The government foisting a mayor on "Greater Manchester" (a term, as someone who has roots in the area, I soundly reject) is one of the most shamelessly partisan policies I have ever seen by a government.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives care only about three things: helping the rich, punishing the poor and staying in power.
It's clear at this point that anyone who is voting for this Conservative has no morals whatsoever.
The government foisting a mayor on "Greater Manchester" (a term, as someone who has roots in the area, I soundly reject) is one of the most shamelessly partisan policies I have ever seen by a government.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives care only about three things: helping the rich, punishing the poor and staying in power.
It's clear at this point that anyone who is voting for this Conservative has no morals whatsoever.
delightfully batshit post.
do you chew carpets ?
Lol.
Oliver is a beauty. I'm sometimes envious of the Tories-are-responsible-for-all-the-world's-ills brigade, wishing I felt that strongly about stuff.
A Mayor for Manchester? How dare they. Definitely one of the most sinister, twisted, evil, looking-after-their-rich-friends policies ever. B*stards.
The government foisting a mayor on "Greater Manchester" (a term, as someone who has roots in the area, I soundly reject) is one of the most shamelessly partisan policies I have ever seen by a government.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives care only about three things: helping the rich, punishing the poor and staying in power.
It's clear at this point that anyone who is voting for this Conservative has no morals whatsoever.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 1) I can't see any circumstance in which an elected mayor of GM will not be the Labour Party candidate. 2) It's an administrative measure that may or may not lead to better administration. How will this help the rich or punish the poor? 3) It's an administrative measure. How can you be so morally affronted, unless you are instinctively morally affronted by anything a Conservative does?
I'm local, and generally Conservative, and generally ambivalent about this, because of point 1) above and also because here in Trafford we have an authority which is to my taste (low spending, good schools) and I don't particularly want this to be countermanded by a high-spending GM-wide authority; and also because in situations like these the suburbs always seem to end up subsidising the centre. I can see the pros, but on balance I'm anti. But I simply can't fathom how you can be quite so angry about it.
I'm not sure you are right, about the subsidy. Running a major city centre like Manchester is jolly expensive - the pressure of non-resident population is huge. City-regional authorities overcome that by bringing more people into the official city so they can contribute, and be represented. Great move by Osborne. The London model works well, he is wise to replicate it.
On one level I can understand the attention that the Thread writers give to Ashcroft polling. It really should be an invaluable resource. We have never before had constituency polls of 1000 for so many seats. It is a phone based poll which generally do better on accuracy and they are regular without being overwhelming like Yougov.
But so far they have been little short of rubbish. The absurd volatility of the main parties with a swing of 5% for one or other each week does seem to have calmed down a bit but he is still showing results that are substantially out of line with the main pollsters.
It is possible that he is right and that politics is fragmenting under the general disillusionment and lack of goodies but when push comes to shove I doubt it. Lab +Con will no doubt fall as a percentage but others will not be 31%, not even close. The extent to which this overstates others will in fact determine who wins and who loses the election but it is not very useful.
Until there is some sort of a track record that gives credibility to his figures I suggest that detailed analysis of his polls is wasted effort. And that is despite Labour now being in the 20s being very funny.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
How is remotely bigoted or anti-religious to suggest that religions shouldn't be in hock to the taxpayer?
People should be free to believe whatever they want (or not) and to donate to whatever religion they want (or none). Religions in turn should be free from taxpayer control and interference.
Fund religions by the taxpayer and the taxpayer ought to get a say in how they're run as a result. A ludicrous situation.
It doesn't really sum up the whips system. The great majority of decisions win the support of MPs without the need for 'threats and bribery' (there wouldn't be enough trinkets to go round if bribery was a regular feature).
If you took the party system and whipping away, you'd almost certainly end up with a worse and more overt system of bribes, mostly in the form of pork-barrel politics but also in kind benefits to MPs. Why you think it would be less likely to happen when the MPs to be persuaded have less instinctive loyalty to the government and less of a sense of corporate mission, I don't know.
That said, on the rare occasions the whips do have to resort to threats and bribery, you're right that it would invariably be better if they lost the vote. A wise government would listen to its rebellious backbenchers at times like this; it takes a lot for most MPs to rebel so if they do, there's probably something in it.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Except that people DO vote based upon party manifesto's and without the whipping system it'd be impossible to put through those manifesto's at all. MPs are free to abandon the whip and stand as an independent or cross the floor to another party at any time they want, without triggering a by-election even. If the public votes for an MP in a whipped party rather than an independent then they know what they are getting. It is like it or not very democratic.
Populus figures: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 13%. So UKIP slipping to near LibDem level and the two main parties around 70%, or near 80% if you include the LibDems. Nothing wrong with that in a first past the post democracy.
Having praised Mike on a well-written thread this morning this one, rushed out on the back of Lord Ashcroft, is beginning to look rather weak.
Nothing patronising about that post, thank goodness.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
I'm a UKIP voter but I'll defend FPTP even if it means the party I vote for doesn't do as well as they would under a proportional system.
FPTP works fine for a two party system. For a four party, going on five party, system, it just doesn't reflect the views of the public. Either you need a first round to select the top two parties, or you need something like STV.
That's a tad harsh on FPTP. It does always represent the views of the public when they're corralled into their constituencies. It does no more, and no less. If the constituency size is 1 then it just devolves into whatever vote-allocations system is above it, and if the constituency size is large it becomes just a straightforwards vote for a party.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
Why does that mean you deserve taxpayers' money?
Er, because we're taxpayers?
So what? As I'm an atheist can I get my share of the payment that you think is appropriate as a cheque? And what control over your religion are you willing to cede to the taxpayers in exchange for their funding.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Except that people DO vote based upon party manifesto's and without the whipping system it'd be impossible to put through those manifesto's at all. MPs are free to abandon the whip and stand as an independent or cross the floor to another party at any time they want, without triggering a by-election even. If the public votes for an MP in a whipped party rather than an independent then they know what they are getting. It is like it or not very democratic.
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
Why does that mean you deserve taxpayers' money?
Er, because we're taxpayers?
So what? As I'm an atheist can I get my share of the payment that you think is appropriate as a cheque? And what control over your religion are you willing to cede to the taxpayers in exchange for their funding.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
How is remotely bigoted or anti-religious to suggest that religions shouldn't be in hock to the taxpayer?
People should be free to believe whatever they want (or not) and to donate to whatever religion they want (or none). Religions in turn should be free from taxpayer control and interference.
Fund religions by the taxpayer and the taxpayer ought to get a say in how they're run as a result. A ludicrous situation.
The same, of course, should apply to "charities" which are on the taxpayer teat.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
Why does that mean you deserve taxpayers' money?
Er, because we're taxpayers?
So what? I belong to various shared-interest groups. I don't expect a subsidy for any of them.
And what in practice are you looking for? Some sort of set-aside grant relating to the altar boys?
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
Actually legally they're voting for an individual who is a member of a party. The party name and logo are both on the ballot paper which you seem to be completely ignoring as its an inconvenient truth. I think personal votes are nowhere near the level that you seem to be suggesting. A significant proportion of people want to vote for a monkey in the correct coloured rosette.
If it was a truly individual system then we ought to be getting more elected independents, but we don't precisely because people DO vote for parties. Its why we discuss party opinion polls in such detail here.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
Even less of a surprise is that you should comment on it.
I'm concerned about integration. So sue me. There's a big contrast with the Indian-born guy here who says his whole life has been given to him by this country and he's proud to be British.
Interestingly, he's the guy who is saying "show me one Somali who is working" and "the Somalians will never mix with the non-Somalians".
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
How is remotely bigoted or anti-religious to suggest that religions shouldn't be in hock to the taxpayer?
People should be free to believe whatever they want (or not) and to donate to whatever religion they want (or none). Religions in turn should be free from taxpayer control and interference.
Fund religions by the taxpayer and the taxpayer ought to get a say in how they're run as a result. A ludicrous situation.
The same, of course, should apply to "charities" which are on the taxpayer teat.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
Why does that mean you deserve taxpayers' money?
Er, because we're taxpayers?
So what? I belong to various shared-interest groups. I don't expect a subsidy for any of them.
And what in practice are you looking for? Some sort of set-aside grant relating to the altar boys?
