A WhatsApp purge in Parliament - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 73

News

A WhatsApp purge in Parliament? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 73

14 Feb 2025

©tashatuvango - stock.adobe.com

In this episode we dissect the fallout from Labour’s WhatsApp purge following the Andrew Gwynne affair and what it means for political communication at Westminster. We also explore the latest news from the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, discussing its focus on improving accessibility to Parliament, legislative scrutiny, and the debate over MPs holding second jobs.

LISTEN

First, we examine Labour’s swift response to a controversial WhatsApp group where MPs and councillors shared offensive remarks about colleagues, constituents, and even the late Queen. Keir Starmer wasted no time, suspending multiple party members in a move that has sent shockwaves through Westminster. Mark explores how WhatsApp has become a vital yet risky tool in modern politics and how this scandal could set a precedent for future digital leaks. As MPs rush to delete old messages, we ask: is this just the beginning of a new era of political exposés?

Next, we turn to parliamentary reform. The newly established Modernisation Committee has set out its priority strands of work: improving accessibility to Parliament, making Commons time more effective, and giving MPs greater certainty about the parliamentary schedule. But what will these reforms actually look like? And where does the overhaul of the legislative process fit into the picture?

Finally, we tackle the ongoing debate over MPs holding second jobs. Should parliamentarians be allowed to take on paid work outside Westminster? While some argue that experience in law, medicine, or business enriches political debate, others believe outside roles dilute MPs’ commitment to their constituents. The controversy surrounding high-profile MPs hosting TV shows - particularly on GB News - raises fresh questions about which types of second jobs should be restricted. Should media roles face tighter controls than other professions? And could stricter rules unintentionally discourage professionals from entering politics?

← Back to Parliament Matters homepage

Listen on our YouTube channel (captioned)

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Resources

House of Commons

Modernisation Committee Memorandum on its next steps
Modernisation Committee written evidence submissions
- Hansard Society submission to the Modernisation Committee
Standards Committee inquiry into outside employment and interests

Transcript

Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.

[00:00:00] Speaker: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk.

[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

[00:00:24] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy. And coming up this week.

[00:00:27] Ruth Fox: Labour's WhatsApp purge. What might it mean for future scandals?

[00:00:31] Mark D'Arcy: The Commons leader unveils her outline plans for more modernisation.

[00:00:36] Ruth Fox: And how far, if at all, should MPs be allowed to have a second job on top of their parliamentary work?

[00:00:48] Mark D'Arcy: So first Ruth, let's talk about the Andrew Gwynne affair. Now if you tilt your head just so in the middle of Parliament Square and listen very hard, you'll just be able to discern this repeated soft popping sound. It took me a while to figure out actually what it was. It's the sound of WhatsApp groups being deleted across Westminster, across parties, amongst ministers, amongst special advisers, amongst parliamentary staffers, who knows, even maybe amongst parliamentary clerks.

[00:01:15] And this is the result of the defenestration of the health minister, Andrew Gwynne. He was part of a, how can I describe it, somewhat louche WhatsApp group, which was called "TriggerMeTimbers", an amusing little pun, in which, amongst other things, they mocked all sorts of people, parliamentary colleagues, Her Majesty the late Queen.

[00:01:36] He talked about hoping a constituent would die soon, certainly wouldn't be able to vote in a forthcoming election, and a variety of other comments that varied from bad taste to outright third form school bully nasty.

Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.

Apple

YouTube Podcasts

Spotify

More ways to subscribe

Parliament Matters homepage

Latest / Highlights

News / 101 resolutions and a Finance Bill. How the Budget becomes law - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 117

It’s Budget week, so we look at what happens after the Chancellor sits down and how the days announcements are converted into the Finance Bill. We speak to Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, about whether Parliament is prepared to scrutinise the “dynamic alignment” with EU laws that may emerge from the Government’s reset with Brussels. And we explore the latest twists in the assisted dying bill story, where a marathon battle is looming in the New Year after the Government allocated 10 additional Friday sittings for its scrutiny. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Publications / Budget 2025: Letter to Chief Whip Jonathan Reynolds MP calling for an ‘Amendment of the Law’ motion

The form of the first Ways and Means motion tabled after the Budget – either an Amendment of the Law motion or an Income Tax (Charge) motion – determines how much scope MPs have to propose amendments when the Budget is translated into the Finance Bill. An Amendment of the Law motion provides broader scope for amendment and was standard practice until it was unilaterally dropped by the then Government in 2017. We have written to the Chief Whip urging the restoration of this procedural practice so that MPs can properly fulfil their constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the nation’s finances and ensure that consideration of the Finance Bill is a genuinely political debate, not merely a technical exercise.

News / Is the House of Lords going slow on the assisted dying bill? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 116

In this episode we look at the latest Covid Inquiry report addressing the lack of parliamentary scrutiny during the pandemic and the need for a better system for emergency law-making. With the Budget approaching, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, might discipline ministers who announce policies outside Parliament and why a little-known motion could restrict debate on the Finance Bill. Sir David Beamish assesses whether the flood of amendments to the assisted dying bill risks a filibuster and raises constitutional questions. Finally, we hear from Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP on their work to reset UK–EU relations through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Blog / The assisted dying bill: Is the number of Lords amendments a parliamentary record?

The assisted dying bill has attracted an extraordinary number of amendments in the House of Lords, prompting questions about whether the volume is unprecedented. This blog examines how its amendment count compares with other bills in the current Session, and what the historical data shows about previous amendment-heavy legislation.

Blog / The assisted dying bill: Will it run out of time? The parliamentary options explained

Over 1,000 amendments have been tabled to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in the House of Lords. This blog examines the progress of the Bill at Committee Stage in the House of Lords so far, explores the likelihood of a procedural impasse and what options exist if more parliamentary time is needed.