This morning's short video has now been published. In it, I argue that the whipping system in the House of Commons has always been pernicious. Now that Labour has a massive majority, it will destroy debate and dissent in Parliament. For the sake of our democracy, it has to go.
The transcript is:
I want to abolish the whip.
I'm not talking about some form of corporal punishment; I'm talking about the whipping system used in the House of Commons to force backbench MPs to follow the party line that their leaders have decreed.
This is going to be a massive problem in the Parliament to come.
Labour has an enormous majority. There will be large number of backbench MPs who have no hope of ever reaching ministerial office, but they won't be able to say what they really think on behalf of their constituents or even their own opinion, because the Labor Party will tell them they are not allowed to.
And that is going to crush debate in the Parliament to come because that will silence hundreds of MPs.
We cannot afford to have a whip system in a democracy, particularly in the coming parliament.
It has to go.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Whipping tends to be a little less important for a party with a large majority that can still get its legislation through against some internal dissent. Although as you say there may be some who have no hope of advancement and may even expect to lose their seat in the next election so have little to lose. (The last Conservative government is a counter example though, because the party was fundamentally split between a group of one nation centrists and another of right wing ideologues – it will be interesting to see how the Tory rump divides, and how they deal with Farage: who by the way I like to think of with a cod Spanish pronunciation, Nigh-él Farr-ághey).
Labour can afford to tolerate internal dissent. But I expect Starmer will by inclination be quite strict about party discipline.
If you have a system where people with similar political interests club together for mutual support behind selected candidates, I don’t really see a realistic alternative to expecting those elected with that support to vote by and large in favour of the common platform. And for there to be consequences if they don’t.
It seems to me that abolition of the whip is tantamount to abolition of political parties.
That might help
Abuse of “The Whip” is dreadful but no whip presents problems (as Andrew observes), too.
I don’t know my MP personally or her personal views; most of my neighbours could not even name her….. but those that voted for her (in theory, at least) voted for her Party’s Manifesto. I would be disappointed if she ignored that commitment without good reason…. and a good Party Whip should be there to remind her of that commitment…. but stop short of the bullying that is the stuff of legend at Westminster. Individual conscience must remain central and be respected.
A large majority allows dissent – and Starmer would be wise to allow it – it presents no threat to either is programme or leadership position. (If the rebellion was that large to endanger the vote then he really ought to sit up and take notice!).
Of course, rebellion carries a price – no government job – but that is fair enough.
So, my plea is for “Good” whipping, no whipping.
Persuasion is fine
A penal system is not
It is time they voted in a 21st century fashion. Not walking through a lobby.
Time wasted.
Many people this election voted tactically. So although they chose Labour, it was not necessarily to support the Labour manifesto but to get rid of a lacklustre Tory government who struggled to manage anything.
It’s probably a good reason to think about whether the whipping system is appropriate.
On my tour of parliament, a couple of years ago, we were told that there had been moves to install an online voting system so that MPs did not have to queue up at lobbies. But the MPs themselves, particularly senior ones, did want this to happen as it’s useful to be able to speak to people in the lobbies. It seems archaic to me.
It is ridiculous
Maybe this overwhelmingly new parliament might change that
There are some good – if terrifying pieces on the whipping system https://consoc.org.uk/inside-the-uk-whipping-system/
The constitutional reform will have to get rid of it . The UK helped to draft the German constitution which makes individual MP’s not subject to any influence other than their own conscience and the good of the whole country.
Whipping undermines the sanctimonious argumens for FPTP – that it makes for a direct relationship beween the citizen and his or her MP -. No it doesnt, the relationship is with the party heirarchy , not the citizen.
A comment on your video referred to this clip of Tim Fortescue, Tory Whip. It’s short and to the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8BJptvxCl8
So nasty….
Can we get rid of the party system whilst we’re at it. The whips get their power by the party being able to remove MPs from funding and support.
That funding brings with it the taint of corruption, and big donors setting the agenda. Perhaps limiting party donations to annual median household disposable income, at last GE. And spending to same amount annually for each seat they have a candidate selected for, and registered.
How does party discipline work in other democracy’s
There’s also the quite fundamental issue that in a proper parliamentary democracy it’s Parliament (or at least a majority in Parliament) that instructs Government, not the other way around. After all, it’s Parliament that is elected and passes the mandate to the Government as the UK doesn’t have direct elections for the Executive like in France or the US.
Remember when David Cameron tried to get some concessions out of the other EU Member States and thought he didn’t have to worry about what the European Parliament thought about the matter because “they just do what they are told by their governments”? It’s that same misunderstanding of how Parliaments should work (but don’t in the UK).
Governments with a majority in Parliament should, in normal circumstances, be able to get legislation through but it should not be a given.
One point missed was raised by Caroline Lucas – the whips select who goes on select committees (I guess the clue is in the name). She observed that the prinsiple followed by whips seemed to be that if the committee covered, e.g. health, then MPs that might have been a Doctor would most definitely not be selected – & so on & so forth.
A perfectly good reason not to have party enforcers.
Regarding MPs voting – electronic and anonymous.
Mike,
No sure about anonymous voting. I thought it useful to refer to my (old!!) MP’s voting record to check where he actually stood while he tried to paint quite a different picture in his election bumpf.
Would it help if voting is made public, but after a short delay. Ie avoid immediate reaction/bullying in parliament?
Voting is very public in our parliament
I think it should be
The Green party does not have whips. Part of the reason is because it is seen as important that MPs and councilors take responsibility for their own vote.
Plus,of course, until now the single Green MP would have had to be the whip, telling herself what to do!
She did talk to others….
True but other parties have whips in local councils, the Scottish parliament, the London assembly etc.. The Green party doesn’t.