If we want a healthy democracy, Labour should not be suspending MPs like us
House of Commons Chamber during Prime Minister's Questions in July 2025 (Credit: House of Commons / PA Images / Alamy)
4 min read
Westminster debates often extol the virtues of our democracy. But if democracy is reduced to a single moment – a general election every five years – rather than an ongoing way of governing, is it really worthy of the name?
Following our recent suspension for voting out of step with our party, we are left asking whether those in charge still accept that parliamentary scrutiny, debate and amendment leads to improved legislation and government policy. If those aspiring to run the country, whatever their politics, hold the role of MPs in apparent contempt, how can we expect anything else from the public?
As new backbench MPs, we almost certainly had an excess of optimism about what the role would entail – but being seen as little more than lobby fodder is a depressingly demeaning vision for a job in which your decisions shape the lives of every person in the country. A political system that treats attempts to amend and improve legislation for those we represent as a fundamentally disloyal act will only serve to undermine faith in democracy itself.
As we grapple with huge social and economic challenges in our country, political parties must decide whether they still believe that MPs have a genuine role as national legislators, guided by the experiences of their constituents and speaking on behalf of those without a political voice of their own.
Our constituents clearly expect us to make informed decisions on their behalf, and responding to complex legislation by necessity requires serious and detailed consideration. But if you accept MPs should think before they vote, you surely have to accept the possibility that they may, in good faith, come to a different conclusion from that of their frontbench colleagues. Or, when push comes to shove, is parliamentary process just a performance to give the appearance of deliberation, with the aim of justifying decisions already made by power structures within political parties – including those in unelected positions?
Of course, MPs have a duty to carry through the manifesto on which they were elected. But that’s rarely the real issue. To take our recent experience, no part of the Labour election platform proposed cutting financial support for disabled people, and it explicitly committed to reversing the decline of nature.
A well-trained AI could probably regurgitate party lines, vote as instructed and refer questions to the right public institution as effectively as we can
Some suggest that the ‘right’ way to seek change is through conversations behind closed doors. But if the guaranteed end point of every discussion is unswerving adherence to the frontbench position, meaningful representation and the resolution of genuine differences is impossible.
Similarly, becoming a hyperactive super-councillor or minor local celebrity cannot be seen as an alternative to ensuring legislation is as effective as possible in serving the interests of our constituents and the country as a whole. Fundamentally, the premise that wider concerns can be set aside for local projects will only ever foster a political culture incapable of stepping up to the national issues facing our country.
No doubt, for those who fight so hard to reach the top of the political ladder, it is tempting to want – and even expect – unimpeded power to enact one’s own worldview. But that will never be the reality of a healthy parliamentary democracy. Policy should always be improved through genuine debate in which what matters is the strength of an argument, not who made it.
Our constituents expect us to speak up, hold power to account, and challenge orthodoxy when it feels like it is heading in the wrong direction. If political parties now believe instead that the purpose of our elections is simply to choose the shade of the next temporary autocracy, we can hardly complain if our electorate increasingly drifts away from democracy altogether.
If the parliamentary function of MPs is really just to deliver speeches and trot through the right lobby regardless, the House of Commons has been reduced to little more than an extremely expensive amateur dramatics society.
Perhaps, if the national democratic role of MPs is no longer of genuine value, the government could consider saving some money by replacing the lot of us with chatbots? At the end of the day, a well-trained AI could probably regurgitate party lines, vote as instructed and refer questions to the right public institution as effectively as we can.
But if we do want a parliamentary democracy worthy of the name, our political leaders need to reconcile their notions of loyalty with the legislative role expected of MPs by our constituents – and be willing to accept challenge as an act of critical friendship rather than betrayal.
Chris Hinchliff is MP for North East Hertfordshire and Neil Duncan-Jordan is MP for Poole. Both were elected as Labour MPs but had the whip suspended in July 2025.
