Whips...

[SckizoBoy]

...

No, not in any S&M or legal punishment context.

I'm talking about Westminster and the 'party whips'. I was waking up listening to Radio 4 this morning, faintly amused at a member of the opposition's use of the word whip: 'I'd would wish for the Lower House to reassemble to have a debate, not a whipped debate, an open debate'.

To explain to those not aware of political whips, they are effectively the party's enforcers, browbeating the backbenchers into towing the party line. In a 'whipped debate' no party member is allowed to speak against the party's leader/policy. If there's a three-line whip (compulsory attendance & voting in agreement with the party line, unless the Chief Whip says otherwise), anyone who disobeys it can be punished with expulsion from the party.

I know a number of the Commonwealth countries have something similar, this being the case, do you agree with the presence of 'party whips'?

If not, what do you think of this... antiquated (for lack of a better word that comes to mind) political position?

 

[Saelune]

Hell no. We dont have it so formally in the states, but its essentially the same. Any republican who does not concede to conservative views often is put down by their own party. Democrats too probably, but since (US) conservatives are a big problem here, its a bad thing.

It sounds oppresive...since it is.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Well I thought this would be about whipped cream when you said it wasnt s&m. Anyway that does sound like a bad restriction on the freedoms of politicians (even though there all arses)

 

[Flippincrazy]

My history teacher: "Right you scumbags, can any of you tell me what a Whip is in government? You know, other than the devices used by many Tory ministers for great sexual pleasure!"

Ah, what a legend.

Anyway, I've been a bit confused over the whole Whip thing - but I guess one can argue that it makes sense; if one is with a Party they should try to tow the party line. If everything was constantly open debate then there could be a lot of fallout for political parties whose members openly criticise their actions. Not that this is essential a bad thing, it could prove rather useful if backbenchers are free to call out more hidden flaws of a Party - but if Whips are taken away we run the risk of exploitation of the electorate (back benchers exacerbating very minor flaws in a Government/Party through the media and the likes).

Then again, my view has rather lackluster credibility - barely intrested in politics and haven't even studied it in a minor level of detail, only ever researched Britain's political climate post-war. So forgive me if this is complete bull

 

[LongAndShort]

I'm pretty sure we don't have that in Australia, but I'm reckoning a fair few in our parties are wishing they did right now...

 

[SckizoBoy]

My history teacher: "Right you scumbags, can any of you tell me what a Whip is in government? You know, other than the devices used by many Tory ministers for great sexual pleasure!"

Teehee!

With the whole expenses scandal, apparently, someone claimed on a sex-swing. There was a subsequent vote on the issue (expenses, not the sex-swing) and the following exchange (Danielle Ward & Sandi Toksvig):

DW: And originally, there was a three-line-whip behind it.
ST: Did that come with the sex-swing?
DW: Well, you know more about Harriet Harman than me, Sandi.
ST: I was actually thinking of Ruth Kelly, what a terrible thought.