I'm glad you brought this point up because my original post ties in with one of my biggest issues with the way parliamentary democracy has developed here in the UK, and it appears to be the same in Australia: the whip system. Disobeying a three-line whip is sufficient grounds for expulsion from a party. While I agree that parties do a pretty good job at filtering out/in, I think we should move on from the convention of collective responsibility at the cabinet level and the three-line whip. And you're right, because of this my local member is going to vote and publicly advocate the party position. But speaking in a single voice has drowned out principled voting and disconnected mainstream politicians from Joe the Plumber. I like the American system where they have strong political parties but Congressmen seem to vote across party lines more often than in our systems.
As for the debates themselves, I think it's important to have them, it's just disappointing the level of coverage that's been devoted to them. Given the way the media works, it was perhaps inevitable but like you also pointed out, they've been extremely controlled over here as well. Seventy-six rules (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7047010.ece) were drawn up for each of our Prime Ministerial debates.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-29 10:19 am (UTC)As for the debates themselves, I think it's important to have them, it's just disappointing the level of coverage that's been devoted to them. Given the way the media works, it was perhaps inevitable but like you also pointed out, they've been extremely controlled over here as well. Seventy-six rules (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7047010.ece) were drawn up for each of our Prime Ministerial debates.