Sorry Steve, I don't buy it. You've been pushing this argument for years and it makes no sense.
> Almost no one is elected in their own right as an individual independent MP.
Correct. The British public overwhelmingly prefer to vote for parties and platforms, not people. Therefore the law is out of step with what people want as made clear via their voting habits, and so the law should be changed. Losing the whip should always trigger an immediate election.
This archaic bit of law isn't a bulwark against totalitarianism. Far from it. People don't like sudden elections anyway, so if a totalitarian government started kicking MPs out for not going along with their evil plans those MPs could run as independents and explain what is happening to the voters, then go right back into Parliament. Independents who stand for something clear and locally popular can win without party affiliation, as Jeremy Corbyn shows.
The current arrangement is a major risk for totalitarianism and encourages malignant power-seeking behavior by MPs. They can pledge allegiance to a coherent and popular party platform before the election and then immediately do the exact opposite afterwards, without any penalty whatsoever. You assume that MPs are motivated by winning the next election, but that's not true. For many MPs they are clearly motivated by power above all else, and if they can sabotage the next government and impose a minority opinion, then the risk of losing their job in a few years is easily worth it to them. Especially as once they decide they don't care about their voter's will anymore, they can just abuse their power to stay in place forever.
Example: although you paint rebellion here as almost always a morally just cause, the most critical rebellion in recent years involved blocking the government from leaving the EU. Parliament attempted to take over the government and force it to do the opposite of what those MPs ran on, with BoJo unable to do anything about it at all. When he was eventually saved by the delusional stupidity of the Lib Dems ALL the rebels lost their seats, showing exactly what the British public actually thought of them. They were pro-totalitarian rebels, didn't care about stabbing voters in the back if they could sabotage the exit process, and it's a major weakness in the British constitution that they couldn't be immediately disposed of.
The Labour rebellions are likewise unjust and immoral. The Labour Manifest promised fiscal discipline and no tax rises. The MPs ran on that platform and used it to gain election. To Kier Starmer's very minor credit, he did actually make a weak attempt at some sort of left wing version of fiscal discipline. He was then stopped by rebels doing the same thing as the Dominic Grieve's of the world did: reneging on their promises to their voters.
Starmer should show no mercy. With whatever is left of his majority he should pass a law that triggers automatic by-elections if the whip is withdrawn, then withdraw it from every single rebel. If their positions are really some brave stand against the authoritarian platform that they, er, supported just a year ago, then the voters will return them to Parliament and they don't need to be "rebels" anymore. If - as we might suspect - they are actually far to the left of the nub of the population that voted for them, then they will lose. That is democracy in action.
I like the von Clausewitz reference. Thinkers should read his work more broadly, especially on the subject of friction, because when certain thresholds are breached his observations can be applied more broadly to civil matters, the market, and the economy more broadly.
One example of this is the housing market. After 2008, the observation emerged that banks had been far too liberal in their lending criteria. It was true, of course, but the overcorrections that governments, markets and financial institutions undertook have harmed Western housing markets over the longer term. Kevin Erdmann is an insightful substack writer. He has observed that before the 2008 Crash, only one-third of mortgage applicants with a credit score below 740 were rejected, and after the crash this figure rose to two-thirds. This is turn has lowered home ownership in America from just shy of 80% to 60%.
Alarmingly, the restriction of credit has also had profound supply side effects. I was sceptical at first, until I came across the example of Harold MacMillan's Stop-Go policy. It's also been a recipe for rentier economics...
Have you offered your services as a consultant to disaffected Labour MPs?!!
Sorry Steve, I don't buy it. You've been pushing this argument for years and it makes no sense.
> Almost no one is elected in their own right as an individual independent MP.
Correct. The British public overwhelmingly prefer to vote for parties and platforms, not people. Therefore the law is out of step with what people want as made clear via their voting habits, and so the law should be changed. Losing the whip should always trigger an immediate election.
This archaic bit of law isn't a bulwark against totalitarianism. Far from it. People don't like sudden elections anyway, so if a totalitarian government started kicking MPs out for not going along with their evil plans those MPs could run as independents and explain what is happening to the voters, then go right back into Parliament. Independents who stand for something clear and locally popular can win without party affiliation, as Jeremy Corbyn shows.
The current arrangement is a major risk for totalitarianism and encourages malignant power-seeking behavior by MPs. They can pledge allegiance to a coherent and popular party platform before the election and then immediately do the exact opposite afterwards, without any penalty whatsoever. You assume that MPs are motivated by winning the next election, but that's not true. For many MPs they are clearly motivated by power above all else, and if they can sabotage the next government and impose a minority opinion, then the risk of losing their job in a few years is easily worth it to them. Especially as once they decide they don't care about their voter's will anymore, they can just abuse their power to stay in place forever.
Example: although you paint rebellion here as almost always a morally just cause, the most critical rebellion in recent years involved blocking the government from leaving the EU. Parliament attempted to take over the government and force it to do the opposite of what those MPs ran on, with BoJo unable to do anything about it at all. When he was eventually saved by the delusional stupidity of the Lib Dems ALL the rebels lost their seats, showing exactly what the British public actually thought of them. They were pro-totalitarian rebels, didn't care about stabbing voters in the back if they could sabotage the exit process, and it's a major weakness in the British constitution that they couldn't be immediately disposed of.
The Labour rebellions are likewise unjust and immoral. The Labour Manifest promised fiscal discipline and no tax rises. The MPs ran on that platform and used it to gain election. To Kier Starmer's very minor credit, he did actually make a weak attempt at some sort of left wing version of fiscal discipline. He was then stopped by rebels doing the same thing as the Dominic Grieve's of the world did: reneging on their promises to their voters.
Starmer should show no mercy. With whatever is left of his majority he should pass a law that triggers automatic by-elections if the whip is withdrawn, then withdraw it from every single rebel. If their positions are really some brave stand against the authoritarian platform that they, er, supported just a year ago, then the voters will return them to Parliament and they don't need to be "rebels" anymore. If - as we might suspect - they are actually far to the left of the nub of the population that voted for them, then they will lose. That is democracy in action.
Thank you. That will take more time to respond to than I have presently but suffice to say I disagree! I’ll seek to find time
I like the von Clausewitz reference. Thinkers should read his work more broadly, especially on the subject of friction, because when certain thresholds are breached his observations can be applied more broadly to civil matters, the market, and the economy more broadly.
One example of this is the housing market. After 2008, the observation emerged that banks had been far too liberal in their lending criteria. It was true, of course, but the overcorrections that governments, markets and financial institutions undertook have harmed Western housing markets over the longer term. Kevin Erdmann is an insightful substack writer. He has observed that before the 2008 Crash, only one-third of mortgage applicants with a credit score below 740 were rejected, and after the crash this figure rose to two-thirds. This is turn has lowered home ownership in America from just shy of 80% to 60%.
Alarmingly, the restriction of credit has also had profound supply side effects. I was sceptical at first, until I came across the example of Harold MacMillan's Stop-Go policy. It's also been a recipe for rentier economics...