Whips are MPs or peers in the House of Lords who are appointed by their political party to enforce party discipline and manage its contribution to the parliamentary schedule.

The term “whip” has three meanings. It refers to an individual MP or Lord who holds the role – but also to the written instruction they send to parliamentarians, as well as the parliamentary party’s whipping system as a whole. The name originates from the 18th century hunting term “whipper-in” – a person responsible for preventing hounds from straying from the pack.

Every major political party has a Whips’ Office. The work of whips is considered essential to the functioning of the parliamentary system at Westminster; it provides a channel of communication between a party’s leadership and its backbench members, and a means by which a government can reliably construct a parliamentary majority.

The whips’ offices

The government chief whip is a senior role, formally titled the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury. The holder attends cabinet. The current government chief whip is Jonathan Reynolds, appointed in September 2025.

The official opposition also has a chief whip. The current opposition chief whip is Rebecca Harris.

On top of this, both parties have a team of junior whips who are assigned to specific groups of MPs. All major parties in the House of Lords also have a whipping operation.

The chief whip of the Liberal Democrats in the commons is Wendy Chamberlain.

What does a whip do?

Party discipline

The most well-known function of whips is enforcing party discipline. They encourage and, where necessary, pressure their MPs to vote in line with the party’s official policy. Whips act as the “eyes and ears” of the party leadership, communicating the mood of backbenchers and flagging any potential rebellions.

Government whips may also encourage MPs to ask questions that shine a positive light on government policy, especially at prime minister’s questions. This tactic is referred to as “planting” a question.

Business management

Whips also have some responsibility over the legislative timetable. The government chief whip and their opposition counterparts meet regularly to negotiate the schedule of business in a process known as the “usual channels”.

The “usual channels” involve discussions between the chief whips of the major parties and their parliamentary business managers. These discussions are crucial for the smooth running of parliament and the passage of legislation. They allow for agreements to be reached on the timetabling of debates and the allocation of time for contentious legislation, sometimes preventing otherwise protracted procedural battles on the floor of the House.

Pairing

Whips manage the “pairing” system. This is where an MP from one party is matched with an MP from another to be absent for a vote without affecting the result.

Tellers

Whips often serve as tellers, meaning they are responsible for counting votes during commons divisions (votes) and announcing the result.

The whip as an instruction

The weekly instruction or circular sent out by whips to their MPs is also known as “the whip.” It informs members of the forthcoming parliamentary business and underlines how important it is for them to attend and vote. It is the responsibility of the whips, in communication with the party leadership, to categorise divisions (votes) into the following categories:

• A one-line whip is a simple guide to the party’s position on a vote; attendance is requested but not required.
• A two-line whip is a stronger instruction that attendance is required unless a prior arrangement has been made.
• A three-line whip is the strictest instruction. It is underlined three times and signals that attendance and voting in line with the party’s position is obligatory. Defying a three-line whip can result in disciplinary action, the most serious of which is having the party whip withdrawn, meaning expulsion from the parliamentary party.

  Evaluation question

  Does the threat of withdrawing the party whip undermine an MP’s ability to represent the interests of their constituents over the demands of the national party machine? Placement after “…meaning expulsion from the parliamentary party.”

In some cases, government whips will declare a vote to be a “vote of confidence”. Although this can apply to any commons vote, it is typically used as a tactic of last resort to ensure the passage of a flagship piece of legislation. MPs who vote against the government in these circumstances are treated as having withdrawn their confidence and may have the whip suspended.

A whipping operation in practice

Whips are generally held responsible when there is a breakdown in party discipline – which can result in a government losing a vote.

Party discipline is even more crucial when a governing party holds a small majority or no majority at all (such as in a hung parliament). Shortly after the prime minister, Jim Callaghan, entered Downing Street, his Labour Party lost their parliamentary majority. He was initially forced to negotiate a deal with the Liberal Party, known as the Lib-Lab pact. But the pact ended in the summer of 1978, depriving the government of 13 crucial parliamentary votes. Labour was left to rely on ad-hoc support and an often innovative whipping operation.

Theresa May’s minority government from 2017 to 2019 struggled to maintain party discipline over a series of crucial votes relating to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU). On 15 January 2019, May’s Brexit withdrawal agreement was rejected by 432 votes to 202 – the largest defeat for a sitting government in modern parliamentary history.

A second ‘meaningful vote’ on May’s Brexit deal was held in March 2019. MPs again rejected the withdrawal agreement by 391 votes to 242. A third meaningful vote on May’s deal was rejected by 244 votes to 286 on 29 March.

