Plunging into the pond of parliamentary hierarchy, looking for loci of power, one discovers an extraordinary system. On examination it appears to be constructed of bullying, blackmail and bribery. Some of our elected representatives are, it seems, paid up to an extra £33,000 a year to ensure, through intimidation, threats of exposure, exposure, financial inducements, smears, flattery, menaces, promises and/or humiliating petty punishments, that their fellow MPs vote to order.
This is quaintly known as the UK’s ‘whipping system’. And should this picture be accurate, it would have substantial implications for representative democracy. Moreover, it would be understood by remarkably few voters. My forthcoming report on the whipping system for the Constitution Society was prompted by such speculations.
Subsequent research revealed that other versions of the whipping system are available. An almost melancholy air tends to hang around them, as though something which had once been rather exciting was actually now quite dull. Some suggest that, while the whips themselves, back in antiquity, may have acted as hired enforcers, these days they are caring, supportive, concerned; rather more like social workers. Others dismiss the recurring notion that whips collect compromising information on fellow MPs, explaining that, while this may have previously been the case, whips today are only interested in the blandest of personal details. One academic analysis seems to argue that, since MPs sometimes rebel against the whips, and sometimes governments are even defeated, the system can’t be that bad, because it sometimes doesn’t work.
In the light of Dame Laura Cox’s inquiry report into the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, these defences prove unconvincing. In 2018, Cox uncovered “a culture, cascading from the top down, of deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed”. Her excoriating findings should, of course, be read in full. There is no reason to suppose that the situation has improved. Revisiting the issue in 2021, Cox included the racism experienced by MPs Dawn Butler and Diane Abbott, and urged again for change.
There is no reason, either, to believe that the whipping system has somehow transcended this culture. In 2019, MP Johnny Mercer noted that his fellow MPs were “oddly fearful” of the whips’ office, while citing at least three attempts by whips to get “dirt” on him from former army colleagues. More recently, in January, William Wragg and Christian Wakeford protested publicly about being blackmailed by their whips. In the same month, former minister Rory Stewart described modern whips acting as part of a “hazing process”, leading to “an elective dictatorship”. In April, a group of Conservative women MPs spoke out against the sexist, disempowering and humiliating treatment they were being given by party whips. In June, former Labour advisor John McTernan, faced with a strike-supporting Zarah Sultana on Radio 4, demanded “a whip’s offices that do actually use all the forces they have”. Sultana and similarly intransigent Labour MPs are being threatened with de-selection.
During my first month of research, such stories continued to surface, splutter and, inevitably, sink – the Palace of Westminster, which largely runs outside the rule of law, seemed to have developed its own centre of gravity. In January, some journalists, like Marie Le Conte had briefly challenged the ethos of whipping, but otherwise, and as more stories about the Whips’ Office piled up, the engine behind them was rarely questioned. A system which encourages, even demands, behaviour which, in other workplaces, would result in arrest, to ensure that MPs vote in obedience to diktats from the leader’s office, as opposed to the wishes of their party, their constituents or the dictates of their own conscience, was, as, A.C. Grayling lamented in Democracy and Its Crisis, “almost never discussed”.
This may, however, be starting to change. Bronwen Maddox, at the Institute for Government, forensically put William Wragg’s case in context. At Tortoise, Lara Spirit and Gary Marshallusefully exposed some of the tactics and people behind the “shadow whipping” campaign to keep Boris Johnson in power. More whistleblowers are emerging, including former Conservative whip Claire O’Neill, former Liberal Democrat MP, Mark Oaten, and Labour’s former advisor, Ayesha Hazarika.
My report for the Constitution Society, which stands on the shoulders of investigations by Laura Cox and others, is indebted to journalists and those who have so far spoken out. It will, I hope, make the most of the space and time the Society offers. Liz Truss, who recently promised to move the Whips’ Office back “to the heart of government”, and who evaded questions about appointing an ethics advisor in favour of talking about “a strong chief whip” has added further impetus. Together with interviews, archives and correspondence, my report will focus on three main areas:
Historical
The report will provide historical context for the practice, and will examine the specific whipping operations behind arguably two of the most significant votes of our time: the vote to allow a military attack on Iraq, and the vote to trigger Article 50.
Geographical
Globally, the exporting of British democracy has left several countries with, and often struggling with, the whipping system, from the Caribbean to India, New Zealand and Australia. The report will analyse the results and implications, and contemplate Nigerian criminologist, academic and writer Biko Agozino‘s assertion that: “dropping the whip with all the connotations of sado-masochistic rituals of domination would be contributing to the project of decolonization that needs to be continued non-violently”.
The report will examine and contrast alternative systems, and the effect on countries which have developed democratically outside the UK’s constitutional norms.
Locally, the report will investigate the unacknowledged fact that councils across the UK replicate the parliamentary system, with their own Chief Whips, Opposition Chief Whips, and lesser whips, paid bonuses by taxpayers almost certainly ignorant of their existence.
Psychological
It is almost impossible, I have so far discovered, to read the autobiographies of former whips and MPs without becoming increasingly concerned for the mental health of our elected representatives. From former Conservative Chief Whip Tim Renton’s Chief Whip: People, Power and Patronage in Westminster, to How to be a Government Whip, by Labour’s Helen Jones, to the comprehensive, if anonymous interviews carried out by Cambridge University researchers in 2009, the degree of cognitive dissonance on display is remarkable. The resemblance between whipping and the “public school ethos”, with its psychological consequences, is noticeable. This section of the report will analyse the manifest contradictions, distractions, distortions and barely disguised cries for help which these testimonies almost invariably contain. It will, further, detail philosophical and practical suggestions for reform.
Throughout, the report will continue to discover, substantiate and collate personal reports from inside the whipping system, both anonymous and identified. Contributions and suggestions can be sent to tabithatroughton@constitutionsoc.org.uk, and will of course, if desired, be treated in confidence.
Tabitha Troughton.
Tabitha Troughton is a Research Fellow at the Constitution Society.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.