Discipline and Dissent: What the Labour Suspensions Say About Democracy

On 16th July 2025, 4 Labour MPs were suspended from the party following “repeated breaches of parliamentary discipline”. This comes after the government was forced into gutting its Welfare Bill in the face of a large-scale rebellion on its back benches. All 4 of the recently suspended MPs were vocal critics of the government in this recent standoff. 

The move has sparked debate about the government’s attitude to backbench dissent. From the moment he took office, the Prime Minister made it clear he expected complete loyalty from his MPs, expelling 7 MPs who defied the government to back scrapping the two-child benefit just weeks after the General Election. Such a tough line on rebellion is unusual, but not unheard of. In 2019, Boris Johnson famously expelled of 21 of his MPs, including big names like Rory Stewart, Ken Clarke, Justine Greening and David Gauke, over Brexit.

These examples mark a modern approach to rebellion from governments. It’s not so long ago that the likes of serial rebel Jeremy Corbyn defied the whip (and lived to tell the tale) hundreds of times while remaining a member of the Labour party. In previous parliaments, losing the whip was a punishment usually reserved for the most serious breaches of parliamentary standards. 

The Labour Party remains bullish in the face of criticism. As Abdi Duale, a member of Labour’s national executive committee told LabourList, “If you were elected as a Labour candidate, it shouldn’t be shocking that voting with the Labour whip is a bare minimum requirement.”

The 4 suspended MPs beg to differ. All of them defended their actions, saying that they were putting the interests of their constituents first. As one of the 4, Rachael Maskell MP, said, "I don't see myself as a rebel, but I'm not afraid to speak up about whatever is in my constituents' interests." 

So were the 4 MPs right to put their constituents first? Or is it fair for the government to expect them to take the party line?  The answer to this question is never simple. It depends on the MP, the political context, and the spirit of the age.  It is, however, a question that goes far deeper than an internal Labour Party dispute. In fact, it strikes right at the heart of one of the biggest weaknesses in UK democracy: our lack of a written constitution.

To understand why, we first need to understand the relationship between parliament and government in the House of Commons. The party with the most MPs in the House of Commons forms a government. Those MPs are elected, at least in part, on their party’s manifesto. The government proposes legislation to parliament. Parliament debates the legislation and votes on it. If a majority of MPs vote for the legislation, it is well on its way to becoming law.

It follows, then, that if the government can get all its MPs to vote the same way, it will win a vote in the House of Commons. If it fails, the government will endure a humiliating public defeat.

So how to avoid such humiliation? Enter the party whips. Their job is to persuade, cajole, and sometimes outright pressurize their MPs into voting with their party. It’s not just the government that has whips: most significant groups of elected representatives, whether that’s on councils or in Parliament, use them to maintain discipline within their own ranks.

The whipping system has many critics, and it’s easy to see why.  Most obviously, it can stifle meaningful debate and scrutiny. If MPs know they are always expected to vote with the whip, why bother to think about the issues at all? While it can be argued that MPs were elected on their party’s manifesto, what about legislation, like the recent disability cuts, that were not included in a manifesto? 

For all its faults, though, the whipping system is at the heart of how our democracy works and, when deployed effectively, keeps parliament running efficiently and fairly. 

While the average voter may not give party whips much thought, the consequences of the whipping system are played out after every General Election. When casting their vote, most will be guided by the political parties candidates represent (or that party’s leader). Very few politicians have succeeded in standing on a personal ticket. The 4 rebels will no doubt continue to work hard for their constituents, but it is unlikely that they will be able to hold their seats at the next General Election as independents.

That doesn’t stop voters wanting their MP to stand up for them when government policies are at odds with their interests. Loyalty to a party may be a foundational assumption of our system, but this doesn’t mean voters will swallow blind obedience. 

Indeed, a certain level of tension between the government and its backbenchers is essential to a healthy democracy. If voting with the party whip really was the “bare minimum” expectation, a party with a majority in parliament would be able to pass any legislation it wanted to, without meaningful debate or scrutiny. The official opposition can shout and scream all it likes, but when it came to any vote, government MPs would nod them through without a whisper of dissent. 

So what does this have to do with the Constitution? In most modern democracies, a written constitution is the final guarantor of democracy. In the UK, we have no written constitution. Instead, parliament is the sovereign power. This means that parliament can make, amend, or repeal any law. 

Unlock Democracy has long called for the development of a Written Constitution, which would act as a more concrete protection of our democratic rights. In most modern democracies, a written constitution enshrines fundamental rights of citizens, clearly defines the power (and limits) of the different branches of government, and offers protections for minority groups. 

Compare this with our current system. In theory, a government which holds a majority of just 1 in parliament could legislate to roll back constitutional norms and principles, or to undermine our democracy. Our final protection against such a move is the hope that enough MPs would vote against their own party - that is to say, they would rebel against any whipping operation - to block harmful legislation.

A written constitution, incorporating our inalienable rights, which could only be amended by a ⅔ majority in parliament would offer much more reliable protection to our democracy.

It is extremely rare for a single party to win such a large majority, so even the toughest of whipping systems would struggle to force through change without cross-party support. 

But drafting a constitution is a lengthy and contentious process, and in a world where authoritarianism is on the rise and democratisation in decline, swift action is needed to safeguard our democracy from a rogue government. 

An interim solution would be for parliament to provide more clarity on what the role of MPs actually is. There is currently no job description for MPs. Instead, according to a guide published by the House of Commons, it is left up to individual MPs to “find their own balance” between the sometimes conflicting duties. 

The 4 suspended MPs wanted to serve their party, but they wanted to serve their constituents, too. This is not an uncommon conundrum for MPs, but there is precious little guidance available to them on how to navigate it. And now, it seems that the government is aggressively pushing the view that Party loyalty should come before the needs of constituents in every case. This is a dangerous road to go down. 

This attitude might suit governments, but parliament must resist it. Unlock Democracy has drafted a proposed job description for MPs which explicitly states that ‘MPs have a solemn obligation to prioritise the welfare of their constituents’.  If adopted, this could help MPs balance competing loyalties with more confidence and provide some protection against the over-zealous whipping that has so far characterised this parliament. 

This matters because, as the government nurtures a culture of zero tolerance to rebellion, it is increasingly difficult for MPs to resist pressure to always toe the party line. This leaves far too much power in the hands of the Executive and is inadvertently weakening one of our most important checks against democratic backsliding. 

Until a written constitution is in place, we are ever more dependent on confident, empowered and occasionally defiant MPs.  After all, love them or loathe them, those rebels might soon be the only people standing between us and autocracy.