Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

The House is debating the whole Iraq thing today, and the government has issued a three line whip for its members. Should be interesting to see how many of them follow it, save the usual suspects.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

oooo look at that. Jack Straw states that the Government will put any decision on military action to the House. He hasn't specifically said he's giving the Royal Perogative to the House, but I bet any decision will done via a three line whip as well.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19350

Explain what a three line whip is.

Last edited by wonderaz on 02-26-2003 at 01:21 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 6086

http://www.explore.parliament.uk/search/data.asp?r=200

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

I can't believe that Blair plans to give the royal perogative to the House. I don't see how that would be sensible, really.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15059

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
I can't believe that Blair plans to give the royal perogative to the House. I don't see how that would be sensible, really.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

In general; the House isn't the place to be making quick crucial decisions, which is what war decisions sometimes are. To give the perogative in this case would lead to them wanting it all the time.

Same reason that presidents have ignored the War Powers Act in the US, I guess (there was a thread about this a while back), although I guess that the president will put it to Congress when he is certain that they will agree.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location:
Posts: 1163

Another, more interesting discussion on the Whip system: here.

Although in brief, Wonder, whips influence their party's MP's voting in much the same way as you might the behaviour of one of little Al's prospective suitors, i.e., friendly threats, hostile threats and physical violence.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Smug I don;t think he's going to really give Royal Perogative to the House. On this specific issue I reckon he is gonna say 'I rest the decision upon this House to advise me on how the House feels the Royal Perogative of the Executive ought to be carried out on this matter' (or words to that effect).

He can afford it at the end of the day. He's not going to lose the vote. No way, impossible, won't happen.

He has a 180 majority and the entire Opposition is backing him as well. He can afford 180 of his own backbenchers to not toe the line and still win. Now given the last Early Day Motion against war only ever got about 160 signatures and they were cross party signature between Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid, the maths on this one is pretty simple.

Politically speaking it could be seen as a gamble, but if the House votes in favour of military action, even precipatate action outside the UN, then the British public against will shrink massively. If the wording of the vote is correct as well, then legalistically the House may not be able to presume a precedent has been set.

Last edited by philjit on 02-26-2003 at 02:26 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 19350

Thanks, DI, Lightbulb. The only problem with your analogy is that the only option I will use is the last one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I told you he could afford to let them vote. Last night was a 'test of the water' vote and exactly what I said happened, 122 backbench rebels, plus the Lib Dems and SNP voted against the proposal (not a vote on authroising military action) totalling 199 against to 400 odd for. He can easily have a vote on authorising force in the Commons and win it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged