Liberals sack MP how?

Abdul Alhazred · 4th February 2004, 03:44 PM

I thought I understood the British system of government, until I read the "Liberals sack MP" thread.

As I understood it, voters from each constituency choose an MP, and the MPs as a group (but in practise the party in power) choose a Prime Minister and the heads of the various departments of government, known as ministries. No?

So the party in power can "sack" one of their own from the job of running some ministry.

But how can the Liberals, a party not in power, "sack" any of their own at all? I'd think only the voters of a particular constituency could do that.

Please explain.

Mendor · 4th February 2004, 03:55 PM

You are correct in your understanding of the British system.

The Liberal Democrat party didn't sack this woman as a member of parliament; only the electorate can do that. (She could have been thrown out of the LibDem party, but she'd remain an MP.)

She occupied what is called a "front-bench post". Most parties have, on their front benches in the House of Commons, a mirror image of the Government's front bench, i.e. the Cabinet. Basically, she was the party's official spokesperson on something-or-other (I forget what) and the person in charge of grilling the Minister of This Something Or Other That She Was The Spokesperson for. That is the post she's been sacked from.

(I think.)

Nikk · 4th February 2004, 04:04 PM

No party can sack an MP. They only cease to be MP's when they are voted out of office at a general election, resign or die. They can of course be expelled from the party for various reasons. Such a person remains an MP and cannot be required to resign and stand for reelection, even if they defect to the opposition.

The major opposition parties do however assign the job of specialising in the affairs of various departments of state to their more promising MP's with a view to criticising the government more effectively and coming up with alternative policies. This is normally called a "shadow cabinet ". It was from such a post that the MP in question, Jenny Tonge, was sacked.

The Fool · 4th February 2004, 04:05 PM

well all a political party can sack anyone from is something they gave them in the first place...a position, title or priviledge. Once you are elected, you stay elected unless you are removed for some disqualifying act...(criminal offence etc). You may be removed from a party, in which case you are no longer the "silly party member for wherever" you are just "the member for wherever" you have to sit on the cross benches in parliament but you still have your vote... The most powerful thing is pre-selection....ie, who gets to stand as the "silly party candidate". If the party is strong in an electorate then being that parties nominee is all that matters, a monkey on a stick would get elected, and sometimes do. Politicans who are not members of major parties very rarely get elected....sacking from a party invariably means you will be tossed out in the next election.

Abdul Alhazred · 4th February 2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mendor
You are correct in your understanding of the British system.

The Liberal Democrat party didn't sack this woman as a member of parliament; only the electorate can do that. (She could have been thrown out of the LibDem party, but she'd remain an MP.)

She occupied what is called a "front-bench post". Most parties have, on their front benches in the House of Commons, a mirror image of the Government's front bench, i.e. the Cabinet. Basically, she was the party's official spokesperson on something-or-other (I forget what) and the person in charge of grilling the Minister of This Something Or Other That She Was The Spokesperson for. That is the post she's been sacked from.

(I think.)

So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power?

Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law.

Did I get it right?

Mendor · 4th February 2004, 04:14 PM

Yes.

Edited to add: it may not be as meaningless as all that. People on the front benches probably draw higher salaries than backbenchers. This is definitely true of Government Ministers, but I don't know to what extent it's true of opposition parties.

Jaggy Bunnet · 5th February 2004, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power?

Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law.

Did I get it right?

Not quite - she used to be the party's official spokesperson on something or is no longer.

Charlie Monoxide · 5th February 2004, 10:50 AM

Errr, they could put her in a sack, couldn't they?

Charlie (bagism - John Lennon) Monoxide

iain · 5th February 2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power?

Not really. In a parliamentary democracy, each of the main parties or groups will have an MP (or equivalent) responsible for each area of Government.

The party/group in power have people who actually run things; but the opposition parties also have a very important role. Their job is to both act as a spokesman for their party (if we were in government, we would be doing ....) and to hold the current government to account; to stop them getting away with things.

How well it works varies of course, but that's the idea and it is an important part of parliamentary democracy.

Nikk · 5th February 2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law.

I've heard the US presidential system described as an elective monarchy. The lack of an official opposition and the inability of the legislature to cross question the elected monarch on a very regular basis seems like a definite drawback in your system to me.

BillyTK · 6th February 2004, 02:07 AM

I'm chuffed! Not only do I start a thread which runs to three pages, other people start threads to talk about it!

Anyway, as the others have explained (and as I eplained in my OP on that thread) she's been asked to step down from her position of children's spokesperson from Kennedy's front bench. "Liberals ask MP to step down from front bench..." struck me as unwieldy a possibly confusing for non-UK posters, so let's just say I used "sack" to sex the title up a little

shuize · 6th February 2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK
... to sex the title up a little

Just like the BBC...

BillyTK · 6th February 2004, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize

Just like the BBC...

Well actually, the BBC didn't sex things up; their claim was that the Government sexed things up, which we now know is false, except for thing about the 45-minute claim only referring to battlefield weapons, which members of the Cabinet knew, but the Prime Minister didn't. Odd, that...

Anyway, well spotted! I suspect "sexed up" is going to enter common usage over here, if it hasn't already

iain · 6th February 2004, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK
Anyway, well spotted! I suspect "sexed up" is going to enter common usage over here, if it hasn't already

But you still stand by the totality of your post, right?

