I must admit that I find Max Atkinson's reasoning somewhat incoherent. The purpose of this author, I suspect, is to act as an apologist for Tony Windsor, the gist of which is trying to justify TW's support for Labor. Given Max's previous articles exhorting MP's to ignore the wishes of their electorates to support "progressive" reforms, the outcome of this twisted logic was never in doubt.

While I don't believe that MPs need a mini referendum on each and every issue before making a decision, there is a vast difference between token issues such as gay marriage, and bringing to power a government passionately despised by the vast majority. (given the cumulative vote of labor and greens being about 25%) all be it with the huge pork barrelling that brought with it.

Given the aprobrium the Labor/green/independent alliance is held in New England, TW from previously holding a vast majority, will be lucky to hold onto his seat. RO his partner in crime will almost certainly be unemployed in October.

Shadow Minister

I read the article somewhat differently. I think he is arguing that Windsor’s reasoning is not coherent, but as a decent and sincere man trying to do the right thing he’s worth voting for anyway.

I always find the fact that we describe MPs as being “allowed” a conscience vote on a particular issue rather sinister, as if they can and should exercise their consciences only when their party gives permission. We elect representatives not delegates, and should expect them on occasion to exercise judgement independent of both majoritarianism and toeing the part line.

In my view, however, Windsor did break faith with his electorate when he chose to support a Labor government. This is not only because it is a choice that most of his electors would not support (though I think that’s true). More importantly, he gave them no reason to expect that a vote for Windsor might be a vote for Gillard, and they have every right to be disappointed

Edmund Burke's theory that a member of parliament should exercise his own judgement and not that of his electors may have had some relevance in the 18th century, when the vote was restricted to a small part of the community. These days electors consider that members are there to reflect their wishes and that if they fail to do so, they will throw them out and replace them with someone who will. The best modern example of this that I can remember came from the message a US soldier sent to his representative in Washington after WW2 ended:

"If you don't dismiss me, I will dismiss you!"

The presence in parliament of members such as Windsor and Oakshott who have defied the will of their electorates has highlighted a weakness in our electoral laws. What we obviously need is recall, as practised in several places overseas, and would serve to keep members in line with their electorates.

I thank those who took the trouble to comment.

If the view of political duty they propose had wide support there would be no political parties because all parties agree government must work for the interests of all citizens and electorates, not just those whose votes are needed to gain power.

This means elected members (having done their best to serve the interests of constituents) must support a party consensus. The only exception is an issue of moral principle, often called a ‘conscience’ vote.

It is worth asking why no party in power has ever suggested that its duty is to do what most people want rather than what is in the best interests of the community as a whole.

Max Atkinson