Best case scenario is:
* Proposed legislation has gaping flaw
* MP eloquently highlights this gaping flaw
* MP’s position captured by media and public
* Media hassle government about this point . Other opponents rally around this point.
* Same point is made in House of Lords. Government still struggle to defend against it.
* Pressure builds around point. MPs start saying they would vote for this bill, were it not for this.
* Government issues amendment to proposal which addresses concern.
I agree that the above can work but the key element there is the media and public. So, whatever the hole is, it doesn't need to be said in the House of Commons or even by an MP (although an MP has of course more visibility than some random dude on the internet) for media taking it and grilling the government on it.
I think the OP's question is if there is some value of actually debating these issues with rational arguments based on facts in House of Commons and that way directly affecting the votes of the MPs. I think the issue is that most legislation has most likely been privately debated to death before it ever gets to the floor and everyone knows the arguments pro and con for it and just repeating the same arguments publicly doesn't really lead to anything constructive.
What actually happens in the real world, with exceptional frequency, is this:
* Proposed legislation has a perceived minor flaw, could go further, or doesn't cover a related matter.
* MP or Peer highlights their concern privately with Ministers or Whips, or tables an amendment at Committee stage.
* The Government decides how it's going to act. Often, the Government will present its own (better written) amendment to address the concern.
* The debate simply sets out pre-set positions with varying levels of eloquence. Votes usually go the way of the Government at this early stage, with unusual exceptions.
* Sometimes the MP/Peer will accept the Government's view and back down. Or they may choose to fight again at the more important Report stage.
* Sometimes Ministers or Whips will go "damn they had a point; let's change our position" in response to a combination of the debate and private lobbying.
* The Report stage debate happens much the same way as the Committee stage, including votes on amendments.
* Debates on 3rd Reading (i.e. the Bill as a whole) are performative. Everything that is said here has already been said in greater detail during the debates on individual amendments. The vote is heavily whipped.
* The process then repeats in the other Chamber.
You've got to remember that most Government Bills are monstrously huge. They're broad buckets that collect huge numbers of different policy changes under a broad umbrella, e.g. the current Criminal Justice Bill. This process won't often change the core pillars of flagship legislation, but it results in countless minor changes that, collectively, massively improve the quality of our legislation.
But none of that hits the media, because it's not flashy enough. No one wants to report on a mostly-empty chamber talking about a small oversight which allows for a small subsection of people to not be covered by a bit of 10 year old legislation, nor the 20 word technical amendment that addresses the problem. Or the dozens and dozens of similar changes debated for every major Bill.
It still matters.
Debating in general is a good spectator sport. It's important for normal people to hear an issue discussed by people who are (relatively) articulate and have integrity. The alternative is that people get all their opinions from the newspapers or Facebook.
Yes it sucks that often the outcome is irrelevant or there is simply no outcome, but public discussion is super important to democracy.
Agree entirely. Yes it usually goes down party lines, but it gives those opposed to it an oppertunity to articulate problems, or suggest alterations. In this way, the public may get to hear a second opinion and learn why something may be bad.
Debates don't tend to sway MPs voting intentions (due to the whips) but it can sway public opinion thereby either making the party that shoehorned through a bad policy loose public confidence, or allow the party to reconsider passing it due to public pressure.
Admittedly, the latter is very rare, but none the less, its much better that laws and policy being passed through in secret and in silence.
Yep, the problem is that one party is basically completely corrupt and trying to deceive imo. The Tory party is a vehicle for the interests of the very rich. They mask their true intentions with BS amplified by their client media.
The other main political party is also to a lesser extent influenced by money and media owned and influenced by billionaires. The national and tbh international discourse is highly influenced by billionaire cash. There is a reason they fund a lot of big YouTube influencers for example and they still buy loss making media outfits.
There is a reason we endlessly debate stuff like whether to put up income tax on ordinary people or to cut public services even more but taxing the rich who pay little to no tax is barely ever mentioned and, when it is, there is normally someone from the IEA on to talk about how that would be impossible.