4th February 2004, 03:44 PM	#1
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,475	Liberals sack MP how? I thought I understood the British system of government, until I read the "Liberals sack MP" thread. As I understood it, voters from each constituency choose an MP, and the MPs as a group (but in practise the party in power) choose a Prime Minister and the heads of the various departments of government, known as ministries. No? So the party in power can "sack" one of their own from the job of running some ministry. But how can the Liberals, a party not in power, "sack" any of their own at all? I'd think only the voters of a particular constituency could do that. Please explain.
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

4th February 2004, 03:55 PM	#2
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	You are correct in your understanding of the British system. The Liberal Democrat party didn't sack this woman as a member of parliament; only the electorate can do that. (She could have been thrown out of the LibDem party, but she'd remain an MP.) She occupied what is called a "front-bench post". Most parties have, on their front benches in the House of Commons, a mirror image of the Government's front bench, i.e. the Cabinet. Basically, she was the party's official spokesperson on something-or-other (I forget what) and the person in charge of grilling the Minister of This Something Or Other That She Was The Spokesperson for. That is the post she's been sacked from. (I think.)
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Member of the Liberati

4th February 2004, 04:04 PM	#3
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249	No party can sack an MP. They only cease to be MP's when they are voted out of office at a general election, resign or die. They can of course be expelled from the party for various reasons. Such a person remains an MP and cannot be required to resign and stand for reelection, even if they defect to the opposition. The major opposition parties do however assign the job of specialising in the affairs of various departments of state to their more promising MP's with a view to criticising the government more effectively and coming up with alternative policies. This is normally called a "shadow cabinet ". It was from such a post that the MP in question, Jenny Tonge, was sacked.
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249

4th February 2004, 04:05 PM	#4
The Fool Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 11,558	well all a political party can sack anyone from is something they gave them in the first place...a position, title or priviledge. Once you are elected, you stay elected unless you are removed for some disqualifying act...(criminal offence etc). You may be removed from a party, in which case you are no longer the "silly party member for wherever" you are just "the member for wherever" you have to sit on the cross benches in parliament but you still have your vote... The most powerful thing is pre-selection....ie, who gets to stand as the "silly party candidate". If the party is strong in an electorate then being that parties nominee is all that matters, a monkey on a stick would get elected, and sometimes do. Politicans who are not members of major parties very rarely get elected....sacking from a party invariably means you will be tossed out in the next election.
	__________________ And what is good, Phaedrus,and what is not good. Need we ask anyone to tell us these things? R. M. Pirsig. (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance) Lose half your IQ....Ask me how.

4th February 2004, 04:07 PM	#5
Abdul Alhazred Yes, that one. Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5,475	Quote: Originally posted by Mendor You are correct in your understanding of the British system. The Liberal Democrat party didn't sack this woman as a member of parliament; only the electorate can do that. (She could have been thrown out of the LibDem party, but she'd remain an MP.) She occupied what is called a "front-bench post". Most parties have, on their front benches in the House of Commons, a mirror image of the Government's front bench, i.e. the Cabinet. Basically, she was the party's official spokesperson on something-or-other (I forget what) and the person in charge of grilling the Minister of This Something Or Other That She Was The Spokesperson for. That is the post she's been sacked from. (I think.) So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power? Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law. Did I get it right?
	__________________ The lack of a rational explanation is not evidence for an irrational explanation.

4th February 2004, 04:14 PM	#6
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	Yes. Edited to add: it may not be as meaningless as all that. People on the front benches probably draw higher salaries than backbenchers. This is definitely true of Government Ministers, but I don't know to what extent it's true of opposition parties.
Mendor Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 298	__________________ Member of the Liberati

5th February 2004, 02:22 AM	#7
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power? Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law. Did I get it right? Not quite - she used to be the party's official spokesperson on something or is no longer.

5th February 2004, 10:50 AM	#8
Charlie Monoxide Wag Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London, Ontario Posts: 2,761	Errr, they could put her in a sack, couldn't they? Charlie (bagism - John Lennon) Monoxide
	__________________ Major General Wag of JREF

5th February 2004, 01:46 PM	#9
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred So she was sacked from the non-existent post she would have had, but didn't have, had the Liberals been the party in power? Not really. In a parliamentary democracy, each of the main parties or groups will have an MP (or equivalent) responsible for each area of Government. The party/group in power have people who actually run things; but the opposition parties also have a very important role. Their job is to both act as a spokesman for their party (if we were in government, we would be doing ....) and to hold the current government to account; to stop them getting away with things. How well it works varies of course, but that's the idea and it is an important part of parliamentary democracy.
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	__________________ "Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28." - On the Hour

5th February 2004, 02:14 PM	#10
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249	Quote: Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred Of course we don't have a shadow cabinet in the USA because the executive is separate from the legislature by law. I've heard the US presidential system described as an elective monarchy. The lack of an official opposition and the inability of the legislature to cross question the elected monarch on a very regular basis seems like a definite drawback in your system to me.
Nikk Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,249

6th February 2004, 02:07 AM	#11
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	I'm chuffed! Not only do I start a thread which runs to three pages, other people start threads to talk about it! Anyway, as the others have explained (and as I eplained in my OP on that thread) she's been asked to step down from her position of children's spokesperson from Kennedy's front bench. "Liberals ask MP to step down from front bench..." struck me as unwieldy a possibly confusing for non-UK posters, so let's just say I used "sack" to sex the title up a little
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

6th February 2004, 02:12 AM	#12
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,305	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK ... to sex the title up a little Just like the BBC...

6th February 2004, 02:40 AM	#13
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by shuize Just like the BBC... Well actually, the BBC didn't sex things up; their claim was that the Government sexed things up, which we now know is false, except for thing about the 45-minute claim only referring to battlefield weapons, which members of the Cabinet knew, but the Prime Minister didn't. Odd, that... Anyway, well spotted! I suspect "sexed up" is going to enter common usage over here, if it hasn't already
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

6th February 2004, 04:38 AM	#14
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK Anyway, well spotted! I suspect "sexed up" is going to enter common usage over here, if it hasn't already But you still stand by the totality of your post, right?
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	__________________ "Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28." - On the Hour