The major parties in the Commons appoint “Whips” to marshall their MPs and induce them to vote in accordance with the party line.
The practice is an understandable means of maintaining party unity, and is arguably desirable as a way to ensure government stability. But it is also inherently undemocratic. For example, if two parties have 60% and 40% of the seats, then whipping can pass the “Bring Back Hanging” bill with a 60%:40% majority despite the fact that 60% of the MPs personally oppose it (e.g. 40% of the 60% plus 90% of the 40%).
But the whipping is not just done by quiet persuasion. If it were then the Whips’ attention would also be on persuading MPs from other parties, in the same way as canvassers at election time.
No, whipping is there primarily to maintain party discipline. And Whips seem very much inclined to use threats and promises, implicit or explicit, to induce MPs to follow the party line and vote as required. Is that not corruption? Should such coercion not be regarded as a very serious criminal activity, deflecting MPs from their duty to act as honourable and independent representatives of their constituencies? Particularly when, as too often happens, the party line is contrary to undertakings made at the time of election.