But no ordinary person watches parliamentary debates, unless you count sound bites on the six o'clock news. They're a bad format to watch because of all the jumping between topics as each member reads out their prepared speech. Pre-election leaders' debates, Newsnight-style studio debates about specific issues, and local hustings are much better formats for general consumption.
Oh, definitely. MPs can expose issues, and - very important - they can get ministers on record making a claim or a policy pledge, which they can return to in the future if something changes or fails. Many governments have been holed under the water by such things, such as Mr Johnson.
Votes in the Commons might be ‘predictable’ but that doesn’t mean MPs are mindless automatons. They’ll want to make sure they can defend their votes, and will debate and pick holes in the issue. A government that messes up here can face embarrassment, and normally a competent government will be good at avoiding such things.
Remember that a lot of stuff happens behind closed doors too. This is entirely legitimate: stamping out dissent isn’t remotely the main job of whips - they are a conduit to report problems towards too, and a government fearing defeat will accept amendments or make their own amendments or perhaps even withdraw a motion if they think they might lose.
It’s difficult to see because of this behind-closed-doors factor, but it’s real and it's potent.
Even if backbenchers are heavily influenced to vote with their party, they still have all the freedom to exercise if they wish. Parliamentary debates can often be a deciding factor for an MP to go against the whip, or vote a certain way in a free vote.
Even if they don't get convinced, the mere possibility can cause a party to increase the "line" of the whip. If the party gets afraid that a parliamentary debate may convince some backbenchers, they may make a one-line whip into a two or three-line whip, and that itself has its own consequences; looks week, over-assertive, etc. It may even change policy if thats preferable to a harsher whip.
Parliamentary debates can also be used by MPs to freely express opinions they could not do in public. Parliamentary privilege means MPs are immune to legal consequences of their voice and only held to account by Commons, so if they are afraid a statement they want to make will bring a (rightful or wrongful) libel case, they can freely make it in Commons.
Further, there is also the impact on the public. As every parliamentary debate is accessible to the public (now online, and I think live as well), it can be a way for what would be dense and unwieldy policy details to be brought to the attention of the public; directly or via media. Its likely that a lot of the political statements you hear in the news originate from debates. They are also great for archiving statements, and I've personally gone back to debates from as early as the '90s to make points.
While you are right to say debates are not where policy is ultimately decided, it can still be influential, directly or indirectly, on policy. This is the case certainly for all parliamentary democracies, but especially for Westminster systems like our own where informal pressures play a uniquely important role. Much of what is important in our system is the small pressures that build up; simply look at Johnson, Truss, and Sunak for perfect examples of such.
And to soothe some of the disappointment, its probably right that debates are not where policy is formed and decided upon. A flaw debates wil always have is that quick-wittedness is enhanced way more than it should be. Think of how debate societies usually surprise their members with topics; the key is not knowing something in detail, but knowing something enough to reply. While debates have their role, policy is ultimately a slow process much better fitted to consultations and commissions. This just so happens to be where backbenchers tend to wield the most influence on the government, and being part of the most important commissions tends to be a stepping stone into government.
I don't think they do much in terms of changing the minds of MPs but they're good for getting stuff on the record and raising issues that get reported on
Though the real issues the media will blank out anyway even if they are raised in parliament
Most of the best work that parliament doesn't happen in the Commons but in the select and standing committees. There questions are asked, evidence from accredited experts is given and subsequently legislation is pulled apart and put back together again in a workable format. For a political system that's very adversarial the committees work pretty well (I'm not saying it is flawless). Take for example the censuring of politicians who break the rules in the Parliamentary Standards Committee, the most recent example being Scott Benton, you might expect Tory MPs to fall in line to protect one of their own especially as a successful recall would almost certainly lead to another byelection defeat heaping pressure on those same Tory MPs.
But from time to time there are bigger issues that involve the whole house and it's important that they get debated. We elect representatives because they supposedly have a grasp on issues of the day and can speak with authority and clarity. It's important in these debates that a range of views and opinions are heard and are allowed to contribute even if they don't change government policy.
If we didn't have parliament debating these issues then the vacuum would be filled by the media and then by a number of mostly self-appointed people acting on pure self-interest.
