Nigel Farage

[SS4]

Can anyone honestly say Parliament would not be improved with the presence of Nigel Farage.

Whoever you vote for he is a character , something sadly lacking in today's plastic politicians

Yes. Quite easily in fact.

Given the amount of spin and PR in politics today there is no guarantee at all that he's the same character that he displays in his carefully managed publicity stunts

 

[fowler9]

Can anyone honestly say Parliament would not be improved with the presence of Nigel Farage.

Whoever you vote for he is a character , something sadly lacking in today's plastic politicians

Robert Mugabe is a character, I'm not sure I'd want him in parliament though. Idi Amin was a character, same for him. Its bad enough that Boris Johnson has the power he has. Hell I've got a good few mates who are characters and I wouldn't want them in parliament either.

 

[jon0844]

Can anyone honestly say Parliament would not be improved with the presence of Nigel Farage.

You been smoking some different cigarettes lately?

 

[Butts]

You been smoking some different cigarettes lately?

Unfortunately not, just my regular Benson and Hedges Gold , manufactured in Northern Ireland and purchased in Luxembourg at half the UK price

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can anyone honestly say Parliament would not be improved with the presence of Nigel Farage.

Yes, I can honestly say that. In my view Parliament would be made an awful lot worse by the presence of Nigel Farage.

Whoever you vote for he is a character , something sadly lacking in today's plastic politicians

What Parliament needs is not 'characters' but people who behave responsibly and responsibly consider the implications of what they say and the impact that what they say might have on people. In my view, that is the very opposite of Nigel Farage.

 

[Butts]

Yes, I can honestly say that. In my view Parliament would be made an awful lot worse by the presence of Nigel Farage.



What Parliament needs is not 'characters' but people who behave responsibly and responsibly consider the implications of what they say and the impact that what they say might have on people. In my view, that is the very opposite of Nigel Farage.

In order to achieve the above you would need to remove the "party element" and allow members to vote as their conscience dictates with no hindrance or inducements from "whips"

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In order to achieve the above you would need to remove the "party element" and allow members to vote as their conscience dictates with no hindrance or inducements from "whips"

Why do you say that? Offhand I can't see an obvious connection between the party whip and MPs behaving (ir)responsibly.

 

[gordonthemoron]

It would also help if MPs had some background/experience for the posts they take up in Parliament. For instance, George Osborne is no more qualified to be Chancellor than the Rev Flowers was to be chairman of Coop Bank

 

[Oswyntail]

Why do you say that? Offhand I can't see an obvious connection between the party whip and MPs behaving (ir)responsibly.

If an MP is effectively told how to vote by the Whip, it could diminish her sense of responsibility for her actions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would also help if MPs had some background/experience for the posts they take up in Parliament. For instance, George Osborne is no more qualified to be Chancellor than the Rev Flowers was to be chairman of Coop Bank

Would you really want the economy run by an economist, the MoD by a soldier, DfT by a Bus Driver? Ministerial roles are primarily political, which is why - supposedly - you get your expert advisers in the Civil Service (as used to be the case until Blair and his bunch replaced them there with political advisers, presumably because they weren't up to that part of their job either)

 

[gordonthemoron]

I was more complaining about professional politicians who have no experience outside politics and who did PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) at Uni, like quite a lot of the front bench

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If an MP is effectively told how to vote by the Whip, it could diminish her sense of responsibility for her actions.

That's possible. But if so, how is it different from working for any private sector employer, where you would normally be expected to do what your manager tells you to do, even if you disagree with it (obviously, with the option to resign if something really goes against your conscience)?

I've been in that situation many times with various employers - usually I politely tell my manager why I think his decision is wrong but then, if he still disagrees with me, then I do what he asks - because that's my job, and I know that no organization could function if everyone in it did whatever they liked. I don't personally feel any sense that I act less responsibly because of that hierarchy.

 

[Butts]

I was more complaining about professional politicians who have no experience outside politics and who did PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) at Uni, like quite a lot of the front bench

Well Farage did work for 20 years in The London Metal Exchange so he has experience outside of the "PPE" circle

 

[TheKnightWho]

I was more complaining about professional politicians who have no experience outside politics and who did PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) at Uni, like quite a lot of the front bench

Philosophy, Politics and Economics would lend itself to being quite useful for a politician, wouldn't you think..? The last thing you want a politician to be is someone with a vested interest.

I get the impression that it's been criticised because it allowed the papers to hit two birds with one stone: Oxbridge and politician bashing.

 

[Oswyntail]

That's possible. But if so, how is it different from working for any private sector employer, where you would normally be expected to do what your manager tells you to do, even if you disagree with it (obviously, with the option to resign if something really goes against your conscience)? ..