May’s inability to pass her withdrawal agreement ultimately led to her downfall as prime minister.

In July 2025, Keir Starmer as prime minister was forced into a dramatic climbdown over his government’s flagship welfare reform bill, just 90 minutes before voting began in the House of Commons. Faced with a significant backbench rebellion that threatened his first legislative defeat, Starmer sanctioned a series of sweeping eleventh-hour concessions. In the days leading up to the vote, a rebel ‘reasoned amendment’ to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill secured over 120 signatures from Labour MPs.

Blame for the saga was attributed, in part, to poor engagement between the government and backbench MPs. The chief whip, Alan Campbell, was replaced by Jonathan Reynolds in a subsequent reshuffle (September 2025).

Opposition parties can also suffer rebellions at the hands of backbench MPs. In July 2015, almost one quarter of the Labour Party voted against the Conservative government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill at second reading – defying the party whip which instructed Labour MPs to abstain. This decision to abstain, taken by interim Labour leader Harriet Harman, caused a furious backlash within the party, particularly from its left wing. It became a defining issue in the ongoing leadership contest. Jeremy Corbyn was the only candidate to vote against the bill. Overall, 48 Labour MPs voted against the proposed legislation.

In October 2003, several Conservative MPs openly criticised the then party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, after he imposed a three-line whip instructing his colleagues to vote against an amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. The amendment aimed to allow unmarried couples to adopt children, effectively enabling same-sex couples to do so. Senior Tory MP Patrick Cormack reflected the views of many of his colleagues by describing the matter as “free vote territory.”

In total, eight MPs rebelled against Duncan Smith in the vote: John Bercow, Ken Clarke, David Curry, Julie Kirkbride, Andrew Lansley, Andrew Mackay, Francis Maude and Michael Portillo. (A larger number of Conservative MPs abstained.) Bercow, the future speaker, resigned from the shadow cabinet in protest at the leadership’s position.

MPs who regularly defy the whips are sometimes referred to in Westminster parlance as the “usual suspects”. Whips may not even bother trying to persuade those they see as irretrievably antagonistic.

MPs who wish to leave a party and the oversight of the relevant whips’ office can choose to resign the whip.

Whipping tactics: the carrot and stick

There are a few approaches taken by whips in trying to persuade MPs to vote for legislation they do not instinctively agree with. Whips tend to employ a “carrot and stick” approach; the largest and most effective “carrot” is the possibility of a future promotion to junior ministerial office or higher. Regular rebels will typically find themselves barred from future promotions – lest the party send a message that rebellion is tolerated. This creates an incentive system that encourages MPs to follow the government line.

The punitive tools available to whips – the “stick” – are often more varied, and frequently more inventive. Some of the most innovative find themselves the subject of rumour and speculation.

Gavin Williamson, the chief whip from July 2016 to November 2017, kept a tarantula on his commons desk. The tarantula, named Cronus, was seen as a symbol of the “dark arts” sometimes deployed by chief whips to keep their parties in line.

Christian Wakeford, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour in 2022,​​ later alleged he had been subjected to blackmail by the government Whips’ Office during his time as a Tory MP.

He cited a threat that funding for a new high school in Radcliffe would be withheld if he did not vote with the government on free school meals. He claimed that Williamson, who was education secretary at the time of the alleged “threat”, was responsible.

Wakeford said: “I was threatened that I would not get a school for Radcliffe if I did not vote in one particular way. This is a town that has not had a high school for the best part of 10 years.

“How would you feel when they hold back the regeneration of a town for a vote. It didn’t sit comfortably. That was the start of me questioning my place, where I was and ultimately to where I am now.”

Williamson responded: “I don’t have any recollection of the conversation as described but what I do remember is working tirelessly with Christian and others in order to be able to deliver this school, which I did.”

The harshest official punishment a whip can impose on rebellious MPs is suspension from the parliamentary party, known as the withdrawal of the whip.

On 23 July 2024, seven Labour MPs had the whip withdrawn after voting for a Scottish National Party (SNP) amendment to the king’s speech calling on the new Labour government to scrap the two-child benefit cap.

In February 2025, the whip was restored to four of those suspended MPs, namely Imran Hussain, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne and Rebecca Long-Bailey. However, Zarah Sultana, John McDonnell, Apsana Begum remained as independent MPs because, in the judgment of the Whip’s Office, they had continued to be critical of the government, reports and briefings indicated. In September 2025, the whip was restored to Begum and McDonnell.