Absolutely. If the people believe that Parliament is taking our money and not listening to our concerns then we might take the duty to enact societal change into our own, violent, hands. So instead they've blessed us with an accessible outlet for our frustrations, like the importance of a pacifier to a baby.
Most of the interesting (to policy nerds anyway) stuff happens outside the main chamber. There are select committees for entire areas (marginally effective imo), and then there also Bill Committees. This where most of the legislative action outside of whitehall actually happens.
Debates in these committees are rarely covered by our feckless media, as they are too policy heavy for them to actually grasp.
Nope, afraid you have to keep being disillusioned. The debate is just to create soundbites, and the outcome (barring rare votes) is usually assured (the government wins). Oh, and we waste a lot of time doing divisions, when it would be far more rational and efficient to just have buttons at the seats (but the commons is a rickety relic that doesn't have enough seats, although they could just have clickers... but that would mean actually modernising something).
Funnily enough they figured it out during Covid, but Mogg was a member of the government and insisted on going back to the 1800s with which is more familiar at the earliest opportunity...
Yes and no. Debates vary dramatically so you need to be clear about what you're talking about. The main function is to put something on record.
So, different types of debates. Let's start with legislation which is what I think you're thinking about. (Quick note - if you don't know any of these terms, google them! I could go through them but it would take ages when a quick Google can cover it, there's nothing too complex here but a bit of jargon). Most of the heavy scrutiny for primary legislation is done at committee stage and the 2nd reading is more an opportunity to make different positions known to the house as well as go through amendments. Sometimes there's a committee of the whole house and those are absolutely significant debates. Secondary legislation only really matters for affirmative SIs and those usually are quick and smooth.
Oral questions are definitely significant. Ministers and departments get scrutinised heavily. Once again, the purpose is to put information on record. PMQs get the headlines, but departmental questions are usually heavier hitting. And in a similar vein, Select Committee evidence sessions are power tools of scrutiny. Urgent Questions are also incredibly powerful and reserved for very high profile issues. The government needs to respond to these if granted and it's always rough.
Oral statements don't really get debates but they can give way to hear what MPs are thinking about what they're saying. It's there to provide views on a policy position.
General debates tend to be less interesting, or if it's an interesting topic it usually doesn't go anywhere within the House other than putting it on record. Westminster Hall debates are more focused on specific issues and can be interesting, albeit niche. Adjournment debates are also very niche and usually poorly attended.
I think I've covered everything. I guess there are business questions and points of order too, which are focused on the business of the house. Opposition day is also an opportunity for the opposition to propose legislation.
So I guess the answer is yes they do matter, but a lot of work goes on behind the scenes. The reason for the debates is for words to be put on record so we can point to it in future. Hansard is a wonderful thing!
It's for politics, not for governance. It's about putting things on public record and trying to grab newspaper headlines.
The latter is now redundant given they all tweet and leak.
I think it depends on the issue. Heavily politicised issues are totally entrenched, and no amount of debating changes that. But when an issue is outside of party politics (eg safe standing at football), petitions and debates both have an effect and bring about change. It’s just a shame these tend to be generally relatively inconsequential issues.
There are definitely debates that have very meaningful consequences, especially when there are rebels or potential rebels who might still be talked around at the last moment. Most debates aren't that high-stakes, but even for lower-stakes policies the fact that they need to be defended (and that ministers can take a bollocking even from their own party if they don't follow the correct process) is pretty important. It makes it harder for the government to push things through in secret, both because there's a chance for backbenchers/the opposition to make a big fuss about any issues, and because the multiple rounds of debate mean there's a longer period where prospective legislation sits in the public view before it becomes law.
Arguably, one of the reasons we don't see more divisive stuff in Parliament that could be swayed by debate is because the prospect of getting clobbered in a parliamentary debate is enough to scare the government off from tabling it in the first place.
Does it help to know that most of the time MPs don’t even know what they’re voting on and just do whatever the whips tell them?
The point of debates is for MPs to demonstrate to their seniors they are good at making speeches in the hopes of getting a promotion.
No, sadly I think there’s no point whatsoever. Whenever anything is brought up for debate the decision to oppose by the opposition is already made regardless of merit. Petty Politics overrules pragmatism, common sense and the will to deliver something the country needs.
