The Prime Minister has granted Labour MPs a free vote on the issue of assisted dying, bringing healthy debate back to parliament, and simultaneously highlighting the poisonous nature of the whipping system.

Last week’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg saw Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall defend the assisted dying bill – which is to be voted on by MPs in a matter of days – arguing it would give people ‘power, choice and control’ over their own deaths. This is in stark contrast to fellow government minister Shabana Mahmood, who has openly expressed concern that the bill could put ‘pressure’ on certain people to end their lives sooner. This difference in opinion has divided the Parliamentary Labour Party as a whole, and as a result the Prime Minister is granting his MPs a ‘free vote’ on the bill. This will allow MPs to vote according to their own conscience, without being pressured by party whips. 

For once, this has turned parliament from an oppressive pit where MPs often fear that they will lose the party whip if they do not vote in line with their leaders, to a legislature concerned with critical thought when facing contentious issues. 

To put it frankly, the whipping system is the parliamentary tradition most in need of urgent reform. It severely undermines the belief that the UK is ruled by a representative democracy, as party whips demand MPs vote a certain way, contradicting the notion that they are ‘trustees’ voted in by their constituents to make autonomous decisions. In ‘Politics On The Edge’, former Tory MP Rory Stewart recalls having to ‘hide in a toilet’ in order to abstain from a whipped vote regarding putting VAT on Mountain Rescue, as his principles on the matter went against that of his party; this is one of many farcical examples of MPs forced to great lengths to avoid voting against their peers, out of fear they will be kicked out of their parliamentary party. 

What makes the whipping system even more problematic at this moment in time is the size of the parliamentary majority won by Labour earlier this year: 174 seats. This has created an ‘elective dictatorship’ for the Prime Minister who can now afford to remove the whip from dissenters voting on legislation according to their own consciences. The suspension of seven Labour MPs in July, including prominent and popular figures within the party such as former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, for voting to scrap the two-child benefit cap is a clear indication of this. 

Of course, there are strong arguments against the complete abolition of the whipping system. The constant use of free votes could potentially lead to a decline in party unity, thus weakening the governing party’s parliamentary majority and causing the kind of legislative gridlock the US Congress grapples with on a daily basis. 

However, these suggestions are flawed; the unity which party whips seek to preserve is merely artificial, and maintained out of compliance. Free votes would force parties to co-operate internally and strive for consensus, and as a result protect representative democracy by protecting parliament from abhorrent ‘elective dictatorship’. Let us suppose Labour MPs had a free vote on whether to cut the two-child benefit cap, or Conservative MPs had a free vote back in 2019 on whether to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Whilst we cannot know what the outcomes of these votes would have been, we can guarantee that the process would encourage MPs to think analytically without external coercion, and the result would therefore be more reflective of the wishes of parliament. In addition to this, MPs would not have the whip withdrawn for simply fulfilling their legislative role. This, to me at least, sounds like a fairer system. 

Sadly, party whips will most likely continue to dominate the legislative process for the foreseeable future, but the last few weeks have shown that an increased use of free votes does provide food for thought. If only Rory Stewart had been allowed to vote against taxing the Lake District!