Boris has every right to strip Tory party rebels of the whip

At first the outrage was against the proroguing of the House of Commons, leaving people muttering how incensed they were to each other and to almost anyone who would listen.

This has now moved on to fury that Boris could dare to withdraw the whip from anyone who voted with Jeremy Corbyn on last night’s motion to give MPS control of parliamentary business, which in turn would allow them to rush through a Bill this week to force the Government to delay Brexit, rather than pursue a no-deal exit.

For those who don’t understand the concept of the whip, it is this: those who are elected parliamentarians for a political party are said to “have the whip”. Removing the whip is what happens when the party decides the behaviour of the individual on political, or sometimes personal grounds, means they can no longer be an active member of that particular party. The term references the hunting field, when the huntsman would keep the hounds together by “whipping in”.

It is, for most MPS, a very serious matter if their party casts them out, even temporarily, by taking the whip from them. It means they cannot attend party meetings or enjoy the knowledge of their party’s position on legislation. It’s a lonely business. What makes it even more difficult is if the party they support goes into an election and they still have the whip withdrawn. That means they will be deselected and unable to fight their seat for their party. Devastating.

That is why no party should take the whip away except in fairly serious circumstances. Normally this would mean – apart from serious misdemeanours – things such as voting against their party in the Budget, the Queen’s Speech or a vote of confidence.

Individuals in Parliament

are generally allowed to oppose their party’s position on legislation, providing they are clear that it is a matter of principle. When they do so, they will normally be hauled into the whips’ office and given a hard time, but there it ends. That can change if an individual becomes a serial rebel, unreliable in major areas their party wishes to vote on, but they would have to have a really bad record before that happens.

As someone who voted against the Maastricht Treaty in the early Nineties, I faced much of this. I was a new MP and quite exposed. I was threatened on a number of occasions but, close as I may have sailed to the wind, I didn’t lose the whip. We even defeated the government once. The next day, the prime minister, John Major, held a vote of confidence in his government and, notwithstanding my objections to the treaty and the government’s approach, I voted for the government. Rule number one of party politics is that you support your government in a vote of confidence.

As a rule, I am not in favour of the whips’ office being too heavy-handed. It should show some tolerance. So, you will ask, how can the Government justify removing the whip this time?

I believe this occasion is different. These votes have a much greater significance than one on any old legislation. Boris Johnson was clear that he will leave the EU by October 31, come what may, deal or no deal. Any vote that strips him of the ability to deliver on that position is in effect a vote of confidence. It is harsh but, given the fact that the Conservative Government does not have a majority, it is justified.