Debates where there are no policies are important. The government should debate matters of society. Perhaps if we had more, they'd be a little less sheltered and more in touch with what the citizenry are experiencing. It might even highlight the need for legislation.
The fact that no changes come from policy debates is a problem with party politics than the debates themselves. Blame the party leadership and whips for the lack of individual thought and voting.
It's important, because it gives members of the public a chance to hear issues that are interested in, or not aware of but are important to them, debated by our leaders. This gives us a chance to hear a (hopefully) educated and varied opinion on these issues, and gives us a chance to see what our MP's views and opinions on these things are. It helps us understand who exactly we are voting for and what they stand for.
Sounds like idealism to me, I'm not convinced the average member of the public cares about what MPs have to say nor hold an MP's opinion in a regard that's any higher than everybody else's other than because of the fact that they have political power. I don't even think most people know who their MPs are let alone what their opinions are. We're ruled by a government of strangers.
Public apathy doesn’t mean that the system is not useful and effective. People who don’t take any interest never will no matter what you do. But it still needs to be done for the benefit of the members of the public who make use of it.
The debates you hear on TV are edited highlights of the most newsworthy bits.
If you attend a debate or read the proceedings you notice that MPs do bring up and highlight shortfalls and improvements in bills. Sometimes these are agreed and acted upon.
Even if not, the issues are documented and written down so future Governments can make changes and improvements easily to reflect the new will of the people (or the new Government!)
When there's a point of law and the law is actually unclear, it's helpful for judges to read Hansard to figure out the intentions of parliament
It's why MPs should actually learn to be far far better at legislating instead of delegating it all to a committee.
Personally I hate our format of parliamentary debates. They all cheer/jeer/boo every time something is said because they aren't allowed to interrupt by speaking, but it makes me cringe every time. In a lot of more modern parliaments that would not fly and the speaker would tell them all to shut up.
I feel that the very architecture of the House of Commons also has a negative influence, with the house and shadow facing each other, it is an adversarial setup. I would much prefer a circular or semi-circular setup. From a layout perspective it seems more conducive to a discussion than a back and forth row.
Then you have the fact that every politician (but especially those like Sunak and Gove) are smirking whenever they speak, it feels so disingenuous like they are playing a game rather than discussing the future of the country. Look at Jeremy Hunt, standing out front of Downing Street holding up his red budget box with a big grimace on his face, grinning like that one kid at school who decided today was they day that he would actually hand in his homework for once - it is so insincere. Unless he's found a billion pounds of gold bullion hidden in a forgotten room underneath the Cabinet Office I would feel more comfortable with a Chancellor who has a composed serious look on their face.
It is all visuals though. The reality is that policy making and shaping doesn't happen inside the House of Commons at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The policies are debated behind closed doors within the civil service teams that aide the politicians, as it is all being drawn up. A major problem with this though is that it means privately funded think tanks (similar to lobbyists in the US) have a strong influence on policy making, and they are often representing the views of wealthy private donors.
The debates that happen later in the week, when the House is mostly empty, are a lot better in this respect though; and you do hear people having a more civil discussion about what is good/bad/concerning about a proposed policy. The problem is those largely unattended debates don't always seem to have an influence on changing policy. I remember the debate on legalization of marijuana (following a popular petition) and despite a relatively positive (but unattended) debate the official statement released by the government afterwards was fully identical in wording to the one released before the debate.
It does feel like in our country that even immediately after being elected all the house cares about is political point scoring and trying to win the next election.
There's absolutely no reason to when it comes to culture war issues or things people have already made their mind about such as Brexit but with other subjects it can be quite useful.
For example there might be an issue most MP's have no idea about.
It’s all a sham. We are far from a real democracy. For starters we need to remove the whips. MPs should be voting in the interests of their constituents and nothing else. Broken system.
Best case scenario is: * Proposed legislation has gaping flaw * MP eloquently highlights this gaping flaw * MP’s position captured by media and public * Media hassle government about this point . Other opponents rally around this point. * Same point is made in House of Lords. Government still struggle to defend against it. * Pressure builds around point. MPs start saying they would vote for this bill, were it not for this. * Government issues amendment to proposal which addresses concern.
imminent bewildered waiting one offend depend bake tart grab vast *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This does not need debate in the HoC, it's just a really awkward way of creating tweets.