In July 2025, four Labour MPs had the party whip suspended after rebelling against the government, most notably on its flagship welfare bill. The group, which featured Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell, were described as “persistent rebels” by party sources. Following four months sitting as independent MPs, the group had the whip restored on 7 November 2025. This followed what were described as “constructive discussions” with the chief whip, Jonathan Reynolds.

Any frontbencher who does not follow the party whip is expected to resign their position or face being sacked.

In November 2023, 10 Labour MPs stepped down from positions in order to vote in favour of an SNP amendment to the King’s Speech in the House of Commons calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza – defying the instruction set out by the party’s frontbench. Labour had tabled its own motion, making a more moderate appeal for a “humanitarian pause” in the conflict and ordered its representatives to support that stance.

In July 2012, 91 Conservative backbenchers rebelled against the House of Lords Reform Bill – the largest rebellion of the 2010-2015 parliament. Conservative MP Conor Burns resigned as a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) over the proposals, so he could vote against them. Tory MP Angie Bray was dismissed as a PPS after voting against the bill.

The removal of the whip may also be used to punish behaviour outside parliament that the party leadership wishes to condemn. For instance, in February 2024, Lee Anderson had the Conservative whip suspended for refusing to apologise for comments made about the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. In an interview, Anderson had claimed that “Islamist” had “got control” of the mayor.

How a botched whipping operation ended Liz Truss

A botched whipping operation over a vote on 19 October 2022 ultimately triggered the downfall of Liz Truss as prime minister.

The government, which had recently lifted the moratorium on fracking, faced an “opposition day” debate on this topic tabled by the Labour Party. The official opposition triggered a debate on the issue in order to drive a wedge between the government and anti-fracking Conservative MPs, who, after all, had been elected on a 2019 manifesto that pledged to keep the ban.

The Labour motion effectively forced Conservative MPs to either back fracking or rebel against their government.

In response, the government whips’ office, led by Wendy Morton as chief whip, attempted to maximise pressure on backbench MPs to prevent any rebellion. Senior government figures briefed that the vote was being treated as a vote of confidence in the prime minister. Under such terms, any Conservative MP who abstained or voted with Labour would likely face expulsion from the parliamentary party.

This strategy led to chaos on the floor of the commons. Shortly before the vote, the climate minister, Graham Stuart, announced that “quite clearly, this is not a confidence vote”. The calculated intervention directly contradicted the instruction delivered by the whips, causing widespread confusion.

This was followed by angry scenes in the voting lobbies. One Labour MP, Chris Bryant, alleged that he saw Tory MPs being “physically manhandled” into the government voting lobby.

The government defeated the Labour motion by 326 votes to 230. However, in the immediate aftermath, both Morton, and her deputy, Craig Whittaker, were widely reported to have resigned. They were then reported to have un-resigned, following conversations with and pressure from Downing Street.

Veteran Conservative backbencher Charles Walker famously voiced his anger at the perceived incompetence of the government.

He told BBC News: “I’m livid and I really shouldn’t say this but all those people that put Liz Truss in No 10, I hope it was worth it, it was worth it for the ministerial red box, as it was worth it to sit round the cabinet table, because the damage they have done to our party is extraordinary.”

Truss announced her resignation as prime minister the following day.

In October 2022, the serjeant at arms was asked to conduct an investigation into reports of scuffles outside the “No” lobby.

The report stated: “It is very clear that the general atmosphere in the lobby was intense and several of those present found it very upsetting, both at the time and afterwards.

“However there is no evidence that anyone was bullied into voting in a particular way: two government members were particularly keen to seek clarity from the whips about the status of the vote, given the importance of fracking as an issue in their constituencies (one of whom was identified as the apparent victim of bullying).”

He added: “While there was some physical contact between members, there is no evidence from our investigation that this was any more than a gesture of comfort.”

Morton, who was a key political ally of Truss, later said that the vote amounted to “chaos”.

She said she initially resigned as chief whip “on the basis that No 10 were interfering” in the vote.

She added: “I feel so strongly about the integrity of the chief whip and the red lines that I have… But the prime minister would not accept my resignation so I continued.”

In November 2022, Sir Graham Brady, the influential chair of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers, said he had decided to call Downing Street to tell Truss her position was “unsustainable” following the “utter chaos” in the commons.

Additional resources

• House of Commons Library – Government Chief Whips and Deputy Whips since 1945: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04417/