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 / The day the King marched on Parliament: King Charles I, five MPs and the road to civil war - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 102

In this episode we speak with historian Jonathan Healey about one of the most extraordinary days in parliamentary history when King Charles I entered the Commons Chamber with soldiers aiming to arrest five MPs. This dramatic moment, vividly recounted in Healey’s new book The Blood in Winter, marked a crucial turning point toward civil war. We explore the power struggles, propaganda, and the geography that shaped the fate of a nation and the Westminster Parliament. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / Parliament gagged by super-injunction? A conversation with Joshua Rozenberg - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 101

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg joins us this week to unpack the legal and constitutional ramifications of one of the most troubling intersections of government secrecy, national security, and parliamentary accountability in recent memory. Thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces were placed at risk of Taliban revenge attacks after a catastrophic government data leak in 2022 exposed their details. In response, ministers secured a “super-injunction” – so secret that even its existence could not be reported – effectively silencing public debate and preventing parliamentary scrutiny for almost two years. The breach, only revealed this week, led to a covert resettlement scheme which has already cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / One year on: How is Parliament performing? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 100

In our 100th episode, we take stock of Parliament one year after the 2024 general election. With a fractured opposition, a dominant Labour government, and a House of Commons still governed by rules designed for a two-party system, how well is this new Parliament really functioning? Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

News / Labour's welfare meltdown - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 99

It’s been a bruising week for the Government, as a Labour backbench revolt forced ministers to gut their own welfare reforms live in the House of Commons. We explore why Sir Keir Starmer appears to have such a poor grip on parliamentary management. Plus, House of Lords reform expert Professor Meg Russell explains why the hereditary peers bill may be a once-in-a-generation chance to tackle deeper issues — like curbing prime ministerial patronage and reducing the bloated size of the upper chamber. And in Dorking, faith and politics collide over assisted dying. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Submissions / Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties - Our evidence to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee

Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.