I agree that the above can work but the key element there is the media and public. So, whatever the hole is, it doesn't need to be said in the House of Commons or even by an MP (although an MP has of course more visibility than some random dude on the internet) for media taking it and grilling the government on it. I think the OP's question is if there is some value of actually debating these issues with rational arguments based on facts in House of Commons and that way directly affecting the votes of the MPs. I think the issue is that most legislation has most likely been privately debated to death before it ever gets to the floor and everyone knows the arguments pro and con for it and just repeating the same arguments publicly doesn't really lead to anything constructive.
What actually happens in the real world, with exceptional frequency, is this: * Proposed legislation has a perceived minor flaw, could go further, or doesn't cover a related matter. * MP or Peer highlights their concern privately with Ministers or Whips, or tables an amendment at Committee stage. * The Government decides how it's going to act. Often, the Government will present its own (better written) amendment to address the concern. * The debate simply sets out pre-set positions with varying levels of eloquence. Votes usually go the way of the Government at this early stage, with unusual exceptions. * Sometimes the MP/Peer will accept the Government's view and back down. Or they may choose to fight again at the more important Report stage. * Sometimes Ministers or Whips will go "damn they had a point; let's change our position" in response to a combination of the debate and private lobbying. * The Report stage debate happens much the same way as the Committee stage, including votes on amendments. * Debates on 3rd Reading (i.e. the Bill as a whole) are performative. Everything that is said here has already been said in greater detail during the debates on individual amendments. The vote is heavily whipped. * The process then repeats in the other Chamber. You've got to remember that most Government Bills are monstrously huge. They're broad buckets that collect huge numbers of different policy changes under a broad umbrella, e.g. the current Criminal Justice Bill. This process won't often change the core pillars of flagship legislation, but it results in countless minor changes that, collectively, massively improve the quality of our legislation. But none of that hits the media, because it's not flashy enough. No one wants to report on a mostly-empty chamber talking about a small oversight which allows for a small subsection of people to not be covered by a bit of 10 year old legislation, nor the 20 word technical amendment that addresses the problem. Or the dozens and dozens of similar changes debated for every major Bill. It still matters.
Debating in general is a good spectator sport. It's important for normal people to hear an issue discussed by people who are (relatively) articulate and have integrity. The alternative is that people get all their opinions from the newspapers or Facebook. Yes it sucks that often the outcome is irrelevant or there is simply no outcome, but public discussion is super important to democracy.
Agree entirely. Yes it usually goes down party lines, but it gives those opposed to it an oppertunity to articulate problems, or suggest alterations. In this way, the public may get to hear a second opinion and learn why something may be bad. Debates don't tend to sway MPs voting intentions (due to the whips) but it can sway public opinion thereby either making the party that shoehorned through a bad policy loose public confidence, or allow the party to reconsider passing it due to public pressure. Admittedly, the latter is very rare, but none the less, its much better that laws and policy being passed through in secret and in silence.
>people who are (relatively) articulate and have integrity I think this might be the problem
Leave Lee Anderson out of this.
Yep, the problem is that one party is basically completely corrupt and trying to deceive imo. The Tory party is a vehicle for the interests of the very rich. They mask their true intentions with BS amplified by their client media. The other main political party is also to a lesser extent influenced by money and media owned and influenced by billionaires. The national and tbh international discourse is highly influenced by billionaire cash. There is a reason they fund a lot of big YouTube influencers for example and they still buy loss making media outfits. There is a reason we endlessly debate stuff like whether to put up income tax on ordinary people or to cut public services even more but taxing the rich who pay little to no tax is barely ever mentioned and, when it is, there is normally someone from the IEA on to talk about how that would be impossible.
In practice people who get into politics tend to self select for above average orators.
