Why the ‘whip’ system in Parliament needs to be ditched - Yorkshire Post Letters

A recent parliamentary debate concerning fracking saw the conduct of Government ‘whips’ called into question.

MPs who support government (or party) policy sometimes are criticised for acting contrary to the views of their constituents.

The charge was evident during the Brexit campaign when, against the wishes of those who gave them their seat, some MPs favoured remaining within the European Union.

The explanation here is that a representative democracy entitles MPs to exercise judgement and to vote in accordance with their consciences.

And yet, it appears to go unnoticed (particularly by those who argue so) that 'whipping’ directly contradicts the same principle.

The case for or against any policy needs to be made in Parliament, through rational argument and persuasion.

But, regrettably, where argument fails to persuade, it seems that ‘whips' are inclined to rely upon less democratic alternatives.

The controversy has arisen again with the alleged misconduct of former Government Whip and Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson.

In what sense is the judgement and conscience of elected members recognised by 'whipping'?

Few British institutions can be more wedded to tradition and resistant to reform than Parliament.

But the low esteem in which our political system currently is held makes a compelling case for some changes.

‘Whipping’ is one such necessary change. By nature, it invites abuse - and it needs to end.