Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
8. Part of the problem is that it doesn't actually translate.
Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:34 AM
Dec 2013

It works better in its original British setting because the party whips actually have some significant power (here in the UK there's such a thing as party discipline; certain votes will have a "three-line whip", which means: members are expected to be present for the debate in the Commons, and are expected to support their party. Ignoring a three-line whip, or voting the other way, leads to "having the whip withdrawn"; worst-case, a member will be expelled from the parliamentary party and not selected for his constituency at the next general election. So in the world of the British House of Commons, the government's Chief Whip is actually someone with some degree of power who's not above browbeating MPs into voting as they ought (and in the case of intra-party drama, given enough support, might stand a chance of becoming party leader and/or Prime Minister). In the American context, though? It doesn't work, at all.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I just read Chris Cillizz...»Reply #8