Faith Schools and I think faiths should play a larger role in the NHS, like in other countries.
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
Concerns are rarely really addressed. Unemployment for example hasn't been dealt with in any sense that reflected the publics concern. People mainly just got used to it.
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
It doesn't really sum up the whips system. The great majority of decisions win the support of MPs without the need for 'threats and bribery' (there wouldn't be enough trinkets to go round if bribery was a regular feature).
If you took the party system and whipping away, you'd almost certainly end up with a worse and more overt system of bribes, mostly in the form of pork-barrel politics but also in kind benefits to MPs. Why you think it would be less likely to happen when the MPs to be persuaded have less instinctive loyalty to the government and less of a sense of corporate mission, I don't know.
That said, on the rare occasions the whips do have to resort to threats and bribery, you're right that it would invariably be better if they lost the vote. A wise government would listen to its rebellious backbenchers at times like this; it takes a lot for most MPs to rebel so if they do, there's probably something in it.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Voting secrecy is the wrong way around. Voters are rarely bribed or coerced, and if they are those are prosecutable crimes. They could vote in public, which would make it simpler to prove that their votes are being counted fairly. Meanwhile MPs are routinely subjected to bribery and coertion by their parties, so when they vote in parliamentary divisions that should be a secret ballot.
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
Actually legally they're voting for an individual who is a member of a party. The party name and logo are both on the ballot paper which you seem to be completely ignoring as its an inconvenient truth. I think personal votes are nowhere near the level that you seem to be suggesting. A significant proportion of people want to vote for a monkey in the correct coloured rosette.
Quite so. It'd be nice to believe otherwise, and by dint of much effort and suitable circumstance, there is such a thing as a personal vote, but individual merit and policies espoused seem to count for a lot less than standing for the tribe that someone feels in their gut they should be supporting, and while that can be overcome, it takes a lot.
Voting secrecy is the wrong way around. Voters are rarely bribed or coerced, and if they are those are prosecutable crimes. They could vote in public, which would make it simpler to prove that their votes are being counted fairly. Meanwhile MPs are routinely subjected to bribery and coertion by their parties, so when they vote in parliamentary divisions that should be a secret ballot.
Except we have a secret ballot because we want people to be able to be free to vote however they wish, as can everyone else with no comebacks.
MPs aren't free to do as they wish and never should be under any system. MPs are doing a job, they represent the public and are paid to do so. How can we, their employers, judge an MPs track record if that track record is kept a secret from us?
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
It doesn't really sum up the whips system. The great majority of decisions win the support of MPs without the need for 'threats and bribery' (there wouldn't be enough trinkets to go round if bribery was a regular feature).
If you took the party system and whipping away, you'd almost certainly end up with a worse and more overt system of bribes, mostly in the form of pork-barrel politics but also in kind benefits to MPs. Why you think it would be less likely to happen when the MPs to be persuaded have less instinctive loyalty to the government and less of a sense of corporate mission, I don't know.
That said, on the rare occasions the whips do have to resort to threats and bribery, you're right that it would invariably be better if they lost the vote. A wise government would listen to its rebellious backbenchers at times like this; it takes a lot for most MPs to rebel so if they do, there's probably something in it.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Voting secrecy is the wrong way around. Voters are rarely bribed or coerced, and if they are those are prosecutable crimes. They could vote in public, which would make it simpler to prove that their votes are being counted fairly. Meanwhile MPs are routinely subjected to bribery and coertion by their parties, so when they vote in parliamentary divisions that should be a secret ballot.
If you're suggesting that the pressures of bribery and coercion are such that the MPs can't resist them then they shouldn't be MPs - if they are routinely subjected to these pressures then they should routinely report them.
If the MPs give their support without the use of the whips then that is all well and good but in that case the whips are serving no purpose beyond basic organisation (which I agree is a useful function) or passing the views of the back benchers back to Government.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
Except that people DO vote based upon party manifesto's and without the whipping system it'd be impossible to put through those manifesto's at all. MPs are free to abandon the whip and stand as an independent or cross the floor to another party at any time they want, without triggering a by-election even. If the public votes for an MP in a whipped party rather than an independent then they know what they are getting. It is like it or not very democratic.
