Times ArticleThere has been some talk of removing the whip from some of the rebels, specifically Robert Marshall-Andrews, who is one of the most prominent rebels in recent Parliamentary history having rebelled a third of the time in this Parliament and 14% throughout his Parliamentary career.
As the article describes there are essentially two types of rebels:
The Serial Rebels - a ragtag band of Socialist Campaign Group MPs and disgruntled former ministers. Already, two of the new intake can be appropriately placed in this category. In all, about
The "Bridge too Far" Rebels - the rebels who were simply taken too far on this one issue by the government, and stood firm on principle; They generally have rebelled very little in the past. Four of the intake can be included in this category.
The rebellion over 90 days was roughly composed half and half from each group.
The prospect of expelling the Bridge Too Far Rebels as well as the Serial rebels would obviously lose the Government's majority and would therefore be a very stupid idea, though many would continue vote with the government.
The government could just get away with expelling the serial rebels, but the majority could come down to single digits, and then it only needs a few principled rebels to defeat the government. It would be inadvisable IMO.
Expelling only a couple, like Marshall-Andrews, would be an interesting move - it might lay down a marker to possible rebels not to go there, but it could backfire and have a few of the other serial rebels resign in protest.