How Can A Three Line Whip Be Implemented In A Democratic Govt?

[sunsocks]

Having looked up what a three line whip means in UK politics (with regard to the up and coming vote on the Syria situation) I don't understand how this is allowed in a democratic parliament. Surely my MP should be voting to reflect his constituent's feelings rather than what David Cameron wants. Please can somene explain so I can easily understand. Many thanks for any responses.

[ichkeria]

I hope to God MPs won't be debating whether we started the Syrian Civil War.

[ichkeria]

TTT I'd have thought it obvious that opinion on this does not defend along left and right. Some of the biggest doubters and appeasers are on the Tory side - makes it interesting if nothing else

[Old_Geezer]

If any country dares to try democracy then I predict there can be no such thing as three line whips or its equivalent. Indeed there would be no point in forming different parties at all since each representative would be obliged to stand for what their constituents want not what some party wants. And they'd have to think for themselves too !

[FredPuli43]

Any MP may vote against his party's instruction. Few of our senior MPs have never done so, or would not have done if the circumstances seemed right . This commonly occurs when what the party proposes is contrary to the interests of his own constituents as, for example, closing a steel works in his constituency when his constituents are largely dependent upon it for work .

They are equally free to vote against their party on Syria. Whether the party would then consider them fit to be an MP for them is another matter. It might, when the contrariness is just one matter, but not if the behaviour is repeated.

[sunsocks]

Thanks for the replies - I am now better informed (if rather frustrated).

[Old_Geezer]

That is the problem Fred. If an MP wants a career they can't afford to vote against the party on major issues, or too often on less important ones. They are unlikely to retain their seat as an independent since the public don't want to risk the wrong group of lizards to getting into power. So dissent becomes the exception when the individual feels they can't afford to do otherwise.