Pheu Thai MPs warned of election blacklisting if they support Government

[webfact]

Pheu Thai MPs warned of election blacklisting if they support Government

 

Debate on 2020 budget bill

 

Opposition chief whip Suthin Klangsaeng warned this morning, ahead of the debate on the budget bill, that any Pheu Thai MPs who do not vote with the Opposition against the bill will be barred from contesting the next election on the party’s ticket.

 

He said that he rejects the argument of the smaller parties that the 3.2 trillion baht budget bill for 2020 fiscal year must be passed by the House of Representatives, otherwise the people will be affected due to lack of funding for its various projects and policies.

 

Even if the budget bill fails its first reading in parliament, he said there are still residual funds from the 2019 fiscal year and advance budgets that can be used by the government to ease the problems on temporary basis.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/pheu-thai-mps-warned-of-election-blacklisting-if-they-support-government/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2019-10-18

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[PatOngo]

Democracy just warms my heart!

[OneMoreFarang]

[Baerboxer]

Thaksin thinks, and commands, PTP does!

 

Democracy Shin style - do as we order or else!

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

Thaksin thinks, and commands, PTP does!

 

Democracy Shin style - do as we order or else!

More like Democracy Army style.

 

PTP is doing what most opposition parties do in countries world wide.

 

Could you please try to change the anti-Thaksin rants. It gets very boring for normal people.

[seajae]

so ptp mp's cannot vote unless its what they are told to vote, so much for being democratic, mp's should vote the way their constituents want them to, not the way they are ordered to. While the budget may not be the best the mp's should have the right to vote as per the ones that elected them want them too

[Eligius]

It is clear now (on the basis of a very special unmentionable vote yesterday in parliament) which is the truly anti-Establishment, valiant, courageous progressive party. It ain't Pheua Thai (sadly).

It is Future Forward.

(But I fear their days may be numbered ...).

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, seajae said:

so ptp mp's cannot vote unless its what they are told to vote, so much for being democratic, mp's should vote the way their constituents want them to, not the way they are ordered to. While the budget may not be the best the mp's should have the right to vote as per the ones that elected them want them too

Welcome to the real world.

 

They vote the way that the party whips tell them to vote. It is just the same in the UK, Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia and New Zealand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

 

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This usually means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They ensure that their fellow legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to official party policy.

 

A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
A two-line whip, sometimes known as a double-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting according to the party's position, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip.
A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[citation needed] The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.

[ThaiFelix]

49 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Welcome to the real world.

 

They vote the way that the party whips tell them to vote. It is just the same in the UK, Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia and New Zealand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

 

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This usually means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They ensure that their fellow legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to official party policy.

 

A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
A two-line whip, sometimes known as a double-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting according to the party's position, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip.
A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[citation needed] The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.

A very interesting post thanks.  I must say that if this indeed is correct (Wikipedia is not always a solid source) I am surprised as I have always thought along the same lines as seajae's post regarding the "democratic" process.  You learn something every day thx.

[Huayrat]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Welcome to the real world.

 

They vote the way that the party whips tell them to vote. It is just the same in the UK, Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia and New Zealand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

 

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This usually means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They ensure that their fellow legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to official party policy.

 

A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
A two-line whip, sometimes known as a double-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting according to the party's position, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip.
A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[citation needed] The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.

Wrong.. Go see how many ppl ignore the whip in the UK Parliament.. 25 Tories have neen kicked out for ignoring it

[seajae]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Welcome to the real world.

 

They vote the way that the party whips tell them to vote. It is just the same in the UK, Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, Malaysia and New Zealand.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_(politics)

 

A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature. This usually means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform, rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They ensure that their fellow legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to official party policy.

 

A single-line whip is a guide to what the party's policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
A two-line whip, sometimes known as a double-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting according to the party's position, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip.
A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the party's position, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. Permission to not attend may be given by the whip, but a serious reason is needed. Breach of a three-line whip can lead to expulsion from the parliamentary political group in extreme circumstances, and even to expulsion from the party. Consequently, three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.[citation needed] The nature of three-line whips and the potential punishments for revolt vary among parties and legislatures.

aussie politicians cross the floor as well when they disagree with the party line, they have to answer to the one that elected them, if they dont then their time as a politician can be short lived

[londonthai]

this warning is not for MP's, because it's obvious to them, but to educate the electorate to start watching their representatives and pressure them already.

rightly so - if they were elected on anti-junta principle, they should not cross the line

[Artisi]

1 hour ago, seajae said:

aussie politicians cross the floor as well when they disagree with the party line, they have to answer to the one that elected them, if they dont then their time as a politician can be short lived

Rarely, unless it's earmarked as a conscience vote. 

[billd766]

16 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

A very interesting post thanks.  I must say that if this indeed is correct (Wikipedia is not always a solid source) I am surprised as I have always thought along the same lines as seajae's post regarding the "democratic" process.  You learn something every day thx.

I remembered about the Whip in the UK parliament but I didn't know the difference between the 1, 2 and 3 line whips.

 

16 hours ago, Huayrat said:

Wrong.. Go see how many ppl ignore the whip in the UK Parliament.. 25 Tories have neen kicked out for ignoring it

Actually I am not wrong at all. If those Tories defied the whip then they were punished by having the whip removed.

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/whipping-system-and-free-votes

 

There are no fixed consequences for disobeying the whip, with the penalties varying depending on the type of whip and the individual and political circumstances.

It is not always clear if an MP has disobeyed the whip, as voting instructions aren’t publicly available. But sanctions for breaching the whip can include reduced prospects of promotion within the party or appointment to an MP’s preferred committee, a less desirable parliamentary office, or selection for unpopular parliamentary duties such as membership of delegated legislation committees. Repeatedly disobeying the whip may also affect a MP’s chance of re-selection by their constituency party, or re-election at a general election.

 

What does it mean to have the whip removed?

 

The most serious breaches can result in the ‘whip being removed’ – meaning that the MP ceases to represent their party and sits as an independent MP. Nine Conservative MPs had the whip removed in 1993, after failing to support John Major’s government in a vote of confidence subject to a three-line whip.  21 Conservative MPs had the whip removed after voting against the government to allow MPs to take control of the Commons timetable to pass the Benn Act.

Members of a party’s frontbench are usually expected to resign if they wish to vote against their party’s position and are highly likely to lose their role if they break a three-line whip.