Julian Baggini is a philosopher and co-founder of "The Philosophers' Magazine." Hs book, "The Edge of Reason: A Rational Sceptic in an Irrational World" has just been published
Whipping demands of our elected politicians that their first duty is to obey their party, not to serve their constituents. As such, it is a potent symbol of what many perceive to be wrong with our politics: that it is played by the internal rules of the Westminster elite without enough regard to the people they are supposed to represent.
Whipping belongs to the time when class identities were stronger and two parties took the vast majority of the votes. Then, there was perhaps some justification for organising parliament in two highly disciplined teams. This bipolar partisanship is now out of date. Debates do not always divide neatly across left and right. In this more complex political world, the idea of loyalty to party, right or wrong, has had its day. The electorate is tired of party-line-toeing loyalists, preferring independently minded politicians with strong values. That’s why the most popular politicians of recent years have all been mavericks: Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn.
To adapt to these changes, somehow Westminster has to become less party managed and more accommodating of diversity of opinion. Of course there is strength in unity, but when it is achieved by coerced conformity it looks more like weakness. The sound of the continued cracking of the whip is the cry of a failing party system trying desperately to reassert its authority. It isn’t working and it’s time to try something else.
James Graham is the author of "This House," a play about whips in the 1970s, which premiered at the National Theatre in 2012. A new production opens at the Garrick Theatre, London, 19th November
As an impassioned democrat, my standpoint surprises even me. But having spent a lot of time with whips, researching my play This House, the fun but false “dark arts” myth does not represent their necessary function.
The job of political parties is not to suppress the voice of the individual MPs, but to unite those with a common cause towards achieving change. If 650 MPs pursued 650 different areas of self-interest, nothing would get done. Look at the gridlock in international systems where whips are non-existent or ineffective (the fictional Frank Underwood from House of Cards aside). I can tell you there are a lot of American citizens who wouldn’t mind an actual whip kicking Congress into shape.
Whips organise MPs to debate legislation and table amendments at committee stage, and act as a conduit for concerns between MPs and government. And then, yes, when all have had their input into a Bill, the whips demand your vote. But when did compromise become a dirty word? Especially in this increasingly divided age. If you’re getting everything you want for your conscience or constituency, someone else is getting nothing.
And remember, as a former Conservative whip John Randall recently reminded me, really “every vote is a free vote.” You can rebel against the whips and work with your enemies to kill the bill. That’s democracy and something to which a certain Labour member for Islington North, who voted with the Tories 533 times and now leads the Labour Party, can attest.
MPs have every motivation to compromise to deliver for their constituents without whips, who represent a top-down model of management—businesses have been turning their backs on that sort of structural rigidity for decades. Parliament seems stuck with an almost Victorian system of prefects, house masters and matrons. Just as head teachers did a worse, not a better, job when empowered with the cane, the good work you see done by whips would be better done without the threat of the lash.
The need to get business done should not be confused with the desire to marshall troops along party lines, which is an obstacle to productive policy making. Your claim that Americans would welcome whips is odd given that the problem with Congress at the moment is precisely that it is too partisan already. Much as I appreciate your correction of the “dark arts” myths, it seems you are excessively downplaying the disciplinarian nature of the whipping system. Too many MPs have reported on the strong-arm coercion and even bullying of whips over decades for us to dismiss them.
A good test of whether a practice should be abolished is to ask whether, if it did not exist, there would be a good case for introducing it. That’s a test the whip system flunks completely.
Thankfully the days of strong-arm coercion are becoming memories. No longer (apparently) will you find the safe in the Chief Whip’s office containing the infamous notebooks of members’ follies and flaws. Done away with is the Tories’ official “shits list.” All-night sittings are gone: there are sociable hours, crèche facilities, human resources, and so on. Many MPs may miss the rough and tumble age—but it’s a welcome evolution. That’s why I champion reform over ruin.
That said, those men and women who served in the whips office of the past, much as I agree their methods deserve to be consigned there, had motivations that were deeply felt and even noble. They believed in the cause of their parties, and understood the unity required to achieve it. My reference to Congress is an acknowledgement that too many members seek only what opportunistic deals they can get for their districts in times of partisan deadlock. Not for party, or country.
Moreover, stories from the whips office now testify to its more professional human resource role—dealing with workplace, domestic and even emotional struggles. I’m not saying the whip and the stick have been replaced with kittens licking MPs into submission. But it’s an indication that, whatever form it takes, politics still requires collaboration between members, and a structure through which to do it.
You say you champion reform over ruin and I too generally prefer evolution to revolution. But to push that metaphor further, sometimes evolution leads to the birth of a new species. I’m a little bit sceptical that the whips really have changed as much as you say they have, especially given the spate of recent claims about bullying by Corbyn’s team. But if you’re right, then the only reason we don’t need to abolish the whip is that it has effectively abolished itself.
If that’s the case, let’s make it official. Words and symbolism matter, so drop the word and rename the whips office the “Members’ Co-ordination and Support Committee” or something that sounds less dreadfully corporate. Drop also the three-line system, which is too associated with coercion.
Long-standing institutions have a tendency to revert to type. Rather than simply trusting that the bad old days of the whip are gone, now would be a good time to cement the positive changes you say have occurred, while getting rid of the last vestiges of the prefect-like bullying that remain.
This reformed office must, however, make sure it is concerned with more than party unity, or else it will be one more hangover from the already obsolete two-party system. In the post-whip era, there has to be more scope for co-operating across the benches rather than keeping the gap between them as wide as possible. Can we walk through the lobby together on this?
I’m of course only kidding, and gratefully accept any opportunity to take up residence in the grey area rather than accept the false binary that a yes/no referendum imposes. I certainly don’t think the culture surrounding the whips has changed completely; rather that it is changing, due to necessity, and that disrupting the natural direction of travel by force has its dangers.
An interesting reference to Corbyn, incidentally (whose whips must be having a right old time). Rosie Winterton, the current Labour Chief Whip, has ironically of late been the one trying to calm aggression coming from the wider party over “loyalty lists,” deselection threats and more. It’s an unusual case of the leader’s office trying to whip the members, while the whips try to incorporate dissenting views.
But you’re right—words matter. And the name whip—derived, as we know, from the “whippers in” who direct the hounds at a fox hunt—is hardly helpful. Besides, branding this new department could be fun. What about the Reasonable Expectation of Bilaterally Enabling Legislation Society—or REBELS for short? Maybe the Wellbeing House Implementation Practice, or WHI-... ah, no, that won’t work.
Whatever the future of the office, any signs, however symbolic, that our ancient system is willing to flex and bend to represent and accommodate the public’s desire for a more nuanced and co-operative politics while still recognising the value and purpose of party (or even better cross-party) unity is a worthy goal. I accept your amendments to the Bill, and will walk through the lobby with you. Or better still, get the whips to pair us off and go to the pub.
