The duties of M-Ps.
The third in my talks on this, will concentrate on M-P's duty to the nation as a whole.
Um, an M-P, for instance, may think his
party line, is short-sighted, looked at in the broader national interests,
and may want to disagree with his
party line, or with his
constituents, for that reason.
Um, so, duty to the nation can
clash, with what is usually considered the overriding duty to party.
Now duty to nation, sounds
noble.
Um, but, the reality is
muddier.
Um, party, um, party
constituent and personal interest, are often presented, as if they were a duty to the nation.
Um, presented in those terms for instance the
redundancies of workers in heavy industry, in the nineteen eighties.
Labour said, it was a national scandal, that it was happening.
The Tories said, that industrial workers who were put out of work, were a necessary sacrifice, because you had to modernise old rust-belt industries.
They both claimed a higher purpose in their stance, the
contradictory ones.
Um, I don't think we need go as far, however, as Dr Johnson, the eighteenth century, literary figure, who said, 'patriotism is the last
refuge of a
scoundrel.
' Ha ha.
That's too
harsh.
Another example of duty to nation, or, as an M-P might honestly see it, um, could be in the revolts against the
party line.
This is particularly interesting when government backbenchers do it.
You might say that opposition backbenchers, um, have more freedom, and indeed almost a duty to be revolting.
At least in the first part of the Parliament.
While they're trying to sort out_ their party's trying to sort out, how they can, um, best present themselves to the
electorates.
It's usually an internal debate.
And anyway their party leaders don't have the authority of prime minister.
After all, the party leader of the opposition, has either, just lost, or hasn't yet won an election.
The party leader of, the Tory Party, at the moment, young Mr Hague, hasn't won an election.
Um, now revolts, by government backbenchers were very common under the Tories, from nineteen seventy-nine to ninety-seven.
And even under Blair, Labour backbenchers, revolted against, measures to cut Social Security to single mothers.
And so force them out to work.
Sometimes, in the eighties, and quite often in the nineties, the Tory governments were defeated in the house, by revolts of their own backbenchers.
Or to be more precise, a certain number of backbenchers, either voted with the opposition or
abstaining.
There's no other way the conservatives could be, um, defeated, until at least ninety-two.
Because, if all their backbenchers voted for them, their majorities easily outnumbered all the opposition parties combined.
Such a defeat hasn't happened yet, under Labour, since May ninety-seven.
|
But who knows.
So backbench revolts can be effective.
Sometimes they revolt on principle.
Sometimes for more direct electoral reasons, if they think that government policy is going to cause them to lose their seats.
Um, Conservative revolts against the famous Poll Tax, or, Community Charge in nineteen ninety is a good example of that.
They thought their government was pressing ahead with a measure, which would just, cause the Conservative Party to be defeated in the next election.
Um, in nineteen ninety then, Tory M-Ps took the side of their local Tory-controlled councils against the Poll Tax, um, in opposition to the prime minister, Mrs Thatcher.
When there is a big majority for the government.
E.
G.
The Conservatives ninety eighty-three, ninety-two, and Labour from May ninety-seven to the present.
Affective opposition, it is paradoxically argued, can only come from the ranks of its own backbenchers.
The government will listen to them, because they dep_ the government depends on them for their majority.
Um, and the backbenchers will defend at least the interests of the people, who vote for the government party, and so have put it in power.
And whose support, must be retained at the next general election.
The official opposition, by contrast, is usually a, a demoralised rump, even a rabble.
Um, you could say Labour was like that, between, nineteen seventy-nine, until some point, at least nineteen eighty-six, a lot of the time.
And the Tories are, very much like that now.
And, the hardcore vo- voters of the opposition parties, which is what a badly defeated opposition is left with, are people who wo- wouldn't vote for the governing party anyway.
So why should the governing party listen to the opposition.
Interestingly though, smaller opposition parties, are sometimes listened to more than the official opposition.
Because, they are sometimes conceived as sort of direct rivals, um, to the conserv_ uh, to the governing party.
The
alliance, in the mid nineteen eighties, for example, was, feared by the con_ then Conservative government, more than the Labour opposition was.
But anyway, the votes of all opposition M-Ps combined, cannot bring down a government with a big majority.
But if some government rebels combine with the opposition, the government can be defeated.
Um, in fact, this can also be done if government M-Ps simply
abstain.
As a result, the government often makes quiet, unpublicised, policy concessions, to its own backbenchers.
Um, another duty to the nation, which is also unpublicised, a lot of M-Ps' work in Parliament can often be co-operative, and essentially non-party.
Um, M-Ps, can often agree on certain measures.
I.
E.
To better protect the countryside.
Um, and M-Ps also, have to help Parliament do its job, by simply playing the game, and taking part in debates, and obeying the rules of debate.
These activities, per se, are not publicised much, because the media likes bloody, and hysterical, and noisy clashes.
You know, it makes for exciting reading or television.
A look, finally, at the national interest in relation to the,
constituency interest.
If there's a
clash, M-Ps can side either, um, with or against, their constituents, or their party leadership, via co- conviction or career hopes.
Um, from their leader they could get patronage, jobs.
Also, however, an M-P is a representative, not a delegate, as the eighteenth century thinker Burke said.
That means he's not just a ventriloquist dummy, for what his constituents think.
Indeed Burke said that, and M-P is a professional politician, therefore, you're electing him to use his judgement.
Just as you might, um_ uh, as shareholders might elect a managing director to use his judgement in business.
Or you go to, a doctor, or a lawyer.
It's a bit like that.
Um, s- nor is an M-P a glorified local councillor, he should really spend more time dealing with national than local issues.
Although in practice there has to be a compromise.
Um, nevertheless, M-Ps, are selected, and may be deselected, by their local party committees.
An M-P who offends his local party too much, is likely to be deselected.
So, there is a, um, balance to be maintained there.