NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's something I don't understand. Why is it that politicians (in the UK at least) quit when the government does something that they don't like?

E.g.

Deputy leader of the Commons Nigel Griffiths has quit the government in protest at plans to renew the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system.

He resigned "with a heavy heart but a clear conscience" ahead of Wednesday's House of Commons vote on the plan.

If all the people who disagree with certain policies quit, then the only people left running the country will be those who do agree, surely? If they oppose something, surely it's better to stay in a position where they have the ability to influence such decisions?

Maybe I just don't understand how the government works, but it seems here that quitting in protest is actually a completely selfish activity as it just says "I don't want to be counted among those involved in this". It doesn't actually do anything to stop the policy, as far as I can tell.

Your first mistake is trying to apply logic to politics. I suppose the rationale goes, "I quit in protest over this, so I can work outside the system to change it after I get elected again in a landslide because the faceless masses are with me!" Or something. :p

Here's something I don't understand. Why is it that politicians (in the UK at least) quit when the government does something that they don't like?

Because the British Government runs on the idea of collective responsibility:

Cabinet collective responsibility is constitutional convention in governments using the Westminster System that members of the Cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them.
Wiki (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12419398)

So if they find they can't publicly support them because they are against them in principle, they need to leave the government.

Now, I know that refers to the Cabinet, but it also works with the rest of the ministers in the government.

They're hoping people will re-relect them for their stnad on whatever issue it is that caused them to quit.

I think quitting in protest can be an extremeley powerful move. For example, in a current dispute between a school board and the teacher's union, public perception was moulded somewhat to view the issue as centering around wages, making the teachers look like asses. A member of the school board quit in protest, saying that the board refused to deal in good faith, and is waiting for the Province to step in and force the teachers back to work. Public opinion has swung radically in favour of the teachers because of this, and arbitration services are being sought to deal with the impasse. It is much more likely that a fair compromise will occur now, because of the actions of this one school board member.

he also probably got a nice fancy cushy directorship lined up and doesnt wan t otake the heat form that ost so he quits and takes all the steam off the his nice cushy new directorship

Quitting in protest is an effective way to send a message. It shows character and integrity when you step down from a position of power because you believe that strongly that what's being donw is wrong in some way. I think it's something that usually makes me respect the person stepping down. :)