Collective Responsibility -v- Individual Responsibility.

[DanaC]

Recently I've been in a position where my usual acceptance of collective responsiblity has been challenged. It's left me mulling it over.

I've always maintained that I would not vote for something that ran against my conscience, regardless of the group position on that issue. I have also, always maintained that once the group has debated and voted on an issue, that the group position should be held once we walk into the chamber. I think most people in the group share that stance to a lesser or greater degree.

I recently broke the group line. Along with one other group member, I voted against something which the group had taken a position and to which a three-line whip had been applied. The other councillor and myself argued against the group's strategy and were explicit in our intention to vote against, despite the liklihood of diciplinary action being taken. I did this partly through conscience: I am fairly sure that the people who voted for me, and members of the wider party do not support the group's position on this matter. But, the same strategy was entered into last year and I voted for it. This time, I believe the group are a) committing a slow, political suicide and b) have failed to adequately assess the impact that this strategy has had in the previous two years. In other words, the argument has not been sufficiently made this year, but is not in itself one of my absolute 'red lines'.

I was, accused of 'cherry picking' those issues I stand with the group on. Everyone has voted for things they didn't necessarily agree with, because they lost the argument in the group. Disagreement on strategy; unease about a policy. There are times, when we all must swallow our disquiet and show a united face with our party colleagues. I have done, and will no doubt do again. I haven't until now rebelled, because I have not up until now encountered a situation where the argument for has not been good enough to sway me.

So. My question to this board is: in the context of a political party, what role is there for such collective positions?

[Griff]

Collective positioning like this are one reason people in the States get upset at politicians. You voted with the people who voted for you and you voted your conscience. I see nothing wrong in your posiition.

We have a similar situation in our district where an anti-war military veteran ran against a popular Republican with moral's baggage. The anti-war guy won but submitted to Nancy Pelosi's vision of whining and finger-pointing about the war while doing exactly nothing to end it. It may be part of parlimentary democracy that it seems more acceptable in GB.

[elSicomoro]

This is one of the most difficult things about politics, IMO. You're being elected to serve your constituents, but you also have a conscience and think that your position might be better. Unfortunately, I don't think politicians consider their constituents as much as they should.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Representing your constituents, is always the right thing.

[Cicero]

~snip~I am fairly sure that the people who voted for me, and members of the wider party do not support the group's position on this matter.~snip~

Orly? Best be finding this out then. Hey, run the issue by a couple of people and see if you can get the kind of feedback that will be useful. (from your voters) If they have a cohesive angle that you aren't with, you may have to think this over more.

Insignificant battles can sometimes end up being gigantic. You don't want to be on the wrong end of collective stupidity.

[DanaC]

*smiles at Cic* Sound advice Cic.

The strategy agreed by the group is the same strategy we have followed for the past two years. It amounts to a form of power sharing with the largest party. It is described by our group as a one day deal at the council's annual meeting in which we support the largest party to take all the cabinet posts (it's a hung council, no overall control). In exchange our group are supported by them to take all scrutiny chairs.

The argument for is one of effective opposition through the scrutiny system....the argument against is that we, the smallest party, and they, the largest party, have carved up all the most powerful or useful positions in the council, excluding the second largest party.

The largest party in our council is our historic enemy, the conservative party. To say it sticks in my craw to vote them onto anything is an understatement. I was convinced to do it, for my first two years as councillor. Now, I realise that the opportunities for effective opposition that come with those roles are not great enough, not plentiful enough, to warrant supporting a conservative cabinet.

On the doors, I have had people tell me there's no point in voting labour, they just give it to the conservatives.

Amongst party comrades, I have come across very few who support this strategy. When I thought it was the best way of representing our constituents' best interests, I defended the strategy to those members. I am no longer convinced.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Seems to me, in the minds of the great unwashed, that arrangement would make the conservative party & your party, the government. So any distaste for the governments actions, falls on your two parties.

[DanaC]

Bingo!

'cept we're talking about council rather than government, but yes. This is a big problem. There is a great deal of confusion amongst the electorate as to how council works and who is in charge of it. Because ten years ago our party had control of the council a lot of people still think we're in charge. Every time one of our lot appear in the paper as a Chair of one of the Scrutiny Panels, the electorate just think we're the decision makers. It all sounds like the executive unless you know how the council works.

And frankly.....some of our people seem to have 'gone native'....they're more interested in smoothing the waters for council decisions than in being the opposition. Not all....some of them want to do this because they genuinely believe that they can be nore effective through this system...but I find it hard to believe that 8K a year additional allowance plays no part in the decision.

[Aliantha]

Sometimes politicians 'cross the floor' because they simply disagree with the party line. It happened in federal parliament here a while ago. Here's a snip from an article about it.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has crossed the floor to defeat changes the Government wanted to make to the Trade Practices Act.

The Queensland Senator voted with the Opposition and minor parties twice to defeat the Government's move to limit the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) power to approve company mergers.

Senator Joyce says the changes would have led to greater centralisation, and he had no choice but to cross the floor.

"The alternative was to vote for a piece of legislation which specifically spoke against what we campaigned for in Queensland, and what I'd stated in my maiden speech," he said.

And again here (from wiki for want of a better source)

Joyce also said that he would not support the Government's "Voluntary Student Unionism" Bill banning the levying of compulsory service or amenity fees by universities without amendment because he believed it would unfairly disadvantage regional universities. However, Joyce was unsuccessful in his attempt to amend the bill, and subsequently crossed the floor on 9 December 2005 to oppose it. This was ultimately futile as the Government had secured the vote of Family First Senator Steve Fielding.

He still holds office.

I believe if your constituents have voted you in for a particular reason, then you should always support their views, not the views of your party. Ideally, if you demonstrate your ability to do so as a member of a party, you then have the option of a very strong career as an independant candidate (if you have that option there).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

...but I find it hard to believe that 8K a year additional allowance plays no part in the decision.

Wait! There's money involved? Well then to hell with the voters, gimme, gimme, gimME.

[Radar]

There are no collective rights or collective responsibilities. There are only individual rights and individual responsibilities.

[Aliantha]

That'd mainly be in your world Radar.

you'll find plenty of literature supporting the idea of collective responsibility. BTW, did you notice that no one even mentioned rights? The topic of the thread is about responsibility.

It'd be nice if we didn't have to have another thread ruined with your crap.

[Radar]

Rights and responsibilities can't be separated and I made an accurate statement. Individuals have rights and responsibilities, groups don't.

Whether you like this or agree with it doesn't matter. Also, you are the one who wrecks threads, not me. Don't get mad because I correct you when you're wrong, which is most of the time.

[regular.joe]

There is no conceit in Radars family.....he has it all.

[Ibby]

People definitely have responsibilities to groups, radar. If you make a deal, an arrangement, with a group, for which they will do X and Y which helps you and, in return, you do Z which helps them. It's really the same concept that government operates under. You give up a little bit of freedom to the government in exchange for government services. EVERY government works under this principle. It's only a matter of degree.