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
Whipping is a practical necessity of politics.
Personal votes happen, they're nowhere close to party votes.
Voting secrecy is the wrong way around. Voters are rarely bribed or coerced, and if they are those are prosecutable crimes. They could vote in public, which would make it simpler to prove that their votes are being counted fairly. Meanwhile MPs are routinely subjected to bribery and coertion by their parties, so when they vote in parliamentary divisions that should be a secret ballot.
Except we have a secret ballot because we want people to be able to be free to vote however they wish, as can everyone else with no comebacks.
MPs aren't free to do as they wish and never should be under any system. MPs are doing a job, they represent the public and are paid to do so. How can we, their employers, judge an MPs track record if that track record is kept a secret from us?
The compromise I have suggested before is temporary secrecy, say a couple of weeks.
That would disorient the Whips, to put it mildly...
The government foisting a mayor on "Greater Manchester" (a term, as someone who has roots in the area, I soundly reject) is one of the most shamelessly partisan policies I have ever seen by a government.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives care only about three things: helping the rich, punishing the poor and staying in power.
It's clear at this point that anyone who is voting for this Conservative has no morals whatsoever.
Even you cant be stupid enough to believe that ... can you?
The government foisting a mayor on "Greater Manchester" (a term, as someone who has roots in the area, I soundly reject) is one of the most shamelessly partisan policies I have ever seen by a government.
Make no mistake, the Conservatives care only about three things: helping the rich, punishing the poor and staying in power.
It's clear at this point that anyone who is voting for this Conservative has no morals whatsoever.
Even you cant be stupid enough to believe that ... can you?
One hopes not, otherwise people live in a country where they think millions upon millions of people, including poorer people who have voted Tory, all have no morals, which would be incredibly depressing.
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
It's genuinely difficult to predict all the important issues that will come up over 5 years, even if all parties honestly wished to, so people who vote for a party "leaning" are not being irrational. I don't know anything about Edmund in Tokyo's views on a possible future confrontation with China, for instance, but I agree with him so often that I'm more confident that he'd represent me than, say, Fluffy Thoughts, and if there was an Edmund Party I'd tend to trust it to make decisions I'd approve of more than a Fluffy Party. I'd even vote Edmund even though he seems preoccupied with some sort of internet payment system which I don't understand. I don't require absolute identity of view in my representatives.
Similarly, MPs really can't take an completely informed decision about everything that comes up, and if it's something they don't much care about they find it useful to be told what like-minded colleagues think. That's the whip in its most harmless form - Agricultural Secretary Sally thinks that it's important to revise the fishing regulations to protect whitebait from extinction: I know nothing about whitebait and none are caught in my constituency, but I respect Sally so I'll take her word for it.
This is not to defend blackmail etc., but people exaggerate the extent that it happens. I was only threatened with "consequences" once in 13 years despite voting the "wrong" way 35 times. I laughed in the whip's face and got an apology. (No doubt it would have a bit different if I'd been desperate for promotion.)
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
Remind me, did the British in India integrate, speak the local languages, marry the local women and regard themselves as Indian?
Stop making a fool of yourself.
Depends on the time period. The early migrants did indeed marry local women and learn Hindi, although I wouldn't say they integrated. The later ones were much more segregated. Anyway, I don't see how it's relevant. The British colonialism in India was an appalling thing, and I've criticised it a number of times. I don't see how that makes a difference to what good immigrants should do. My grandfather came here from Ireland and was proud to be British. My cousins moved to America and now identify as American. If a society gives you your life, you should feel a part of it and have an allegiance to it.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to be free.
And who says they have too much power? People who worship the State as a god and regard anyone else as apostates or unbelievers?
Another illiberal liberal. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.
If a society gives you your life, you should feel a part of it and have an allegiance to it.
Well, quite. Why aren't you proud to be a citizen of the European Union?
That's not just a frivolous point. What I'm getting at is that societies don't have automatic entitlement to allegiance and engagement: they need to earn it (and you clearly don't feel the EU has done so). A citizen of Nazi Germany would have been right to feel actively hostile to the society around him. Do we offer migrants such a splendid life that we can reasonably expect instant allegiance, or shouldn't we rather expect that society and migrants gradually learn to appreciate each other?
