Talk:Chief Whip

Politics Start‑class High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Hello, Can anyone tell me what Yang Berhormats means. I was looking up the history of the Parliament whip. I found that, but not what Yang Berhormats mean or it's connection to the whip. thank you Pamela e mail autumbrezzz@aol.com

Dubious Citation

The claim that whips use blackmail and extortion is marked with a citation, but the website referenced does not appear to be a competent authority on the issue. I move to remove the source and ask for a new citation for this claim. Cpryby (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? [Note - I am not the person who cited this reference] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.48 (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although much is unknown about the way the Whip operates in pratice, it's not unlikely that the Whip might occassionally use these kind of dark arts to achieve their aim - something which is known to anyone working in Parliament. This has probably been less of an occurence with the kind of comfortable Government majority as under Labour since 1997 but when such majorities are slim, as they might be in the new Parliament, who knows what will happen. More information can be read on the W4MP website, which is written by and for MPs' researchers - http://www.w4mp.org/html/library/guides/0911_whips.asp, or in Rogers and Walters' 'How Parliament Works'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.126.183 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information

This page is incorrect. The information about the Chief Whip is just wrong. There is NO Chief Whip of the House of Commons. Each Party has their own Chief Whip who is responsible for the discipline of their own party. Nick Brown is NOT the Chief Whip of the House of Commons but rather the Chief Whip of the LABOUR PARTY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.60.231 (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is a position, and he is officially recognised as the chief whip! Indeed, he's often called the Patronage Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is the traditional cabinet post given to the chief whip of the governing party in order to allow him or her to sit in cabinet. So yes they are "recognised as the chief whip" but only of THEIR party NOT the House of Commons. There are currently THREE chief whips in the commons: Nick Brown MP for Labour; Partick McLoughlin MP for the Conservatives and Paul Burstow MP for the Liberal Democrats. This artcile appears to make the argument that there is ONE and only one chief whip for the whole of the commons. This is plain wrong. How could the labour chief whip attempt to keep conservative MPs in order or vice versa??

Agreed with the above. The Government Chief Whip is indeed the person who's right it is to occupy 12 Downing Street but every pary has their own Chief Whip. How this arrangement will function in the new coalition is, I gather, still up in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.126.183 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 21:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief Whip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014225153/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=770815 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=770815

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect formulation

Should the sentence : "when in 1990, Thatcher was challenged for the leadership the Chief Whip she could not win in the first round of ballots."

read :

"when in 1990, Thatcher was challenged for the leadership by the Chief Whip, she could not win in the first round of ballots." ?

As it is written, the sentence looks incomplete dand does not make any sense to me. Amagnien2 (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==What does it mean when one speaks of "removing the whip" or "removal of the whip?" Context makes it clear that it doesn't mean that the officer who holds the office of Whip is removed from the office or physically removed from the Chamber. Take for instance the sentences "An example of this during John Major's government was when nine Conservative MPs had the whip removed after voting against the government on its stance on the Maastricht Treaty, becoming known as Eurosceptics" So, they had "the whip" removed. Not a person called "the Whip" (with I should think a capital letter) but a THING. So what does that MEAN? And "There are some cases in which the whip is removed because an issue is a matter of conscience."2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Merger?

I suggest merging this page with the page for Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to make it more UK relevant. The global references are duplicated from the existing page on whips and should be removed. Atomix330 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This provides a useful overview of whipping systems and there are potentially at least eight head whip positions for Westminster plus three devolved Parliaments. Trying to do all of that under a Westminster-specific job seems unwise and likely to be offensive to those in devolved Parliaments. Jamesday (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]