky.]

Kizzy
I thought
at last she has a Great New Thread

Sad to see its just a bitter / Out of Work
old New Labour failed MP

Don't see why that stops it being a great new thread tbh. The question is still as valid as anything surely? If theres a vote that the results are 125/2..and still nothing is done, surely this is cause for concern...and pretty much proves the house of commons (in its current form at least) is quite useless.

[joeysteele]

Parliament is there to serve the people after election.
It should work fine as long as govts; see themselves as servants of the people and not superior to the people.

Usually votes in the house of commons would be respected especally in decisive results.
However, there have been and can be times where some govt; will think it is even above parliamentary procedure and even abuse power,as in my view this govt; as to the NHS issue.

I still lean to current system with the Lords myself but I am not beyond,especially after this present govt; looking at having a 2nd elected chamber which would hopefully be able to, in part, hold govts; to account and keep them more in check as to what they can ignore and even do.

[bots]

I don't see the problem to be honest, and I would say this no matter the political party involved.

1) The important vote (the one that would make a difference) was when the decision to change something was made. The whole point of parties having majorities is so that they can do what they set out in their manifestos with relative ease. The ease with which they can do that is dictated by the electorate voting for them in a general election.

2) A whipped vote is simply an instruction that the MP should vote with the party, if he/she doesn't then they effectively lose the whip and are disowned by the party. Good reason for this again. Those MP's were elected there based on the party manifesto, so its only right and proper that they vote as per their election pledge. The only time its a free vote is when its not directly related to a manifesto pledge.

3) Given the above, and the fact that party was carrying out its manifesto pledge to the public, there are no grounds for any enquiry. Its up to the opposition to win enough seats at the next election and reverse the action if they so wish.

No idea what planet Meacher is on to be honest.

[arista]

Don't see why that stops it being a great new thread tbh. The question is still as valid as anything surely? If theres a vote that the results are 125/2..and still nothing is done, surely this is cause for concern...and pretty much proves the house of commons (in its current form at least) is quite useless.


Sure Vicky

But we had 13 long wasted years of New Labour
why the Feck Did they not start to change First Past the Post
System of voting?

[joeysteele]

Sure Vicky

But we had 13 long wasted years of New Labour
why the Feck Did they not start to change First Past the Post
System of voting?

On this I 100% agree with you,Tony Blair talked a lot about the alignment of the centre and left of politics and did talk to Paddy Ashdown on this issue.
Then as he won his next massive overall majority in 2001,he just let the whole thing slip away down the list of anything important.

My Dad firmly believed that certainly in the 2nd term of labour govt;after 2001,that at the very least AV would have been put in place.
I think Tony Blair turned his back on all he'd said as to that once he was getting such massive overall majorities.

It is no good anyone moaning at the Conservatives on this one, they will never change the voting system or even want to, they have been consistent all through.
To be fair to them even more,in the whole 13 years of opposition, they still never indicated any move to a change to the voting system.

AV could have been in place by the election of 2005 really,had Tony Blair not just played games as to it with the Lib Dems.

Of course they were even more daft, the Lib Dems should have insisted at the very least for AV to be part of the coalition agreement.

However the chance of 5 years of shared power, a Deputy PM title for Clegg and some Ministerial positions for some Lib Dem MPs, soon had them water any move to AV or PR down too