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
Religious charities have to prove that they provide a public benefit under the Charities Act 2011.
You're a libertarian. Therefore, in the kind of society you prefer, lots of social services would be provided by charities, rather than the State. Inevitably, many of those charities would be religious.
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
Concerns are rarely really addressed. Unemployment for example hasn't been dealt with in any sense that reflected the publics concern. People mainly just got used to it.
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
I don't remember being rude to you the other day? It's not like me to be rude about someone's betting skills -I rarely bet myself! However, I'm often guilty of posting before I think, so I'm sure I could have given offence without intending to, so I apologise if I did.
You know guv, its odd to see an ex-Minister of Transport driving like that, appears to be trying to drive down a bus lane, using a phone as well allegedly,sir, surprised he didn't go the wrong way up Hyde Park Corner, or do I U turn on a one way street, know what I'd do I'd string him up. One rule for them, one rule for us, hope he's got a good lawyer, guv. County's going to the bleedin' dogs...continued on page 94.
If a society gives you your life, you should feel a part of it and have an allegiance to it.
Well, quite. Why aren't you proud to be a citizen of the European Union?
That's not just a frivolous point. What I'm getting at is that societies don't have automatic entitlement to allegiance and engagement: they need to earn it (and you clearly don't feel the EU has done so). A citizen of Nazi Germany would have been right to feel actively hostile to the society around him. Do we offer migrants such a splendid life that we can reasonably expect instant allegiance, or shouldn't we rather expect that society and migrants gradually learn to appreciate each other?
I don't expect instant allegiance, but the woman that started this conversation had been here for a decade and a half, been given a council flat, and was provided benefits and education to bring up her five children.
She has since expressed on this program that she doesn't believe Muslim women should marry non-Muslim men. She was shocked when the Indian-descent woman had a white husband. Do you think those are the sorts of British values we should encourage?
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
You tell that to British ex-pat communities throughout the world.
Does that have any bearing on us?
Quite. I find it very obnoxious that the English have moved in large numbers to southern Spain, and entirely replaced the local culture in some towns, often not even bothering to learn the local language. It's open disrespect to their hosts.
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
Concerns are rarely really addressed. Unemployment for example hasn't been dealt with in any sense that reflected the publics concern. People mainly just got used to it.
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
I don't remember being rude to you the other day? It's not like me to be rude about someone's betting skills -I rarely bet myself! However, I'm often guilty of posting before I think, so I'm sure I could have given offence without intending to, so I apologise if I did.
You know guv, its odd to see an ex-Minister of Transport driving like that, appears to be trying to drive down a bus lane, using a phone as well allegedly,sir, surprised he didn't go the wrong way up Hyde Park Corner, or do I U turn on a one way street, know what I'd do I'd string him up. One rule for them, one rule for us, hope he's got a good lawyer, guv. County's going to the bleedin' dogs...continued on page 94.
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
Religious charities have to prove that they provide a public benefit under the Charities Act 2011.
You're a libertarian. Therefore, in the kind of society you prefer, lots of social services would be provided by charities, rather than the State. Inevitably, many of those charities would be religious.
That would be a dilemna for you.
No not at all. I would simply point out that a huge amount of the work done by religious organisations does not count as what I would consider charitable and that only those parts that do should be getting any sort of tax relief.
I am very happy for genuine charities to get tax relief. I am not happy for them to become natural extensions of the government with the majority of their funding coming from the State. Nor am I happy for organisations that are not benefiting society as a whole to get charitable status.
If a society gives you your life, you should feel a part of it and have an allegiance to it.
Well, quite. Why aren't you proud to be a citizen of the European Union?
That's not just a frivolous point. What I'm getting at is that societies don't have automatic entitlement to allegiance and engagement: they need to earn it (and you clearly don't feel the EU has done so). A citizen of Nazi Germany would have been right to feel actively hostile to the society around him. Do we offer migrants such a splendid life that we can reasonably expect instant allegiance, or shouldn't we rather expect that society and migrants gradually learn to appreciate each other?
Why should anyone be proud of being connected to a supra-national organisation they want no part of and which they feel does huge harm to the life of their country and themselves?
