Political parties need whips to exist - and that will sometimes include whipping "conscience" matters

The question of whether the HFE bill should be subject to a whip, should be a free vote, or should involve a "conscience vote" (or abstention) has attracted quite a bit of interest on CentreRight - e.g. here, here, here and here.  Since everyone else is doing so, I thought I'd set out my own stall.

I disagree with those calling for almost everything to be a free vote.  Many matters central to policy will be conscience issues to someone.  Take UK membership of the euro.  One side might say it is a conscience issue for them to oppose - maintaining and advancing England's thousand year constitutional history is, they say, what politics is about.  Another side might declare that for them, Britain's joining the euro is a conscience matter - for to them politics is about finding ways to resolve political differences without war, and the European Union and Single European State are the only hope that war might be ended in Europe for good.

So, are we to say that the Conservative Party is not, therefore, to have a Party line over whether Britain should join the euro?  But if a political party is not to have a line on such matters, what do political parties exist for at all?

Well, then, perhaps we should have whips for matters of public policy but not of personal morality?  But what of gambling on Good Friday - an economic issue to some; a matter of personal morality to others; or abortion - to some an issue of personal morality, to others a matter of the protection the law offers to human life.  Are these public policy matters to which whips can be applied or personal matters to which whips can't be applied?

What if a Party wanted to adopt a moral line?  For example, suppose that someone introduced a private members bill allowing female circumcision.  My guess is that all the mainstream political parties would want to impose a whip insisting that their MPs voted against (certainly no mainstream party MP would be permitted to vote in favour).  But suppose there were an MP that wanted to claim that, as a matter of conscience, she believed that female circumcision should be permitted.  Should the party be prevented from having a party line on such a moral issue?

It seems to me that, in order for political parties to exist at all, there must be whips on policy matters that encompass economic, constitutional and social issues that some people might potentially regard as conscience issues.  There may not need to be quite as many whips as now, or whips that have quite such force as today, but there must be whips, nonetheless.  The whip is of the essence of a political party.  Because of the whip, MPs will sometimes vote for measures they might, off their own bat, have voted against, and will sometimes vote when they wouldn't otherwise have bothered.  And that's good, because it means that we function as teams, which allows us to achieve a great deal more than we would as disparate individuals.

Sometimes party managers will find that in their teams there are certain personnel that will want to violate the party line on certain issues.  This is inevitable, but it isn't a reason for saying that there shouldn't be a party line, even in these cases.  What consequences there are to be for violating the party line is a matter for the party managers.

So, I don't agree that in cases in which some MPs have personal or religious convictions there should never be a party line.  Apart from anything else, to declare this is to overestimate what a whip really is.  If you vote against what is not merely your personal conviction, but, rather, against a core matter of what you think politics is about or a question that your religion offers specific teaching concerning, you are likely to struggle looking at yourself in the mirror or even imperil your immortal soul.  I'd have thought it should be pretty clear in such a case that there mere threat of the party whip would not seem much of a threat at all.  Are we really to feel that a Catholic MPs is somehow to be intimidated by the threat of a "discussion without coffee" with Geoff Hoon into defying the unambiguous teaching of the Catholic church through the ages and committing a mortal sin, so that the imposition of the whip in such a matter represents the oppression of Catholics or a threat to religious freedom?  I'm sure Geoff Hoon can be a scary man, but really...

Comments

[Michael Rutherford]

I'm not convinced myself. I think the Euro example is a very poor one. I think there is a huge difference between creating half-animal, half-human life and getting a new set of coins in your pocket.

We do need whips to exist to push through normal policy. Life as we know it will continue if this bill fails, they will have to look for new way to get ovaries. I think it makes a mockery of the system if people are forced out of having religious beliefs to keep a government looking stable.

Ultimately it is daft to whip this bill. There is no question that it will pass, it has the support of most Conservatives. But forcing MPs to choose between Gordon and God is a little unfair in my opinion.

[Tony Makara]

This is a very tricky issue. An MP is elected on a broad range of policies, and if elected as a Conservative MP he/she should stick to the main party line, the line which he/she was elected to follow. However there has to be room for free expression on non-poltical issues. Those issues that are not hard-and-fast party policy should not be subject to the whip.

[Chad Noble]

"It seems to me that, in order for political parties to exist at all.."

A good reason to get rid of the whips.

Manifesto Commitments are not legally binding anyway and are often broken. Until the parties are prepared to stick to their promises and make them legally binding, the whips should be removed.

[The Laughing Cavalier]

The Euro example is not just a very poor one but a false analogy. Comparing an economic and socio-political matter to one concerning the fundamentals of life and medical ethics is logically wrong.

[Woodentop]

It is all very well saying "get rid of the whips" but in the past they have often been compared to a sewerage system - not very nice, but necessary! Seriously though, a good whip is a like a good human resources manager in an office. He (or she) is a manager as well as an enforcer of the policies agreed by the team.

[J. Trudgill]

If the whips are to enforce a policy from the Downing Street sofa, discussed by the PM and a few cronies, and then thrust upon the party, how is democracy served?

One of the problems is that an MP is regularly in a battle with his conscience and principles.He need the whips to give him preferment, and even a future in the party. To vote with a conscience can be a costly thing.It takes a strong person to defy the whips,- the "elective dictatorship" gets its way and democracy loses.

Since much of our legislation is now decided in Brussels, why do we not spend more time, whipless, discussing the few remaining areas still in our competence. We are not only Brussels centred, but Westminster centred, and with whips Downing Street centred.

Most of the above applies to opposition parties as well, of course.

[Christina Speight]

Andrew Lilico is merely supporting the ever -increasing power of the parties over the MPs. The MPs should be able to listen to debate, listen to advice from outside and/or from their own party and make their own decisions unfettered by threats,- or promises. If the government cannot convince its own MPs it should resign.

The monstrous regiment of bullies,and "sofa" colleagues and non-elected advisers have far too much power and should be stripped of it.

Democracy needs argument followed by consensus.

[Iain]

"But forcing MPs to choose between Gordon and God is a little unfair in my opinion."

Well if God has spoken on this I would be all ears, but to my knowledge God has not made an appearance, just someone putting words into Gods mouth.

[Serf]

The Euro example may seem wrong to some, but to be honest its an issue I care more about than the current HFE bill. I am sure that I am not alone.

Why does religion trump any other ideology or belief?