The Role of Parliamentary Whips in UK Democracy

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Uk
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of parliamentary whips in the UK democracy, particularly in the context of recent voting on "top up fees" for university entry. Participants explore the implications of party discipline enforced by whips, the legitimacy of their role in a democratic system, and the impact of such policies on students and educational funding.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the legitimacy of parliamentary whips in a democracy, suggesting that their role may prioritize party success over policy merit.
  • Others argue that whips are necessary for maintaining party cohesion and preventing chaos in legislative processes, comparing their role to similar figures in the US Congress.
  • A participant raises concerns about the potential for MPs to switch parties if whips exert excessive pressure, noting the differences in voter relationships between MPs and US Congress members.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of "top up fees," with some participants expressing strong opposition based on the financial burden it places on students.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes about the financial struggles of students and the impact of tuition fees on their educational aspirations.
  • Questions are raised about the availability of loans for students and the fairness of taxpayer support for education costs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the role of whips and the implications of tuition fees, with no clear consensus reached. Some support the necessity of whips, while others challenge their role in a democratic context. The discussion on tuition fees also reveals strong emotional responses and differing opinions on financial support for education.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the historical context of university funding in the UK and the political promises made by the Labour government, highlighting the tension between policy changes and voter expectations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying political science, particularly in the context of party dynamics and democratic processes, as well as individuals concerned about educational funding and student welfare.

FZ+
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
3
Ok, maybe I am rather peeved over the government's 316-311 voting in of "top up fees" for university entry, but...

In the UK, there is an agent known as a parliamentary whip in each party. His role is to enforce solidarity when the party votes in parliament, threatening dissenters with various punishments unless they abstain instead of voting for the other side, or so on.

The issue is, do such whips even have a place in a democracy? A typical argument used in the run-up to the actual vote today was that rebels should vote for the proposal because it would strengthen Blair's leadership in preparation for wednesday's hutton report. In essence, the plank of the whip's argument lies not on the strength of the actual policy, but on avoiding granting the opposition a success!

Of course, it is very easy now to ruminate on what might have been... If 5 of those MPs did not abstain... If some of the rebels did not switch at the last moment...

Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We have whips in the US Congress too, they are the second most powerful members in each party, after the party leaders (the leader of the majority party is the Speaker of the House). I think they are a legitimate part of politics. If you didn't have some way to ummm, encourage members to vote with the party, then there just wouldn't be any party, and that way lies chos. 500 representatives, each one a party unto himself/herself? Why it would run like the Senate!
 
If the whips go beyond reason, the congressmen will switch parties. It does happen. How common is it for an MP to switch parties? Are they allowed to, or would they lose their seat?

I imagine it's a little more nasty in Britain. When someone votes for their MP, it is also their vote for which party will run the country. In the US, it is not too uncommon for someone to split their votes. So, a congressman knows his people want him, but an MP doesn't know if the voter likes him or Tony Blair. It makes the MP a little more beholden to the party.

Njorl
 
Expling the "top up fees" to me please :)
 
Well, University education in the UK has long been run out of public funds. Prior to the labour government, most university tuition was free. However, the issue that this is is now not enough, and to stop falling behind additional funding must be found. Top up fees are then additional payments required of the student for some courses. The government intends this to be done with a student graduate tax, but critics have said that this would discourage students from some courses or universities.

The real big danger for the government was that the party was elected on a manifesto which contained a promise not to introduce such fees, and to "legislate to prevent them". Thus, many of the rebels have talked of the proposal as a betrayal of the labour voters.
 
i think the whips should be given whips. That will stop Tony Blair making foolish decisions. OR do what Andy does and smack people who make stupid comments with a rolled up newspaper.
 
I have started using a large stick now.
 
fair enough, rolled up newspapers don't cause enough damage...maybe you should use a hot glue gun or a staple gun...they hurt. i know. [b(]
 
Lol, you crazy fool, anyway back to the subject. Top up fee's are wrong i have many friends at University now and they are struggling to get by on the little money that they have, let alone having to pay another £3,000 a year on top of that. One of them is even considering quitting if it goes ahead.
 
  • #10
yeah my brother wants to do a post-graduate vetinary degree. All universitys have quoted £15,000 tuition per year(!) for 5 years. With extra £3000 on top of that PER year, plus inflation, he has had to quit his dream... for now.
 
  • #11
Though its probably nastier in the UK than the US, I'd still like to see more Congressmen voting their conscious (and constituents) and not their party. Idealistic and unrealistic, mabye - but that's my opinion.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Andy
Lol, you crazy fool, anyway back to the subject. Top up fee's are wrong i have many friends at University now and they are struggling to get by on the little money that they have, let alone having to pay another £3,000 a year on top of that. One of them is even considering quitting if it goes ahead.


Are loans not available?? Is it still free if your grades suck?

I am presently having to work to put myself through school, but I could make it easy and just take loans if I wanted.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by jimmy p
yeah my brother wants to do a post-graduate vetinary degree. All universitys have quoted £15,000 tuition per year(!) for 5 years. With extra £3000 on top of that PER year, plus inflation, he has had to quit his dream... for now.

Again I ask, no loans?
I will be taking about $160,000 in loans for my years in med school (by today's number), and even though only a very small percentage of my loan is subsidized (not from a private lender), I wish NONE of it was. Why should it be? I mean, I have to pay it back anyways - why do the tax payers have to take the burden of me as an economic risk on not paying it back?
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
News Downing Street - New memos released
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K