How to be a whip
How to be a whip

It sounds rather violent. Who would want to be named after an instrument of punishment? The title of 'whip' in British Parliamentary (BP) debating derives from an important job in a British political party. The whip is responsible for discipline within the parliamentary party, making sure that MPs turn up to vote with the party line and having a word with them if they look like rebelling. Though whips are expected to be forceful, they are not, despite their title, meant to use physical violence.

There is no voting in BP, but the association with discipline is still relevant. The role of whip calls for a very high level of discipline and focus in the way you plan and in the way you deliver your speech. It is in many ways the hardest position to take, not least because, unlike other positions, you cannot prepare your speech ahead of the debate; you have to be entirely responsive.

Here are some tips to help you be the best whip you can be.

1. Listen, listen, listen

A good whip is above all a good listener. You need to be paying close attention to, and taking detailed notes on, every speech in the debate, so that when your time comes you can rebut the other side's arguments and summarise your own with confidence and accuracy. It helps to have a template on which you can enter the arguments; Win Every Debate, my handbook for BP debaters, provides exactly such a template.

This doesn't, of course, mean that you shouldn't be intervening by making points of information. You absolutely should, or you will never win the debate.

2. Keep the big picture in mind

An essential part of the whip's job is to find and express the point of clash. So, as you are listening to the other speeches, you need to keep a balance between mastery of the detail of the arguments and an awareness of the big issues behind them; you need to be looking for the defining difference between the two sides. This may be different from what you thought it would be before the debate started.

Then, when it comes to your time to speak, make sure that you refer constantly to the point of clash, using it as a focus for all your points and all your rebuttals. This will ensure that your speech is a coherent and persuasive whole rather than sounding like a 'Previously on ...' recap on Netflix.

3. Be ruthlessly disciplined with your time

A clear structure and effective use of time is highly desirable in any speech; it is absolutely essential in a whip's speech.

Here's how it should break down:

  • Thirty seconds rebut previous speech, state point of clash
  • Two minutes rebutting the other side's arguments (with constant reference to the point of clash)
  • Two minutes summarising your side's arguments (with constant reference to the point of clash)
  • Thirty seconds to take and respond to at least one point of information.

Have a stopwatch running on your phone in front of you to make sure you keep to these timings.

Here's an example of what a strong whip's speech might look like. The motion is This house would make climate change denial a criminal offence. The speaker is the opposition whip.

'We agree with the proposition that climate change denial is a dangerous lie. A lie because the evidence of scientific research and the evidence of our own eyes show us that climate change is real, and is happening now; dangerous because to deny and therefore do nothing about climate change would threaten the very survival of humanity.

Where we disagree is on how best to respond to this dangerous lie. They would respond by silencing deniers; we would respond by engaging with and challenging them. This is the point of clash: censorship or challenge. We have won this debate because our approach is both morally right, as it maintains the right to free speech, and also more effective, as it stands a much better chance of changing people's minds.

So, the prime minister was wrong to propose fines for anyone denying climate change. Such a measure would be immoral because it would deny people's right to speak freely, and it would be ineffective because it would turn climate change deniers into martyrs and victims, thereby attracting more support for their dangerous lies ...'

[And so on, systematically rebutting the proposition's arguments one by one, in each case referring to the point of clash.]

'The leader of the opposition's counter-mechanism of a programme of public education on climate change is a more moral and a more effective way of dealing with the problem. More moral, because it respects people's freedom to make their own decisions, and more effective because it is far more likely to persuade people to accept the reality of climate change and to act on this acceptance ...

[And so on, systematically summarising the opposition's arguments one by one, in each case referring to the point of clash.]

It's a tough job being whip. But it's also very instructive. Listening carefully to and responding to all the other speeches will teach you a lot about what works and what doesn't in those positions, and will make you more effective in those roles in future debates.