In the UK the House of Commons is a legislative body that is elected to represent the people of constituencies. As a body it is supposed to represent the public's opinions on a wide variety of matters and to reflect the majority of the electorate. Politics is a network of alliances of people who believe similar things on some issues and differing things on other issues. Sometimes the electorate votes for the party and sometimes for the individual. Either way the people that are sent to Westminster have a responsibility to the public to consider matters and reach their own conclusions.
My reason for pointing out the above would be that the whole point of a committee or legislative body is that all viewpoints are to be considered so that the best approach is adopted. Currently the Party politics is designed around a theoretical outlook on a limited number of matters however parties have a spectrum that is still quite broad thus meaning that there cannot be consensus on all issues.
When a consensus on a particular issue is unlikely and the leadership of a party have decided the course they wish to follow then the Party whip is applied to gain the voting numbers in a hope of winning the action for the vote or against the vote. Regarding bills on ethical matters, the point on devolving the question from the executive authority to the legislative authority is not only to show consensus but to show equal culpability.
If Parliament takes a vote on military action, or police action or even euthanasia then the true decision of the body or responsibility of the body cannot be fairly assessed when the whip is applied. First to note is that a politician can refuse to accept the whip. However refusal will lead to punishment by exile to the back benches. So a principled stand removes the person from access to policy formulation and even making a positive contribution from the inside. Second to note is that a politician accepting the whip without question or consideration is not doing their job. So we end with a dictatorship in Parliament without real debate or evolution of policies.
The idea that a minister or shadow minister should resign for disagreeing on one or several policies is laughable. They can still implement the policies as passed by Parliament however they should be afforded the right to oppose the motion without consequence. Intimidating a public official is illegal, why shouldn't threatening the cabinet position of the MP also be considered the same thing?
Feel free to argue for or against the position. If you would like to vote, I have included a poll.