On the Role of our MPs: Representative or Delegate?

[roubaixtuesday]

As one of the regulars of the politics ghetto has been complaining (no, surely not!) of how undemocratic parliament has been in passing its judgement on the implementation of Brexit, and we now have an election, I thought a constitutional (thread) might help.

Now, the British constitution is a much maligned and threadbare chimera, constantly shifting and never quite sitting comfortably on its metaphorical perch.

But one of the fundamental principles for several centuries has been tbe role of the MP as representative to exercise judgement rather than delegate to obey instruction.

Churchill (for it is he, near-mythical slayer of foreign daemons and hero to the fearless couch- warrior supporter of brexit) put it thus:

The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy

So, what say forumites?

Is Churchill right, and Parliament correct to exercise judgment?

Or are MPs mere delegates, and if so, how should they discern the demands of their constituents?

[Carlton green]

My view is that Churchill’s quoted view is about right. One if the biggest problems that we have in Parliament today is a whipping system which places party politics before all else. Delegate or Representative? Well I don’t see those roles as completely separate but rather overlapping. If an MP’s views are grossly different from those of the bulk of his or her constituents then something needs to change because there is no representation. However MP’s do need a mind of their own and judgement too and as such delegate isn’t completely appropriate. I’m inclined to think that the current Parliamentary mess would have been resolved years ago if MP’s had put country before party, perhaps there is a special place in Hell for Parliamentary Whips and for those who direct them.

[Mike Sales]

I have unwilling respect for those Tory MPs who lost the whip when they voted against no-deal because they believed it would be bad for the UK: they have damaged their career because of their conscience.

[drossall]

Parliament has certainly done its duty according to the idea of representation. The counter-argument, I suppose, is that Parliament set up the referendum in the first place.

However, the check and balance is that we all have the right to elect different representatives, which is what is happening now. The outcome remains to be seen.

The difficulty people can sometimes have is in accepting such principles when the outcome is not what they want.

[roubaixtuesday]

The difficulty people can sometimes have is in accepting such principles when the outcome is not what they want.

The one thing the Brexit referendum guaranteed was an outcome no-body wanted...

There's a very good argument that ignoring the historical principles of the constitution is what allowed this to happen.

Ironically, given current politics, this is a profoundly conservative position.

[bovlomov]

Ironically, given current politics, this is a profoundly conservative position.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party has become a radical revolutionary movement.

[Cugel]

Ironically, given current politics, this is a profoundly conservative position.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party has become a radical revolutionary movement.

The Conservative Party have never been conservators of anything much beyond the power and privilege of the current party members, supporters and "people like us". Their history is peppered with agents who wreaked vast changes on British society in pursuit of the maintenance or increase in their power and privileged class status.

It's a political party that has changed it's zeitgeist many, many times in order to survive and prosper in changing times. But always there's a thick coating of some form of nationalism or patriotism; some form of popular pariah or scapegoat - which is their main means of diverting the attention of the wider electorate from their many dark doings that undermine the interests of that electorate.

A problem with the peasants? Work up a war or some form of foreigner demonisation. Economic circumstances pressing on the hoi-polloi? Point a hysterical finger at some easy-to-persecute group, from "the undeserving poor" through the dark-skinned immigrants to those evil fourth Reichers in the EU. Brexit is just another example in a long list of Tory machination mechanisms for holding and increasing power by stirring up the support of a pitchforky mob.

A true name would be "The Reactionary Bigot Aristocracy & Sociopath Party". But that might cause even Al to form a suspicion that something about them is not very democratic, especially if their manifesto was to state what they're actually wanting and intending to do, inclusive of many revolutionary and ruinous (to all but them) destructive changes to all we know and love, down here in the streets.

Cugel

[reohn2]

My view is that Churchill’s quoted view is about right. One if the biggest problems that we have in Parliament today is a whipping system which places party politics before all else. Delegate or Representative? Well I don’t see those roles as completely separate but rather overlapping. If an MP’s views are grossly different from those of the bulk of his or her constituents then something needs to change because there is no representation. However MP’s do need a mind of their own and judgement too and as such delegate isn’t completely appropriate. I’m inclined to think that the current Parliamentary mess would have been resolved years ago if MP’s had put country before party, perhaps there is a special place in Hell for Parliamentary Whips and for those who direct them.

I broadly agree with you.

On the issue of referendums what if there were a referendum on say capital punishment for murder,and it came back in favour with a similar result as brexit.
Would MPs then be expected to accept and pass it,or would they then debate the issue on whether is should be all murders or only certain degrees of murder.The point being that once a murderer is killed by the state there's no chance of turning the clock back,especially if at a later date it's found the murderer was inoccent.
Like brexit there are degrees of murder and it's too late once the damage has been done to say oops sorry we didn't know at the time what we were doing or we didn't realise things were going to be this bad.

