Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 711306,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/711306/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 102,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "It will be also noted that in the United Kingdom, both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have a code of conduct that requires Members to behave in a way that is consistent with the policies of their party, to have a good voting record and not to bring the party into disrepute. Indeed, in the Sixth Edition of How Parliament Works, Robert Rogers and Rhodri Walters write that a Back-Bencher’s cardinal sin is to abstain or worse vote against his or her party without giving any warning. Notwithstanding the fact that the code for both the Labour and the Conservative parties contain a conscience clause, which recognizes a right of dissent on matters of deeply held personal conviction, Members who vote against their party position are usually perceived as having committed a serious breach of party discipline. In a study of the House of Commons, when asked to rank “acts of disloyalty” in order of seriousness, both party leaders and Back-Benchers rated cross-voting as the most serious violation of party discipline. In addition to being either excluded by party associates or refused party funds or organizational support in election campaigns, parties have other mechanisms to punish Members that they deem to be errant. These include refusal for promotion to Cabinet; denial of decent office accommodation and adequate staff; being overlooked as members of certain prestigious parliamentary committees; denial of opportunities to be part of travelling parliamentary delegations; denial of opportunity to ask a question during prime time such as Question Period; or refusal of party assistance in performing services for constituents and discharge from party caucuses. Likewise, in the German Bundestag, parliamentary groups play a key role in placing members to serve in committees as they appoint committee members, and may also remove individual members and replace them at will with another of its members. In the United States Congress, the Senate, by a resolution, appoints chairs and members to serve in standing committees and to fill vacancies thereon. However, while the Senate Rules are fairly clear regarding how nominations are to be approved as stated above, they do not address how nomination of senators to committees by parties is to be made. In practice, each party vests this authority to their parliamentary group meeting, popularly referred to as “conference”. The Republican Party has the Committee on Committees comprising of the party leader and senators that nominates members to committees, who are then approved by the Republican Conference. The Democratic Party on the other hand has the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee comprising the Democratic Party Leader in the House, the Democratic Whips and most senior Democrats, who make nominations to committees before they are approved by the Democratic Conference – which comprises all Democrats in the Senate. Nominations and replacements made by these panels are rarely challenged on the Floor because it is in the parties’ forum where decisions are made. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}