(Sorry for slow reply). An MP is not employed by his party, or, hopefully, his sponsors, but by the state, which is impersonal and impartial. His job is to represent the views of his constituents (so far as that is possible) - not simply those who voted for him, or his local party apparatchiks, but the whole messy shebang. It is conceivable that his party line may be one thing but his constituents, unanimously and openly, take an opposite line. The "Whip" has no business whatsoever in telling him to toe the party line. IMHO, having a "Whip" means, for a lot of MPs, that they do not have to think, or, in fact, consider their constituents at all. If they are in a safe seat, they will get voted in anyway, if in a marginal it is usually national perceptions that determine who gets elected.

 

[Butts]

(Sorry for slow reply). An MP is not employed by his party, or, hopefully, his sponsors, but by the state, which is impersonal and impartial. His job is to represent the views of his constituents (so far as that is possible) - not simply those who voted for him, or his local party apparatchiks, but the whole messy shebang. It is conceivable that his party line may be one thing but his constituents, unanimously and openly, take an opposite line. The "Whip" has no business whatsoever in telling him to toe the party line. IMHO, having a "Whip" means, for a lot of MPs, that they do not have to think, or, in fact, consider their constituents at all. If they are in a safe seat, they will get voted in anyway, if in a marginal it is usually national perceptions that determine who gets elected.

Some Councils in mainly rural areas are controlled by Independents, perhaps this could be extended to National level and remove the "bear baiting".

Regards to NF, he had a wonderful impartial article about smoking in the Independent at the weekend.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(Sorry for slow reply). An MP is not employed by his party, or, hopefully, his sponsors, but by the state, which is impersonal and impartial. His job is to represent the views of his constituents (so far as that is possible) - not simply those who voted for him, or his local party apparatchiks, but the whole messy shebang. It is conceivable that his party line may be one thing but his constituents, unanimously and openly, take an opposite line. The "Whip" has no business whatsoever in telling him to toe the party line. IMHO, having a "Whip" means, for a lot of MPs, that they do not have to think, or, in fact, consider their constituents at all. If they are in a safe seat, they will get voted in anyway, if in a marginal it is usually national perceptions that determine who gets elected.

Those are reasonable points.

However the thing I thought we were discussing was whether whips telling MPs how to vote would cause MPs to act less responsibly or not. My example of an employer telling you what to do was to demonstrate that being subject to those kinds of restrictions in your official/employment capacity doesn't necessarily make you act less responsibly; more likely, you'll act as responsibly as you would normally be inclined to, within the constraints that your circumstances put on you. Now whether you see MPs as being employed by/morally answerable to their constituents or to their parliamentary organization may well impact whether or not you think whips are a good idea, but I can't see how that has any bearing on an individual MP's inclination to act responsibly or not.

 

[Butts]

Those are reasonable points.

However the thing I thought we were discussing was whether whips telling MPs how to vote would cause MPs to act less responsibly or not. My example of an employer telling you what to do was to demonstrate that being subject to those kinds of restrictions in your official/employment capacity doesn't necessarily make you act less responsibly; more likely, you'll act as responsibly as you would normally be inclined to, within the constraints that your circumstances put on you. Now whether you see MPs as being employed by/morally answerable to their constituents or to their parliamentary organization may well impact whether or not you think whips are a good idea, but I can't see how that has any bearing on an individual MP's inclination to act responsibly or not.

If you took the party element out of The House of Commons could it function, or would it be like "herding cats" ?

As I mentioned previously some Councils are able to operate under The Independent banner without the need for specific groupings.

A constant source of annoyance with the current system is that they are loathe to give any credit to anyone but their own party however meritorious it may be. The same applies to accepting any blame. Both are constrained by the mechanics of the current system.

 

[yorksrob]

I suppose that a lot of it comes down to how one defines "acting responsibly" in the context of parliament.

I believe that a responsible member of parliament will try to reflect the concerns and opinions of their constituents. Conversely, a member who continually falls into line against the concerns of their constituents, whether that be to obey the party machine, or for the convenience of vested interests, is, in my opinion, behaving irresponsibly.

 

[Oswyntail]

... but I can't see how that has any bearing on an individual MP's inclination to act responsibly or not.

If MPs vote "as their leaders tell 'em to" (WS Gilbert - nothing new under the sun!), and begin to see themselves simply as lobby fodder, it is quite likely that they could miss the focus of why they are there. Especially as the rest of their constituency work effectively consists of trying to pull strings behind the scene on behalf of individuals. It is a simple step from there to using the system for themselves.