2006-11-08 09:25:18 · 4 answers · asked by Snowth 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Well the concept is that the party's executive have a mandate to implement an agenda. They need some assurance that when they put their legislation to parliament that they have the support necessary to pass it.
But I agree a PM and his executive along with party with a "whipped" and compliant stable of MPs becomes a near dictatorship between elections. With no effective opposition to block the majority they can whip into place they can pass any legislation they want.
If you think the UK is bad -- Canada's parliament is worse in this respect -- if MPs vote against their party, especially the recently deposed Liberals, they were routinely shunned and expelled from the party, generally never to hold political office again once their current term was over as independant are almost never viable here.
2006-11-08 09:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by Zee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have hit the nail on the head. Any illusion of democracy is put to rest by the whips. It means that the MPs who make up the bulk of Parliament are Mutton dressed as lamb, if you get me.
2006-11-08 09:29:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because anarchy and chaos would reign down on the good ol' folk of the UK.
2006-11-08 09:26:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
free whips would be better than either...lol...;0)
2006-11-08 10:27:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