could somebody please tell me

Former Member

what is a back bencher MP ?

I know its a stupid question but I've been away for 15 years I had to ask what the row about the 10p tax ban was as they talk and talk about it but never even hint at what it actually is I got that one figured anyhow, now I know why I'm being taxed to bits :banghead:

Former Member

A backbench MP is any MP that doesn't have an party appointed role. That tends to include any MP from an opposition party that isn't a member of a shadow cabinet or whip as well.

The term comes about from the way govt. ministers sit in the front rows of their section of the house, so all the other MPs sit on the 'backbenches'

Former Member

thanks so next question what is a shadow cabinet or a whip ? oh and what roles might they have in a party ?

Former Member

Being a whip of a member of a shadow cabinet is their role in a party. A shadow cabinet minister is basically just an Mp from an opposition party who has the same responsibility as a government minister and focuses upon the same thing as the minister. So the shadow home secretary for the conservatives comments upon decisions by the home sec, and would lead questions of the home sec. when they speak to the house eaxh week or during major announcements.

Whips are MPs who at the most benevolent level make sure that MPs in their own party know when a vote is taking place, which way the party wants them to vote, etc (they are the ones (well junior whips) you see running through Portcullis house when the session bells are ringing).

Of course on serious votes they also use rather less pleasant methods to convince people to vote with the party line.

For this reason how important a vote is is described by the 'lines' under it (coming from the daily agenda I believe). So a 'free' vote, a 'one-line' 'two-line' or 'three-line' whip. A three line whip is basically a vote an MP risks being expelled from their party if they vote against the party policy - a free vote being one where the party doesn't try to make anyone vote in a particular way. (though that's an over-simplification of a free vote and how it can be used to imply consent more than a three line whip)

Former Member

ok thanks for that

Former Member

Traditionally backbenchers are more outspoken and faithful to their parties' ideologies than 'frontbench' MPs, and more prone to breaking line with the official party line.

So you get Labour backbenchers prepared to defy the party whip and vote against the government on issues they see crucial or close to their beliefs, from the recent 10p tax revolt to such things as the Iraq war or PFI. There is a similar story in the Tory party.

Former Member

right that makes sense I mean I'd say why do we need parties if everyone just voted and acted as they feel it would be simpler. democracy is supposed to be about what the majority want to do and presumably each MP votes and acts to the satisfaction of his constituents (or again the majority).

so how many backbenchers would there be in a party, or rather how many "posts" are there in a party to hold

Former Member

Difficult thing with that is that some people vote because they like their own MP and want him to be independant and other's vote for a party and want the MP to take the party line...

Former Member

In reality one and two line whips have pretty much died out, things either tend to be three line or a free vote (though even within the three line there are different gradiations - voting against your party may get you a stiff talking too or expulsion depending on what the vote is)

Former Member

well thats not democratic the MP is (presumably) upholding his contituents will but has to vote against that to keep the party happy so who decides the parties policy I remember the debate about the embyo thing it got quite complicated what with party line, mp's personal convictions (being such a sensitive issue) and his constiteunts will

Former Member

Like i said, it's complicated. If 20,000 people in an MP's constituency believe in Trident and 20,000 disagree with it then there isn't some perfect to answer to what would actually be the most democratic way to vote.

Former Member

You also know what a party will do once it gets into Government, it helps to guarantee that what the party said it will do it will do (as it has MPs who are forced to vote with them). The alternative is lots of horse trading and an actual weakening of the link between political parties and the people, as MPs blackmail and bribe behind the scenes (well, more than they do now).

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

You also know what a party will do once it gets into Government, it helps to guarantee that what the party said it will do it will do (as it has MPs who are forced to vote with them). The alternative is lots of horse trading and an actual weakening of the link between political parties and the people, as MPs blackmail and bribe behind the scenes (well, more than they do now).

From the little I have seen in politics nobody does as they promised before election time, I think laws should be made binding people or parties to do as they said they would or slign their hook so I promise an increase in pay less taxes bla bla bla get elected and tell the country to f off and they get away with it all promises forgotten

Former Member

Alas it ain't that simple again. On a basic level a government should follow its manifesto pledges (and tuition fees are still a disgrace) but sometimes things change in 4 years. A government can try to predict the future but sometimes big events require changes to policy, and changes to so much policy you just couldn't hold a referendum about every issues.

Even things like scientific advances can mean changes to government policy that would have never been predicted before in an election.