Migrants choose to come here. I did not choose to be part of the EU. That is the difference.
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
You tell that to British ex-pat communities throughout the world.
Straw man argument. I am equally as critical of British Ex-pat communities around the world as I am of non integrating immigrants in the UK. Indeed some of the vilest people I ever met were Western Ex-pats in the Middle East who treated their host countries with utter contempt.
Socrates FTP: I expect they're moderate on those issues too, but I wouldn't really know - all religions are a puzzle to me. Go to the meeting and ask them if you like. The ones I've met are unimpeachably mild.
I think it's the sort of thing should be found out before we start giving them taxpayer money.
We could avoid that by not giving religious groups taxpayers' money. They should support themselves through membership subscriptions.
I see this site has some anti-religion bigots.
Do I really need to point out that the religious pay taxes and vote?
Apparently yes.
The point being that they do not pay as much in taxes as they would do if they were any other normal business or organisation. If religious organisations want to have equality then fine. They should pay their taxes like everyone else without getting preferential treatment.
Really? Ever heard of charities?
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
It is far too easy for an organisation to get itself called a charity and get tax relief. This should be strictly limited to those areas of organisations doing clearly defined good works. It certainly should not apply wholesale to organisations such as religious bodies (or any other group religious or not)
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
What are you talking about? For a self-confessed libertarian you sure don't like private organisations to be free.
And who says they have too much power? People who worship the State as a god and regard anyone else as apostates or unbelievers?
Another illiberal liberal. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.
I am quite happy for them to be free. They are free to succeed or fail on their own without taking money from the government to do it. And for the record dis-establishment is a thoroughly Libertarian position. The Church in the UK is part of the State and greatly benefits from it. That is something that should end.
The situation vis-à-vis Europe cannot get but get less tolerable for the British people. Immigration can only be tinkered with. The economy is unlikely to improve significantly in the short to medium term -indeed its likelier that debt will come home to roost. The main parties are penned in by their own insistence on the status quo. UKIP on the other hand can only become more adept, less frightening, and more accepted. Those are long term trends. Polls fluctuate, but long term trends remain.
Concerns are rarely really addressed. Unemployment for example hasn't been dealt with in any sense that reflected the publics concern. People mainly just got used to it.
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
I don't remember being rude to you the other day? It's not like me to be rude about someone's betting skills -I rarely bet myself! However, I'm often guilty of posting before I think, so I'm sure I could have given offence without intending to, so I apologise if I did.
Nov 1st 12:09
"This post demonstrates no understanding of the market. "
Now I don't really mind at all, but what truly baffled me was why you said that!
Apology completely accepted, and I'm guilty of many daft posts. I just couldn't see what I'd said that deserved such damning criticism.
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
I actually disagree, because I think the onus lies with the host society (the authorities, institutions, and voluntary sector etc.) to integrate the immigrant, not with the immigrant to voluntarily integrate. Our instinct when we move into a new situation is to cling to old ways and other people who've come from the same place.
I lived for a year in New Zealand, and most of my friends were other Brits. I got on fine with the Kiwis at work, and would lunch with them. We were just passing through on 1-2 year contracts, while they knew each other from Med school. In the year I was never invited out for a meal or even a drink, even though they were perfectly pleasant. This is despite Kiwis on being closer to England culturally than any perhaps any other.
I remembered this feeling. Ever since then I have invited new foreign staff out for dinner, for meals, and even for my notorious Burns Suppers! It takes a bit of effort, but is really appreciated.
Saw the Norman Baker story about 10mins ago on Twitter. Who cares? He is only a LibDem.
Well they are still significant for 6 months at least, and even demolished in May 2015 sheer luck could see them have significance then - though personally I doubt it will happen - so they are still relevant for the time being.
No it is not. You have no idea what people vote for. Legally they are voting for an individual representative, not a party. Certainly the way we regularly talk on here about incumbency and the lesson of the recent defection by Carswell seems to indicate that personal votes are no where near as rare as you seem to think.