A foot note to all those in favour of simply walking away from the EU.
In the event of a crash out brexit you simply do not know what lies beyond leaving in such a way and to claim it's what's best for the country as a whole is a failure to understand the gravity of the situation the country could face.Leaving the EU even with a soft brexit has consequences for the UK's population.

[al_yrpal]

In 1973 Harolds Parliament asked "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" At the time we voted yes. This time we voted no. Cutting through all the waffle obfuscation and legalese, that majority decision must be respected. Its a pity we are having to have an election to impliment it. If it isnt implimented there will be dire consequences for this country, and the little faith that people have in our Parliamentry and Legal System right now will totally evaporate and lead to major strife and eventual constitutional reform. We witnessed the Brexit Party in action in the EU Parliamentry election. No doubt they will take the lead. Whether MPs or Delegates or Representatives matters not a jot, its what they do that matters and ignoring voters isnt a good idea.

According to the Banksters there is a huge wodge of investment just waiting to be released when we leave the EU. Their forecast is for an economic boom. Who to believe, the Doomsters or the Banksters?

Al

[roubaixtuesday]

In 1973 Harolds Parliament asked "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" At the time we voted yes. This time we voted no. Cutting through all the waffle obfuscation and legalese, that majority decision must be respected. Its a pity we are having to have an election to impliment it. If it isnt implimented there will be dire consequences for this country, and the little faith that people have in our Parliamentry and Legal System right now will totally evaporate and lead to major strife and eventual constitutional reform. We witnessed the Brexit Party in action in the EU Parliamentry election. No doubt they will take the lead. Whether MPs or Delegates or Representatives matters not a jot, its what they do that matters and ignoring voters isnt a good idea.

According to the Banksters there is a huge wodge of investment just waiting to be released when we leave the EU. Their forecast is for an economic boom. Who to believe, the Doomsters or the Banksters?

Al

Hi Al,

there's a lot in there. Might be better to concentrate on key points, and note that this thread is not about the pro's and cons of Brexit, but rather about the role of MPs.

The constitutional problem with Brexit is that it was not clear.

This is amply demonstrated by Boris Johnson and many other supporters of Brexit voting repeatedly against Theresa May's deal.

Do you regard Boris Johnson as "ignoring voters" by his actions?

[Oldjohnw]

Oh Al. Parliament has not voted the Brexit deal down. That is something on your and Johnson's imagination. Parliament passed it. It was about to move to Committee stage, in the normal way, when Johnson called it off.

If the Tories are not re-elected I'm sure you will respect the fact that the people have spoken.

[PDQ Mobile]

According to the Banksters there is a huge wodge of investment just waiting to be released when we leave the EU. Their forecast is for an economic boom. Who to believe, the Doomsters or the Banksters?

Al

And many less favourable forecast from eminent economists and even Govt have stated that the UK will suffer economically. The Dept for Fiscal Studies for example.
You have always dismissed those studies as Project Fear or fake news.

I wouldn't trust the speculators, share dealers or the Bankers to tell anything resembling the truth.
A good deal of the present mess is directly attributable to them.
Their only interest is self interest.

[Psamathe]

In 1973 Harolds Parliament asked "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" At the time we voted yes. This time we voted no. Cutting through all the waffle obfuscation and legalese, that majority decision must be respected. .....

So if we had a referendum about spending on provision for cyclists and the undoubted result would be £0 you feel the result "must be respected" despite the damage it would do, despite the shortsightedness, despite the negative impacts.

For me one of the prime responsibilities for our MPs is to act in the best interests of the country and to resist the "Tyranny of the Majority".

Ian

[al_yrpal]

Oh Al. Parliament has not voted the Brexit deal down. That is something on your and Johnson's imagination. Parliament passed it. It was about to move to Committee stage, in the normal way, when Johnson called it off.

If the Tories are not re-elected I'm sure you will respect the fact that the people have spoken.

John, yes I will respect the election result if the Tories aren't re-elected. But it's a pity so many MPs don't respect the people's decisions.

Al

[roubaixtuesday]

Oh Al. Parliament has not voted the Brexit deal down. That is something on your and Johnson's imagination. Parliament passed it. It was about to move to Committee stage, in the normal way, when Johnson called it off.

If the Tories are not re-elected I'm sure you will respect the fact that the people have spoken.

John, yes I will respect the election result if the Tories aren't re-elected. But it's a pity so many MPs don't respect the people's decisions.

Al

Al,

re "respecting the people's decisions" - can you come back on the following

The constitutional problem with Brexit is that it was not clear.

This is amply demonstrated by Boris Johnson and many other supporters of Brexit voting repeatedly against Theresa May's deal.

Do you regard Boris Johnson as "ignoring voters" by his actions?