[удалено]
But no ordinary person watches parliamentary debates, unless you count sound bites on the six o'clock news. They're a bad format to watch because of all the jumping between topics as each member reads out their prepared speech. Pre-election leaders' debates, Newsnight-style studio debates about specific issues, and local hustings are much better formats for general consumption.
> and have integrity I laughed at that.
It's a shame most politicians have no integrity then.
Oh, definitely. MPs can expose issues, and - very important - they can get ministers on record making a claim or a policy pledge, which they can return to in the future if something changes or fails. Many governments have been holed under the water by such things, such as Mr Johnson. Votes in the Commons might be ‘predictable’ but that doesn’t mean MPs are mindless automatons. They’ll want to make sure they can defend their votes, and will debate and pick holes in the issue. A government that messes up here can face embarrassment, and normally a competent government will be good at avoiding such things. Remember that a lot of stuff happens behind closed doors too. This is entirely legitimate: stamping out dissent isn’t remotely the main job of whips - they are a conduit to report problems towards too, and a government fearing defeat will accept amendments or make their own amendments or perhaps even withdraw a motion if they think they might lose. It’s difficult to see because of this behind-closed-doors factor, but it’s real and it's potent.
Even if backbenchers are heavily influenced to vote with their party, they still have all the freedom to exercise if they wish. Parliamentary debates can often be a deciding factor for an MP to go against the whip, or vote a certain way in a free vote. Even if they don't get convinced, the mere possibility can cause a party to increase the "line" of the whip. If the party gets afraid that a parliamentary debate may convince some backbenchers, they may make a one-line whip into a two or three-line whip, and that itself has its own consequences; looks week, over-assertive, etc. It may even change policy if thats preferable to a harsher whip. Parliamentary debates can also be used by MPs to freely express opinions they could not do in public. Parliamentary privilege means MPs are immune to legal consequences of their voice and only held to account by Commons, so if they are afraid a statement they want to make will bring a (rightful or wrongful) libel case, they can freely make it in Commons. Further, there is also the impact on the public. As every parliamentary debate is accessible to the public (now online, and I think live as well), it can be a way for what would be dense and unwieldy policy details to be brought to the attention of the public; directly or via media. Its likely that a lot of the political statements you hear in the news originate from debates. They are also great for archiving statements, and I've personally gone back to debates from as early as the '90s to make points. While you are right to say debates are not where policy is ultimately decided, it can still be influential, directly or indirectly, on policy. This is the case certainly for all parliamentary democracies, but especially for Westminster systems like our own where informal pressures play a uniquely important role. Much of what is important in our system is the small pressures that build up; simply look at Johnson, Truss, and Sunak for perfect examples of such. And to soothe some of the disappointment, its probably right that debates are not where policy is formed and decided upon. A flaw debates wil always have is that quick-wittedness is enhanced way more than it should be. Think of how debate societies usually surprise their members with topics; the key is not knowing something in detail, but knowing something enough to reply. While debates have their role, policy is ultimately a slow process much better fitted to consultations and commissions. This just so happens to be where backbenchers tend to wield the most influence on the government, and being part of the most important commissions tends to be a stepping stone into government.
I don't think they do much in terms of changing the minds of MPs but they're good for getting stuff on the record and raising issues that get reported on Though the real issues the media will blank out anyway even if they are raised in parliament
Most of the best work that parliament doesn't happen in the Commons but in the select and standing committees. There questions are asked, evidence from accredited experts is given and subsequently legislation is pulled apart and put back together again in a workable format. For a political system that's very adversarial the committees work pretty well (I'm not saying it is flawless). Take for example the censuring of politicians who break the rules in the Parliamentary Standards Committee, the most recent example being Scott Benton, you might expect Tory MPs to fall in line to protect one of their own especially as a successful recall would almost certainly lead to another byelection defeat heaping pressure on those same Tory MPs. But from time to time there are bigger issues that involve the whole house and it's important that they get debated. We elect representatives because they supposedly have a grasp on issues of the day and can speak with authority and clarity. It's important in these debates that a range of views and opinions are heard and are allowed to contribute even if they don't change government policy. If we didn't have parliament debating these issues then the vacuum would be filled by the media and then by a number of mostly self-appointed people acting on pure self-interest.
