UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,357
Removing the whip means that you are effectively not viewed as being in the party (that’s my understanding). At the moment that would mean that you would not get told how to vote (by the whip), but equally you are not a conservative MP so letters to the 1922 committee are ignored. Importantly, when it comes to election time you will not be a conservative MP, but would be an independent. The conservatives would then select a new candidate to run against you (with the funding+++) making it unlikely you will be able to be re-elected.

Your MP salary and benefits are not changed while you are a sitting MP, but if you were proposing legislation it would likely now be ignored by the conservative party in an attempt to punish your dissent.

It is a fairly brutal way to punish MPs who don’t follow the party line of talk and more importantly votes.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Jul 2009
Posts
6,451
So when they lose their whip, they're not allowed in the house?

Can his whip be removed?


No, it just means their membership of the party is withdrawn. But they're still an elected member of the HoC and sit as an independent.

It's one of the reasons why people should remember, when they're voting in a general election, they're not voting for a party or who they want for PM, they're voting for that person to be their MP. The other things are incidental.

MPs can have their whip withdrawn, or as we've seen today, defect to another party.
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
26,402
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
So when they lose their whip, they're not allowed in the house?

Removing the whip means that you are effectively not viewed as being in the party (that’s my understanding).

No, it just means their membership of the party is withdrawn. But they're still an elected member of the HoC and sit as an independent.

Technically having the whip withdrawn doesn't mean that you're not a member of party, but that you're no longer considered an MP of the party. So, for example, Corbyn is an independent MP but a member of the Labour party.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Jun 2004
Posts
1,357
Technically having the whip withdrawn doesn't mean that you're not a member of party, but that you're no longer considered an MP of the party. So, for example, Corbyn is an independent MP but a member of the Labour party.
Ahh that makes sense. You can still be in the party, but will not be backed by the party as an MP. Good to know, thank you.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,787
Location
Panting like a fiend
So when they lose their whip, they're not allowed in the house?

Can his whip be removed?

The only people that can remove an MP are the constituents or Mr D'Eath.

IIRC they had to bring in a change in the law a few years back to allow an MP's constituents to ask for a special byelection if a sitting MP committed a serious enough crime to be jailed, as before that if you were elected, then sent to jail during your term, you'd have still been an MP until the next general election.

Boris and co shot themselves in the foot the other day when they removed the whip from one of their MP's as it apparently dropped the number of votes of no confidence needed by 1, so as far as the "no confidence letters" go it now doesn't matter if a bunch of other Tory MP's defect to labour as the number of letters needed would remain the same (unless something like another 14 changed sides).
 
Caporegime
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
26,402
Location
Nordfriesland, Germany
I think Johnson thinks he had the upperhand today. His grin got bigger and bigger everytime he sat down again.

It was probably better for him than last week, at least up to Davis sticking the knife in, but thinking it was a good PMQs seems like stretch to me. The defection is, I think, good for Labour in the longer term but it also galvanised the Tory backbenchers into supporter the PM. Clearly more vocal support than last time. Kier's misstep in mentioning the Queen also gave him a lucky break.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
10,578
Bury South MP, Christian Wakeford (Tory) defected to Labour. Was just before PMQs.

To be honest, this feels more like a move for his own long term electrician prospects than anything else.

I can’t seem to square how someone could stand on a conservative ticket and then suddenly swap to labour when these days they stand for completely different things.

As much as Boris Johnson’s tenure is imploding right now, that MP clearly has seen the mood music in his constituency and that it’s unlikely to re-elect him regardless of if the cons pull it out the bag or not over the next 2 years.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,146
Location
Here and There...
To be honest, this feels more like a move for his own long term electrician prospects than anything else.

I can’t seem to square how someone could stand on a conservative ticket and then suddenly swap to labour when these days they stand for completely different things.

As much as Boris Johnson’s tenure is imploding right now, that MP clearly has seen the mood music in his constituency and that it’s unlikely to re-elect him regardless of if the cons pull it out the bag or not over the next 2 years.
He only won his seat with a majority of less than 1% at the last election, in a seat that was safe labour going back to ‘97 he clearly realised that without Brexit and the antisemitism row (his seat has a large Jewish community) he has a much better chance of holding onto his job as a labour MP than a Tory.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
11,872
Location
5 degrees starboard
He only won his seat with a majority of less than 1% at the last election, in a seat that was safe labour going back to ‘97 he clearly realised that without Brexit and the antisemitism row (his seat has a large Jewish community) he has a much better chance of holding onto his job as a labour MP than a Tory.
Presupposing that Labour actually put him forward for the next election as a candidate. I think that his political career is over. However he should now resign and stand in a by-election.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Posts
3,113
Location
The Cronx
Presupposing that Labour actually put him forward for the next election as a candidate. I think that his political career is over. However he should now resign and stand in a by-election.

You are right on this, that is what should happen. Tories won’t want a by election and Labour don’t need one so it won’t happen.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
7,847
One imagines he may have been courted by Labour. If that were the case they may allow him to stand again. Afterall one assumes some of the voters who voted him in were previously Labour voters. The one I remember is Shaun Woodward in 1999 who won super safe Conservative Witney and crossed to Labour. Then was parachuted into South St Helens for years.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,146
Location
Here and There...
Presupposing that Labour actually put him forward for the next election as a candidate. I think that his political career is over. However he should now resign and stand in a by-election.
I see no reason they won’t keep him as a candidate he has two years to build bridges and vote on the party lines and it would give all those red wall voters the chance to pretend to themselves they voted for the candidate not the party.

I agree an election for the seat should be triggered as he clearly no longer represents the manifesto he was elected to deliver, I very much doubt it will happen as the Government won’t push for it as they don’t want the public hammering it would likely deliver.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
10,578
He only won his seat with a majority of less than 1% at the last election, in a seat that was safe labour going back to ‘97 he clearly realised that without Brexit and the antisemitism row (his seat has a large Jewish community) he has a much better chance of holding onto his job as a labour MP than a Tory.

But that the point though, how can he say in good faith he believes in the labour mission if he just 2 years ago was full on team tory. It just doesn't wash with me and if I was labour I don't think I would select him at the next election.

What is more likely the reality is that he quite likes his £80k a year job and realised that if he wants to keep it, switching sides is the best for his political career. It's just a nonsense really.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Posts
3,113
Location
The Cronx
But that the point though, how can he say in good faith he believes in the labour mission if he just 2 years ago was full on team tory. It just doesn't wash with me and if I was labour I don't think I would select him at the next election.

What is more likely the reality is that he quite likes his £80k a year job and realised that if he wants to keep it, switching sides is the best for his political career. It's just a nonsense really.

Could say exactly the same about Boris tbh :D

Either:

It is a matter of principle
He’s the fall guy for a Tory plot
He thought it would be the event that triggered the downfall

I have no idea which is most likely.
 
Top