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
It's genuinely difficult to predict all the important issues that will come up over 5 years, even if all parties honestly wished to, so people who vote for a party "leaning" are not being irrational. I don't know anything about Edmund in Tokyo's views on a possible future confrontation with China, for instance, but I agree with him so often that I'm more confident that he'd represent me than, say, Fluffy Thoughts, and if there was an Edmund Party I'd tend to trust it to make decisions I'd approve of more than a Fluffy Party. I'd even vote Edmund even though he seems preoccupied with some sort of internet payment system which I don't understand. I don't require absolute identity of view in my representatives.
Similarly, MPs really can't take an completely informed decision about everything that comes up, and if it's something they don't much care about they find it useful to be told what like-minded colleagues think. That's the whip in its most harmless form - Agricultural Secretary Sally thinks that it's important to revise the fishing regulations to protect whitebait from extinction: I know nothing about whitebait and none are caught in my constituency, but I respect Sally so I'll take her word for it.
This is not to defend blackmail etc., but people exaggerate the extent that it happens. I was only threatened with "consequences" once in 13 years despite voting the "wrong" way 35 times. I laughed in the whip's face and got an apology. (No doubt it would have a bit different if I'd been desperate for promotion.)
I would agree that whips as sources of information or even PR units for the party hierarchy is acceptable. What is unacceptable is the use of line whips to make MPs vote in particular ways with the threat of punishment if they don't. It certainly seems to be happening on a regular basis with important issues.
Somali woman in this documentary has been here 14 years and still says she isn't English. What a surprise.
My mother has been here over 50 years.
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
I'm of the view that people that set up their lives in a new country should integrate and identify with their new one, at least partially.
You tell that to British ex-pat communities throughout the world.
Does that have any bearing on us?
Quite. I find it very obnoxious that the English have moved in large numbers to southern Spain, and entirely replaced the local culture in some towns, often not even bothering to learn the local language. It's open disrespect to their hosts.
Were we to leave the EU and introduce immigration controls on immigrants from other EU countries, I would consider it entirely reasonable that they should impose immigration controls on us in return. Reciprocity is a fair principle.
Comments
Oliver is a beauty. I'm sometimes envious of the Tories-are-responsible-for-all-the-world's-ills brigade, wishing I felt that strongly about stuff.
A Mayor for Manchester? How dare they. Definitely one of the most sinister, twisted, evil, looking-after-their-rich-friends policies ever. B*stards.
But so far they have been little short of rubbish. The absurd volatility of the main parties with a swing of 5% for one or other each week does seem to have calmed down a bit but he is still showing results that are substantially out of line with the main pollsters.
It is possible that he is right and that politics is fragmenting under the general disillusionment and lack of goodies but when push comes to shove I doubt it. Lab +Con will no doubt fall as a percentage but others will not be 31%, not even close. The extent to which this overstates others will in fact determine who wins and who loses the election but it is not very useful.
Until there is some sort of a track record that gives credibility to his figures I suggest that detailed analysis of his polls is wasted effort. And that is despite Labour now being in the 20s being very funny.
People should be free to believe whatever they want (or not) and to donate to whatever religion they want (or none). Religions in turn should be free from taxpayer control and interference.
Fund religions by the taxpayer and the taxpayer ought to get a say in how they're run as a result. A ludicrous situation.
As soon as they start exercising their whipping powers then they are indulging in either bribery or threats and that should be illegal.
We should view bribery and threats by whips in an attempt to subvert the independent will of an MP as just as serious a crime as if it were being done by an outside body. We all scream about how terrible it is if an MP takes bribes, well that should be the case if those bribes (or threats) are being made by a whip or a minister. It is a corruption of the democratic process and one very good reason why no one trusts the system any more. What is the point opf voting for an MP to represent the views of the constituents if all he ends up doing is representing the views of his party?
Your argument about pork barrel politics is one often put forward by those supporting the current corrupt system and it has no basis in fact. It is pure speculation designed to scare people into sticking with what we have now.
http://www.edochan.com/widgets/pb/pb_disqus_edmund_widget.user.js
(its the vanilla version, don't be fooled by the URL)
And anyone who votes on a party's manifesto is frankly a fool given that they have no legal binding and going forward in coalition politics are probably going to be even less significant than they have ever been before.
Whipping is a corruption of politics and a means of increasing the power of the parties to the detriment of the electorate. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the powers of the parties, not increase them. .
