Why do they have 'whips' in Parliament? Why aren't all votes 'free' votes?
929815
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.\n\nBut 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.\n\nIf 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.
433161
being an American living in the UK, maybe i am in a unique position to answer.\n\nunfortunately/or fortunately according to their view, politicians don't have a private life, being in their position.  they should live to a higher standard, be honest about their private life, not use it when it suits, and hide behind privacy when it doesn't.
677974
Before asking this question, why don't you realise that there won't be votes from quota people if reservation are not made. And they are the people who comes out in maximum numbers to vote on a polling day. And without votes there won't be election/chairs/positions and ruling. Simple give and take, you serve my purpose I serve yours.\n\nTake hard lessons, do excercise your franchise, stay vigilant and hit these petty politians/parties when you are given chance.
1123537
Because the British govt is incredibly PC ... not to mention, they want their vote!! If you think ANYgovernment nowadays gives two hoots about its own indigenous population, think again!  It's votes .. these guys want to be re elected ...
233985
I think it's quite the contrary- I think not everyone is represented as well. With the British system of goverment, when one party wins elections, typically, they run the show- they control Parliament, they have the Prime Minister in power, they have all the ministers all in one party (unless it's a coalition government which is rare).\n\nIn the US, for the past 50 years, we've had one branch in charge of congress with the other controling the White House. This has been the case maybe 35 of the past 50 years. With split control, you have more bickering, but also more compromise. Clinton's best years in office happened once the Republicans took over Congress.\n\nIf it seems that there is better representation in British Parliament than in Congress, it only seems that way because there are more parties. True, if you want to get elected to Congress, you have to be one of the two parties, but people within those two parties do have a wide variety of views.
277644
Our current form of Democracy is sometimes referred to as "tyranny of the masses".  In other words, the majority will constantly create and vote in laws which reduce freedoms of the minority.  And, since we all belong to some kind of minority, we will eventually create enough laws so that every-ones' freedoms are gone.  Every law passed restricts your freedom in some way and leads to harsher laws in the future.  So, in a way, you are right.  Think about that the next time you vote on a law banning something.  Just because it doesn't effect you at the time, you are giving up rights of others and your turn will come.  I also like what this Douglas guy below me has to say.  I am for less government, if it takes more political parties to do that, fine.
726854
the bbc, sky news , the mirror and the sun dont go into the polling booth and vote people do, give each individual the credit they deserve they are all intelligent people who can make up their own minds.\n\nHowever anyone that votes conservative needs their head testing or their bank accounts frozen.
759752
Any Senator is entitled to speak on any bill before the Senate, But if they speak, and speak and speak for days, and then some other senator gets on his hind legs and does the same thing,followed by another and another, they can keep it going until the senate rises and the session is over without resolving the bill!..After that, its usually refered off to some commitee and never heard of again!..In Australia, this cannot be done anymore, because the Govt can move a vote on it!..They seldom do this though, for fear of govt members crossing the floor!
719449
Votes for each election are counted (as far as I'm aware you can only vote in the constituency that you are registered to vote in), winner is the one with the most votes!  Simple, but effective!\n\nThe party which wins the most seats (areas of voting) gets into power.\n\nIf you've voted by post then your vote is only counted in your constituency.\n\nAt least that's how I understand it.  \n\nAs for the smartarse comment 'they actually have a system', for information purposes, the British Parliamentry system is the second oldest behind, surprisingly, Iceland's!
371129
Yes. It is a shame, though.\n\nIf we did not have political parties then we would not necessarily have a dictatorship. You vote for candidates, not just for parties. The candidate represents you as well as the party.\n\nThe ideal system would be having a ballot paper of entirely independent candidates who follow no party, but you can clearly see what they stand for. This way the local man gets a complete say over his representative. He does not have to support a 'party' whom he might disagree with about 80 per cent of its policy (for example, he might vote for a Labour candidate because of its policy on education (!) even though he is against the policy of introducing I.D. cards).\n\nThe problems start when you enter parliament. Parliamentary parties create order through the chaos of a milliona nd one conflicting ideas. They allow people to broadly allign themselves into groups, which allows legislation to be passed or not. If there was no party structure here, there would be chaos, a political free-for-all where it would be impossible to decide what to vote about, let alone \n\nPolitical parties as a concept are therefore a necessary evil for the British political system. However, the parties themselves need an overhaul as they have become very centre-based, appealing to a narrow band of electors. As such, it could be argued that there is too much of a consensus and there indeed is only 'one party', since there is not much of a choice anymore. The parties need to change to cater for the changing needs of the electorate; the vast majority of whom are disenfranchised by their own apathy. While there is apathy, parties can get away with whatever they please and there is no accountability.\n\nIf used sensibly, internet technology could revolutionise the whole process and create a level of accountability that has never been seen in a democracy. In fact, it could create a true democracy! Strange how the politicians have not put this into practice - I wonder why...
358508
vote. What a pointless waste of time, get rid of this Head Of State rubbish, you need one democratically elected leader and that's that.  The Yanks do it, and it seems to work for them.  I guess you can tell I'm a Brit who wants a republic, but I wouldn't replace the queen with a president, just keep the role of PM
886509
No, no.  Take away elected representation and what are you left with?  The executive, the courts and the media.  Who is to hold the law that the executive puts forward up to scrutiny and account?  Corporations?  I'm sorry but you are being profoundly anti-democratic and short sighted.\n\nI agree there is a problem with the current system.  (There is an argument that we have too many M.P.s and although not one I have sympathy with, it is an argument with merit).  Part of the answer to current problems though is to strengthen the powers of Parliament at the expense of the government rather than weaken it.
746967
In a Parliamentary Democracy, No Single Person is the Boss. Means Country cannot take decisions like going to war etc. on the will of a single authority (Person).\n\nParliament has be taken into confidence and convinced in the favor of decisions.
1024327
sorry 40yearold virgin, but there are parties in the European parliament, just as in any parliament, but these are much more varied than in national parliaments as there are representatives from all the countries. They are usually grouped together as right, left, centre, green etc so, for example, all the rightwing leaning party members form the various countries form a group to get their agenda through. There is no one dominant party, unlike in national parliaments. The EU is really run by a cabinet on ministers who make most of the decisions, the parliament has much less of a say.
865628
I don.t know where Jacq got her definition of democracy.\nMaybe from Robert Mugabe's dictionary.\nLet them vote and you have a democracy? Bullsh1t. What about having a majority.\nLast election Tony Blair had the votes of 22% of the population.\nand nowhere near 50% of the voters. With our system even if the Tories won with a small majority Labour would still come out ahead.\nThe only way forward is proportional representation.\nAs far as freedom goes Tony Blair and especially Peter Haine\nstood up in the 60's and 70's calling for boycotts of South Africa because of the 90 detention laws, they called them fascist.\nNow they force these laws on us. Claire Short is right hung parliament will force a democratic government.
816172
In the U.K. it should be a majority of all parties in both houses of parliament that should make the decision, and not just the government. The ordinary citizens do not always have all the required information due to secrecy laws.
1028107
A Monarch is usually not affiliated with any Political party.\n\nIn fact over in Britain the Queen and immediate members of the British Royal Family do not vote in Parliamentary Elections at all.