Topic: Political Standards

[Jshooters]

Reading an article about MPs being annoyed at a number of recent government u turns and how they look silly defending one position only to then have to defend the u turn. Why do we accept that our politicians change their views on the whim of the party leader (or his spads) and/or chief whip?

We elect them to represent constituencies to the best of their ability.

Why then do we accept that they vote along party lines when that may not be acceptable to the constituency they represent or even that those views are actually held by the MP?

And how do the politicians feel when they effectively don’t have the facility to pass their own judgment?

How is it a democracy when MPs aren’t able to express their own opinions but are in effect bullied into toeing the party line?

Do they just accept that to maintain the backing of the party in future elections that they have to accept voting along party lines forever?

Sorry for the randomness here and mods please feel free to delete but I just feel that the electorate accepts these norms which are anything but normal.

I know that we technically have the ability to vote them out at the next election but surely they should face more scrutiny in the 5 years between elections? American politicians face midterms don’t they? Does that keep them on their toes?

Sorry for the ramble, just a bit pissed/despondent about how our country’s being “led”.

[Disregarder]

Do they just accept that to maintain the backing of the party in future elections that they have to accept voting along party lines forever?

Spot on post. I just read that article in the Guardian at almost the same time as reading the start of Robert Greene's book The Laws of Human Nature where he talks about rationality.

Politicians of the governing party on both sides of the Atlantic are focused on maintaining the ideology of their side irrespective of its effects on the lives of the vast majority of the people they serve. They are also fixed on maintaining their grip on power and will do whatever it takes to do so even if it harms democracy, hence attacks on free press, election procedures centered around voting and an independent judiciary.  This irrationality means Trump and Johnson are doomed to failure and that its very difficult to change the minds of most of their supporters; they refuse to believe that they could be wrong because their egos won't let them.

I think a different election system in both countries (like some system of PR) would help along with the introduction of principles of psychology and philosophy into education systems so that ordinary people can begin to appreciate more how to make rational decisions based less on emotions and more on facts and evidence.