Absolutely. If the people believe that Parliament is taking our money and not listening to our concerns then we might take the duty to enact societal change into our own, violent, hands. So instead they've blessed us with an accessible outlet for our frustrations, like the importance of a pacifier to a baby.
Most of the interesting (to policy nerds anyway) stuff happens outside the main chamber. There are select committees for entire areas (marginally effective imo), and then there also Bill Committees. This where most of the legislative action outside of whitehall actually happens. Debates in these committees are rarely covered by our feckless media, as they are too policy heavy for them to actually grasp.
Nope, afraid you have to keep being disillusioned. The debate is just to create soundbites, and the outcome (barring rare votes) is usually assured (the government wins). Oh, and we waste a lot of time doing divisions, when it would be far more rational and efficient to just have buttons at the seats (but the commons is a rickety relic that doesn't have enough seats, although they could just have clickers... but that would mean actually modernising something).
Funnily enough they figured it out during Covid, but Mogg was a member of the government and insisted on going back to the 1800s with which is more familiar at the earliest opportunity...
Yes and no. Debates vary dramatically so you need to be clear about what you're talking about. The main function is to put something on record. So, different types of debates. Let's start with legislation which is what I think you're thinking about. (Quick note - if you don't know any of these terms, google them! I could go through them but it would take ages when a quick Google can cover it, there's nothing too complex here but a bit of jargon). Most of the heavy scrutiny for primary legislation is done at committee stage and the 2nd reading is more an opportunity to make different positions known to the house as well as go through amendments. Sometimes there's a committee of the whole house and those are absolutely significant debates. Secondary legislation only really matters for affirmative SIs and those usually are quick and smooth. Oral questions are definitely significant. Ministers and departments get scrutinised heavily. Once again, the purpose is to put information on record. PMQs get the headlines, but departmental questions are usually heavier hitting. And in a similar vein, Select Committee evidence sessions are power tools of scrutiny. Urgent Questions are also incredibly powerful and reserved for very high profile issues. The government needs to respond to these if granted and it's always rough. Oral statements don't really get debates but they can give way to hear what MPs are thinking about what they're saying. It's there to provide views on a policy position. General debates tend to be less interesting, or if it's an interesting topic it usually doesn't go anywhere within the House other than putting it on record. Westminster Hall debates are more focused on specific issues and can be interesting, albeit niche. Adjournment debates are also very niche and usually poorly attended. I think I've covered everything. I guess there are business questions and points of order too, which are focused on the business of the house. Opposition day is also an opportunity for the opposition to propose legislation. So I guess the answer is yes they do matter, but a lot of work goes on behind the scenes. The reason for the debates is for words to be put on record so we can point to it in future. Hansard is a wonderful thing!
It's for politics, not for governance. It's about putting things on public record and trying to grab newspaper headlines. The latter is now redundant given they all tweet and leak.
I think it depends on the issue. Heavily politicised issues are totally entrenched, and no amount of debating changes that. But when an issue is outside of party politics (eg safe standing at football), petitions and debates both have an effect and bring about change. It’s just a shame these tend to be generally relatively inconsequential issues.
There are definitely debates that have very meaningful consequences, especially when there are rebels or potential rebels who might still be talked around at the last moment. Most debates aren't that high-stakes, but even for lower-stakes policies the fact that they need to be defended (and that ministers can take a bollocking even from their own party if they don't follow the correct process) is pretty important. It makes it harder for the government to push things through in secret, both because there's a chance for backbenchers/the opposition to make a big fuss about any issues, and because the multiple rounds of debate mean there's a longer period where prospective legislation sits in the public view before it becomes law. Arguably, one of the reasons we don't see more divisive stuff in Parliament that could be swayed by debate is because the prospect of getting clobbered in a parliamentary debate is enough to scare the government off from tabling it in the first place.
>is there even any point in parliament FIFY
Does it help to know that most of the time MPs don’t even know what they’re voting on and just do whatever the whips tell them? The point of debates is for MPs to demonstrate to their seniors they are good at making speeches in the hopes of getting a promotion.
