Former and current Labour whips have pushed back against Andy Burnham's vision of a more tolerant approach to party discipline, arguing that their role is not about intimidation but about building consensus and ensuring the government can function. Burnham, the former Blairite minister now seen as a soft-left prime minister in waiting, has promised to change the culture of strict party management under Keir Starmer, which saw the whip routinely withdrawn from rebellious MPs.
Burnham's vision for a new culture
In a letter to Labour MPs ahead of the leadership nomination deadline, Burnham wrote: "I want to create a different culture where MPs are happy and fulfilled doing their jobs, where everyone has a part to play and where opinions and approaches are respected, even where there’s difference." He described the whips' office as "our HR department, not something to be feared or where discipline is used to stifle debate."
However, a current Labour whip disputed the perception that Starmer's whips used an iron-fist approach. They said the whips' office "had taken a more relaxed approach to party discipline, but problems arose because No 10 staff were not listening to the whips who had shared concerns they’d heard from their group of MPs." While agreeing with Burnham's emphasis on early engagement on policy, they disagreed with his critique of the previous culture, stating: "The whips’ office has not been heavy-handed; if anything we’ve intentionally tried not to be."
Historical context: Blair's approach
Hilary Armstrong, who served as Tony Blair's chief whip for five and a half years, recalled how Blair handled the Iraq War rebellion. "We made sure that people were able to express their conscience but that we would get enough support for the government to get our legislation through," she said. "We tried to make sure that amendments accommodated what people were concerned about." Armstrong noted that Blair's rule on party discipline was: "Oh we don’t want to go into suspensions, we’ll make them heroes" – a stark contrast to Starmer's approach.
Armstrong believes Burnham is reviving the hope Blair had when she was appointed chief whip. "When I got that job, he told me, ‘I’m appointing you because this is the most political job in cabinet, you’ve got politics to your fingertips, and I want to change the view of whipping being about intimidation and bullying. It’s about politics’."
Conservative perspective on discipline
Simon Hart, a former Conservative chief whip who wrote a book on whipping, argued that Burnham's commitment to "gentle whipping" exposes a "huge misunderstanding of what whips actually do." Hart said: "The notion that [whips] are all about blackmail, force and veiled threats is – sadly! – not how it is in the real world." He added: "Where there are red lines there is good reason for them. Collective endeavour is important; delivering the manifesto is crucial in terms of public trust. If hard-working loyal MPs see their colleagues taking the mickey without any real sanction, Burnham’s dream of one big happy family working together won’t last long."
Mixed reactions within Labour
A former Labour whip expressed optimism after reading Burnham's letter, saying: "Saying this is the start of doing it. I believe it’s possible. It just needs to be made known that certain practices aren’t tolerated, for example, [not] talking to colleagues with respect." However, a Labour veteran linked to the government whips' office cautioned: "If Burnham managed to get 'policy right earlier, we won’t need public rows.' They added: "It did feel like we’ve approached the 25th anniversary of The Office series and Burnham’s already playing David Brent, trying to get his best boss mug early on. We of course need to be good cops, and sometimes bad cops. I’m just not sure if this is magical thinking or wishful thinking."
One government figure worried that a return to bitter internal Labour infighting could pit minorities against one another. Another government figure stressed that there would always need to be "a level of discipline somewhere" – otherwise MPs could rebel on confidence-vote matters that could bring down the government.