And what in practice are you looking for? Some sort of set-aside grant relating to the altar boys?
If it was a truly individual system then we ought to be getting more elected independents, but we don't precisely because people DO vote for parties. Its why we discuss party opinion polls in such detail here.
Also their members pay taxes without any reduction.
I thought you were better than this, Richard.
Interestingly, he's the guy who is saying "show me one Somali who is working" and "the Somalians will never mix with the non-Somalians".
There is a gradual move that threatens to change the system, but it'll be some sort of shock that really does. Perhaps we've had the first instance of that with the Euros.
(PS I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why you were so rude about my betting skills the other day)
She's still an Italian citizen and she, quite rightly, regards herself as Italian.
Interestingly, she now dreams in English, except when her relatives appear in her dreams, when of course they speak Italian, as they always have done.
MPs aren't free to do as they wish and never should be under any system. MPs are doing a job, they represent the public and are paid to do so. How can we, their employers, judge an MPs track record if that track record is kept a secret from us?
Religious organisations have far too much power in this country and we should be taking steps to severely limit that.
Personal votes happen, they're nowhere close to party votes.
That would disorient the Whips, to put it mildly...
The white British Lestah folk are a bit more tolerant, and genuinely so. The Polish girl loves Lestah.
I've even heard rumours that there are Yorkshirewomen!
"Have you got any Yorkshire in you? No? Well would you like some?"
Stop making a fool of yourself.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/revealed-government-use-new-tax-4557912
Similarly, MPs really can't take an completely informed decision about everything that comes up, and if it's something they don't much care about they find it useful to be told what like-minded colleagues think. That's the whip in its most harmless form - Agricultural Secretary Sally thinks that it's important to revise the fishing regulations to protect whitebait from extinction: I know nothing about whitebait and none are caught in my constituency, but I respect Sally so I'll take her word for it.
This is not to defend blackmail etc., but people exaggerate the extent that it happens. I was only threatened with "consequences" once in 13 years despite voting the "wrong" way 35 times. I laughed in the whip's face and got an apology. (No doubt it would have a bit different if I'd been desperate for promotion.)
And who says they have too much power? People who worship the State as a god and regard anyone else as apostates or unbelievers?
Another illiberal liberal. I saw too many of those on Comment is Free.
Much ado about nothing.
That's not just a frivolous point. What I'm getting at is that societies don't have automatic entitlement to allegiance and engagement: they need to earn it (and you clearly don't feel the EU has done so). A citizen of Nazi Germany would have been right to feel actively hostile to the society around him. Do we offer migrants such a splendid life that we can reasonably expect instant allegiance, or shouldn't we rather expect that society and migrants gradually learn to appreciate each other?
You're a libertarian. Therefore, in the kind of society you prefer, lots of social services would be provided by charities, rather than the State. Inevitably, many of those charities would be religious.
That would be a dilemna for you.
She has since expressed on this program that she doesn't believe Muslim women should marry non-Muslim men. She was shocked when the Indian-descent woman had a white husband. Do you think those are the sorts of British values we should encourage?
I am very happy for genuine charities to get tax relief. I am not happy for them to become natural extensions of the government with the majority of their funding coming from the State. Nor am I happy for organisations that are not benefiting society as a whole to get charitable status.
No it's genuine
If it was anyone else...
Migrants choose to come here. I did not choose to be part of the EU. That is the difference.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/norman-baker-i-resign--and-its-theresa-mays-fault-9837189.html
It's days like today we miss tim. Admit it everyone!
Others I could not comment on
"This post demonstrates no understanding of the market. "
Now I don't really mind at all, but what truly baffled me was why you said that!
Apology completely accepted, and I'm guilty of many daft posts. I just couldn't see what I'd said that deserved such damning criticism.
That is not my experience.
I was embarrassed when I met a couple in France who had made no attempt to integrate or learn language.
I remembered this feeling. Ever since then I have invited new foreign staff out for dinner, for meals, and even for my notorious Burns Suppers! It takes a bit of effort, but is really appreciated.
Integrating communities takes a bit of effort.
Shuffle out Ali Carmichael and bring in Jo Swinson.
What about Carswell then?