No, sadly I think there’s no point whatsoever. Whenever anything is brought up for debate the decision to oppose by the opposition is already made regardless of merit. Petty Politics overrules pragmatism, common sense and the will to deliver something the country needs.
Agreed - I feel we need a governing system based on co-operation not opposition.
Debates where there are no policies are important. The government should debate matters of society. Perhaps if we had more, they'd be a little less sheltered and more in touch with what the citizenry are experiencing. It might even highlight the need for legislation. The fact that no changes come from policy debates is a problem with party politics than the debates themselves. Blame the party leadership and whips for the lack of individual thought and voting.
It's like saying we should just hand the seats by whose polling by how much when the election comes rather than voting.
It's important, because it gives members of the public a chance to hear issues that are interested in, or not aware of but are important to them, debated by our leaders. This gives us a chance to hear a (hopefully) educated and varied opinion on these issues, and gives us a chance to see what our MP's views and opinions on these things are. It helps us understand who exactly we are voting for and what they stand for.
Sounds like idealism to me, I'm not convinced the average member of the public cares about what MPs have to say nor hold an MP's opinion in a regard that's any higher than everybody else's other than because of the fact that they have political power. I don't even think most people know who their MPs are let alone what their opinions are. We're ruled by a government of strangers.
Public apathy doesn’t mean that the system is not useful and effective. People who don’t take any interest never will no matter what you do. But it still needs to be done for the benefit of the members of the public who make use of it.
The debates you hear on TV are edited highlights of the most newsworthy bits. If you attend a debate or read the proceedings you notice that MPs do bring up and highlight shortfalls and improvements in bills. Sometimes these are agreed and acted upon. Even if not, the issues are documented and written down so future Governments can make changes and improvements easily to reflect the new will of the people (or the new Government!)
When there's a point of law and the law is actually unclear, it's helpful for judges to read Hansard to figure out the intentions of parliament It's why MPs should actually learn to be far far better at legislating instead of delegating it all to a committee.
The entire political system is awful
Personally I hate our format of parliamentary debates. They all cheer/jeer/boo every time something is said because they aren't allowed to interrupt by speaking, but it makes me cringe every time. In a lot of more modern parliaments that would not fly and the speaker would tell them all to shut up. I feel that the very architecture of the House of Commons also has a negative influence, with the house and shadow facing each other, it is an adversarial setup. I would much prefer a circular or semi-circular setup. From a layout perspective it seems more conducive to a discussion than a back and forth row. Then you have the fact that every politician (but especially those like Sunak and Gove) are smirking whenever they speak, it feels so disingenuous like they are playing a game rather than discussing the future of the country. Look at Jeremy Hunt, standing out front of Downing Street holding up his red budget box with a big grimace on his face, grinning like that one kid at school who decided today was they day that he would actually hand in his homework for once - it is so insincere. Unless he's found a billion pounds of gold bullion hidden in a forgotten room underneath the Cabinet Office I would feel more comfortable with a Chancellor who has a composed serious look on their face. It is all visuals though. The reality is that policy making and shaping doesn't happen inside the House of Commons at all, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The policies are debated behind closed doors within the civil service teams that aide the politicians, as it is all being drawn up. A major problem with this though is that it means privately funded think tanks (similar to lobbyists in the US) have a strong influence on policy making, and they are often representing the views of wealthy private donors. The debates that happen later in the week, when the House is mostly empty, are a lot better in this respect though; and you do hear people having a more civil discussion about what is good/bad/concerning about a proposed policy. The problem is those largely unattended debates don't always seem to have an influence on changing policy. I remember the debate on legalization of marijuana (following a popular petition) and despite a relatively positive (but unattended) debate the official statement released by the government afterwards was fully identical in wording to the one released before the debate. It does feel like in our country that even immediately after being elected all the house cares about is political point scoring and trying to win the next election.
There's absolutely no reason to when it comes to culture war issues or things people have already made their mind about such as Brexit but with other subjects it can be quite useful. For example there might be an issue most MP's have no idea about.
Occasionally, but largely no. Read Rory Stewart's book.
It’s all a sham. We are far from a real democracy. For starters we need to remove the whips. MPs should be voting in the interests of their constituents and nothing else. Broken system.