May’s House Of Cards could fall at any time ...and it’s because she lacks a firm whip to keep MPs in check

OVER the last number of weeks there has been much comment about how ‘the mother of all parliaments’ in Westminster has become a veritable House Of Cards. Senior managers in both the Tory and Labour parties have been unable to enforce discipline to such an extent that the antics we see played out before us have become the laughing stock of the world. This, in my view, is mainly down to the fact that the ‘whip system’ in the UK parliament has not been properly functioning for some time.

The concept of a parliamentary whip was first devised in the House of Commons itself in the 18th century.

Enforcer

Use of the term ‘whipping them in’ was made in a parliamentary context in the mid-1700s, borrowing from the hunting pastime widely practised by MPs at that time. While a hunt was taking place, a ‘whipper in’ was employed to prevent hounds from wandering away from the hunting pack. In parliament, the person designated as the whip became a political party’s enforcer: someone who makes sure that its members vote in accordance with the party’s wishes.

Countries, including Ireland, with parliamentary systems that borrowed from the UK have used the whip concept. Here, the Government Chief Whip is given the status of a super junior minister and attends Cabinet meetings, but does not have a formal vote. Shortly after I was first elected to Leinster House, in 1987, I was made assistant to the then government’s chief whip, and in 1991, I became government chief whip for the last few months of Charlie Haughey’s administration. I was also the opposition chief whip, between 1994 and 1997, under Bertie Ahern. During those years, my job was to ensure all of Fianna Fáil’s TDs voted in accordance with party policy.

There were times when I was forced to withdraw the party whip from individual members because they voted with the opposition. Indeed, on a number of occasions, I had to do this to personal friends. By losing the whip, a party member would be deprived of the privileges and benefits associated with being a member of the party. Generally, losing the whip would be seen as a huge disadvantage in that the member would not have the party machine behind them. Needless to say, given all my experience over those years, I became an avid fan of the US and UK versions of the television political thriller, House Of Cards. While I could never emulate the Machiavellian manoeuvres adopted by the UK’s Francis Urquhart or the American Francis Underwood in those series it is the case that anyone who has been a whip in our political system would be well used to ‘gently twisting arms’ in order to ensure that deputies follow the party line.

Dysfunctional

Over the decades here in Ireland there has been much criticism of the whip system. It is often said that it is far too rigid, in that it does not allow for individual thought or expression. Government backbenchers have frequently decried the fact that they are merely elected to rubber-stamp government policy.

And yet one only has to look across the water to see how dysfunctional a parliament can become in a relatively short space of time when discipline breaks down. The expression ‘being in office but not being in power’ can clearly be used about the present Tory government.

Theresa May’s cabinet and wider party is completely divided mainly because the whip system has been totally ineffective. For instance, last week the Tory minister overseeing Brexit finished up a crucial debate on the issue of a Brexit delay in the House of Commons by urging MPs to support it only then to proceed to vote against it himself! The government whip even abstained. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is not much better in that he and his senior officials have been unable to ‘whip’ all of their members into speaking with one voice. While the proceedings in the Commons over the last few weeks have been pure pantomime for political anoraks it is clear that none of the whips knows from one vote to the next what will happen. While it might make great viewing for political hacks it merely portrays a political system in total disarray.

Authority

How can any decision be made by a group of 650 people coming from diverse backgrounds, without some element of discipline. The fundamental principle of democracy as we know it is that whoever wins an election goes on to implement the policies under which they fought the election. Some might say that in practice that doesn’t always happen. But by and large an incumbent government in a parliamentary system such as ours and the UK’s must rely on a strict whip system in order to fulfil its policy platform. Otherwise it’s the ‘law of the jungle’ in a parliamentary context.

In my view, if the whip system was used as it was originally envisaged, the Brexit debacle would not be as disastrous as it has turned out to be.

Indeed we here in the Republic have a similar political problem in that the current ‘new politics’ means that our present Government cannot properly plan policy decisions without first checking whether the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, gives it the nod. Some people might think that this is not a bad thing. But in my experience a government without proper authority is not able to take difficult decisions, because it has to look over its shoulder all the time. It will end up fudging all major contentious issues. A recent example of this was the total capitulation by the present Government on the issue of water charges.

Over the last few years we have had many instances when the whip system has been ignored. While I can fully accept that a free vote is desirable and indeed necessary in some circumstances a dilution of the parliamentary whip will eventually lead to weak government. And we have never had a clearer example of this than in the present shenanigans in the House of Commons.