In response to suggestions that Andy Burnham might reduce the use of whipping in parliament, readers Martin Luck and Vaughan Thomas have proposed significant reforms to the Westminster whipping system. Their letters, published in response to an article on 19 June, argue that the current system undermines democratic representation and accountability.
Whipping should be limited to manifesto pledges
Martin Luck from Loughborough, Leicestershire, argues that whipping should apply only to matters clearly spelled out in a party’s manifesto. He notes that non-independent candidates stand for election on the basis of that manifesto, and therefore votes on other matters should be free. The party would remain free to persuade its MPs by appealing to strategy and force of argument, but not through coercion.
Luck contends that this change would encourage MPs to take the views of their constituents fully into account and contribute those views to party debate. Under current practice, MPs can too easily become vote fodder and may not even fully understand what they are being asked to vote on. He adds: “Voting by conscience on a non-manifesto issue should be seen as a matter of pride and should attract respect, not approbation or feelings of disloyalty.”
Consequences for party defectors
Luck further suggests that defining whippable matters in this way would have a logical consequence: MPs who defect from one party to another would have to submit themselves for re-election. Otherwise, they would be blatantly betraying their constituents, as they do now.
Secret votes to reduce executive power
Vaughan Thomas from Norwich proposes a more radical reform: secret votes for MPs in parliament. He wrote to Robin Cook many years ago when Cook was leader of the House of Commons, suggesting this change. Thomas argues that secret votes would ensure MPs are less prone to bribery or blackmail with promises of high office, or worse, if whips have negative information on an MP that the public or their spouse are unaware of.
“This change would return power to the floor of the Commons, where it belongs – to MPs and not to the executive,” Thomas writes. “So decisions could be made on the debate in the chamber rather than in a backroom, cloaked in secrecy.”
Broader implications for democracy
Both letters highlight a growing concern about the concentration of power in the executive and the erosion of parliamentary independence. The proposals aim to restore integrity to the voting process and strengthen the link between MPs and their constituents. The discussion comes amid broader debates about political reform, including suggestions from Andy Burnham, who has talked about scrapping the whipping system in Westminster.
