Party management is a delicate game. Contrary to popular belief the vast majority of all MPs in all parties don’t go into it to line their pockets or affirm their egos but because they have become convinced that it is the optimal way to advance the values and principles about which they are passionate. Ever since the House of Commons assumed primacy in the tripartite Crown in Parliament constitutional structure (circa 1640) it has been necessary to construct and sustain coalitions among them sufficient to secure the State/Monarch’s imperatives; and satisfy the aspirations of the ever revolving series of Ministers who seek to exercise power under the Crown prerogative and through Parliament.
Decline in direct fiscal patronage, the rise of recognisable external party machines and the extension of the franchise all occurred in the Victorian era; along with drastic social and economic change and the leviathan extensions in competencies required of the State and consequently needing legislation. The machinery of Whipping became institutionalised and in 1879 the Chief Whip took residence in the grace and favour accommodation of 12 Downing St (from which Tony Blair evicted her in 2001 so that his own family could occupy it all).
The primary accountability of an individual MP is clearly to her/his constituents at periodic elections. Beyond that s/he is in law and in Edmund Burke’s theory set out in his ‘Speech to the Electors of Bristol’, completely at liberty to vote as their conscience directs. According to this view MPs are as high minded and independent of influence as Judges; but with their consciences; not the laws made in parliament, as their guide. MPs should give consideration to the interests of their constituents; but so long as they are willing to face the consequences sometime later, not be bound by them.
In reality Burke himself was active in his factional whiggery and always not above naked bribery to obtain his faction’s ends. In other words he was a proto-whip; Mandelson or Morrisonian persuader, organiser and advocate. If MPs were not held accountable for their actions to any person or interest for several years we would live in a near anarchy not a highly developed country. Have a look at the later Polish-Lithuanian Sejm for clues where that sort of approach gets a social order.
Besides their perception of what sells best with their ungrateful constituents every so often the second biggest factor motivating MPs is generally loyalty. Loyalty to their friends; to their Leader; to the cause and values of the Party most have spent the majority of their adult lives assiduously seeking the honour to represent in the Mother of Parliaments. Loyalty to their seats too and the well-meaning segment of the yokels who inhabit it. Given that we are talking about the crooked timber of humanity avarice probably edges out ego to complete the field.
The fine art of the whips is to conflate Loyalty with Conscience in the minds of their flock and work any further leverage they can with the last pair. From the moment the newbie arrives in Hogwarts s/he has been assigned to a junior whip who will endeavour to be helpful in providing an office and explaining things in the initial induction period; give sound counsel and assist her/his advancement up the rungs of office.
Similarly to GPs in the good old days they get to know their flock and grow over time to understand which are hypochodriac vis a vis the genuinely ill or inclined to pursue risky habits. Each MP has a written record from prior consultations available to their own Whip and the Chief (exceptionally the PM/LOTO) exclusively. Uniquely the office does not leak.
A good ‘bedside manner’ is helpful in a Whip so the patient can explain her/his underlying problem(s). Most consultations are roughly 90 per cent about persuading patients where their best interests lie. Ten per cent will be spent starkly spelling out the consequences if they don’t or won’t follow your advice.
The Chief is a high ranking member of the Cabinet who works directly to the PM; much like the director of HR in a firm does the CEO. Chiefs do not give interviews and tend to remain highly discreet even in retirement (at least while those whose secrets they shield are also alive. Cyril Smith springs to mind). There are occasional memoirs. Brandreth’s is funny. On the whole though they do not reveal anything new or that adds much to the sum of existing public knowledge of their fellow MPs personal affairs.
The ‘Black book’ and it’s potential contents are essentially a myth deliberately cultivated by Chiefs and Michael Dobbs to enhance their mundane role with an aura of mystery and power which creates a psychological impression that makes it marginally easier to sell your highly efficacious remedies. Whips really only know what MPs tell them. It’s the media or the Police that expose the dodgy characters and the whips role is only to try and clean-up the mess.
The really difficult challenges of whipping arise in tight parliaments such as 1974-79 or 2015-17-19. In the later case it did not help that the fixed-term parliaments’ act had largely erased the immediate consequence of serial disloyalty – an immediate dissolution.
During the former era every vote on government business was effectively a short step away from one of confidence. The government had to abandon some Bills. On others (devolution) it had to accept wrecking amendments from The Dayell and fellow sceptics that ultimately contributed to sinking it in the confidence vote of
The Rooker-Wise Amendment to the Finance Bill to index-link income tax thresholds, was especially difficult because those Labour MPs, who ultimately backed Healey, agreed with the principle; despite calculating that it wasn’t viable in an stagflationary economic crisis and that given Healey wasn’t budging the matter was clearly one of confidence. The principle that a government that can’t pass supply can’t stay in office had lengthy precedent. Up until 2011 that is.
It is in this context that I return to the learned Prof Cowley’s tweet. He wisely eludes the issue of whether an amendment to a Gracious Address that has no practical effect constitutes a confidence question; pointing out that in 1945 (when it most certainly would have been seen as such) Attlee suffered a rebellion of 45 on a Gracious Speech amendment seeking to end conscription. He wisely decided to regard it, in peacetime, as a conscience issue - correctly understanding that Winston wouldn’t countenance his Party weaponising it. The amendment was considered irrelevant because it always stood zero chance of passage.
I agree with Phil that the response to the rebels on the SNP amendment was over-reach. In my opinion the government should simply have accepted it, whipped it, and said it would set out detailed plans in due course. In this case let’s think of the PLP as a herd of thirsty cattle who have finally reached it in abundance. They want to get waist deep in regardless that it’s the kilted crocodiles of the SNP who are enabling them. Perhaps you can sacrifice the first seven to buy a bit of time; but the only solution is to find a way to deal with the crocodile menace and get water to your flock.
Because strong views on this issue don’t stop with a mere seven, or even seventy dissidents. That cap has to go. Pronto. A Labour government that doesn’t address the primary cause of child poverty today is not worth having and a fraud on their voters and members.
Labour MPs; whilst often appearing deeply pragmatic; do in fact have consciences. In this case they’re only too happy to defy handsome majorities of their own constituents’ prejudices with a smile on their face and a song in their heart. They prefer to do so in an orderly fashion for now; but the breathing space this patience buys the new government to set out a path and build a narrative agenda and communications strategy for scrapping the cap is strictly limited. Prudent Prime Ministers will not go against the overwhelming and deeply held principles of their parties. The money must be found; it will be.
The overreaction of the Labour Whips in the Commons on the 2 child cap has been compared by correspondents on my series of posts on the shenanigans in Senedd Cymru with the whipping or lack thereof there. I may do a separate post on that; once the process(es) are concluded or appear to have done so. All I shall say at present is that voting to take meaningful action to lift children out of poverty is not the same thing as un-comradely behaviour and skipping votes without notice. The pastoral considerations are very different as are the precedents (such as they are).