Liz Truss: What happened in the Westminster chaos that triggered the PM’s resignation?

The events of the House of Commons on 19 October made it clear that the Prime Minister had lost control. Conservative MPs were called for a vote, apparently about fracking, but may or may not be a vote of confidence. of liz truss government. It was alleged that Conservative whips treated their MPs inappropriately to vote with the government.

How did such confusion arise and is it a standard part of whipping operations in Parliament? Answer the key questions below.

Is it normal for a whip to shout at MPs while arranging a vote?

Whip shouting at MPs is not normal. If there is a rebellion, the whip will contact their allotted MPs to find out how they want to vote. Any MP saying they are unsure or will not obey the whip will be sent to the Chief Whip or Deputy Chief Whip (or even a cabinet minister) to have a more in-depth conversation where carrots and sticks are used. Will be done. To try to win them all around.

It is important to remember that whipping is a two-way relationship. Mutual respect needs to go in both the directions otherwise the system will collapse. The fracking vote was clearly a high-pressure moment for the whip, given that the prime minister’s position is precarious at best. The fact that the whips had to resort to shouting (and there were also allegations of scuffles and intimidation) suggests that the whips were losing control or had lost control.

Is it normal for a whip to physically force lawmakers into the chamber?

No, shouting at your MPs is also a sign of weakness rather than strength. If it is the case that Conservative MPs were physically beaten with whips, as claimed by Labor MP Chris Bryant, this is certainly not normal.

There are not many instances of this happening (although there have been allegations in the past). However, we have seen whips become more vocal during the past year. Back in January, there were allegations that Whip was blackmailing lawmakers during former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s more dangerous moments.

It should be pointed out, however, that the allegations made by Bryant were dismissed by Conservative MP Alexander Stafford, who said that he had “clear and strong conversations outside the voting lobby, with members of the government, of fracking.” confirms the protest, nothing more”. Despite this, the Speaker of the House of Commons announced that he would launch an investigation into Whip’s behavior.

Why is there confusion about whether MPs were voting on fracking or in a trust vote?

While there was certainly a three-line whip on this vote (meaning that the government expected all of its MPs to follow party lines without any expectation), there is less clarity on whether the government will consider the proposal in confidence. considered as an issue. government.

For context, the vote was on Labor’s proposal on fracking. If passed, it would give the opposition control over parliamentary business to bring forward a bill banning fracking in the UK. That is why the government decided to treat the motion as a matter of confidence, at least initially.

House of Commons rules (standing orders) give priority to government business most of the time, which effectively means that the government has complete control of the agenda. Although Labor’s proposal would have temporarily suspended the rule on a designated day, the government saw it as a test of its authority. Similar style motions were used during Brexit negotiations to force the then minority government to extend the Article 50 negotiation deadline.

The confusion stems from a message purportedly sent to Tory lawmakers from the government’s deputy chief whip just hours before the vote.

It said the vote was being treated as a vote of confidence in the government as losing would allow Labor to take control of the agenda. The memo called the vote “100% Hard 3 Line Whip!” referred to as.

However, at the end of the debate on Labor’s fracking motion, the climate change minister announced that the motion was not a vote of confidence.

This is the reason that when the MPS stood in line to vote, there was chaos in the division lobby. There were reports that the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip were not informed about the change in the plan. The saga continued into the early hours with reports from reporters receiving a message from Downing Street at 1.30 a.m. that the vote was always considered a vote of confidence and that the minister who closed the previous night’s debate It was wrong to suggest otherwise.

What will happen to those MPs who did not vote for the government?

Downing Street claims lawmakers who failed to vote against the government last night will receive “proportionate disciplinary action” – whatever that means. Given the confusion and anger already among MPs, it would be surprising to see any MP removing the whip. For his actions in this vote.

What we can be sure of, however, is that Tory MPs are deeply saddened at this point. The whipping operation was the best before this chaos and it would have been damaged even further by flip-flopping on the display – not to mention allegations that have been made of manhandling and bullying. Controlling Conservative MPs under these conditions – whoever the prime minister is – is going to be difficult.