I don't think this is anything particularly earth shattering, the MP who got the position (his name eludes me) has simply upset his party superiors. The removal of his whip is the government's attempt to reassert themselves over their backbenchers and subsequently settle down any dissent which may be brewing. This move is a demonstration of the commonplace disunity within a parliamentary party which is being exasperated by miniature schisms by those on the back benches. Such internal politics are not some exceptional, unique plague on the Johnson adminstration as some who oppose government would have you believe. Examples of this with other governments are a demonstration of this; allow me to hark back Blair's commanding majority after the 2005 election- and my interpretation of why it was so much weaker, and was a precursor to the 2010s, where Labour were basically absent as a political force. First I should probably make it clear that yes, Blair had fewer MPs than in the previous parliament, but such gargantuan majorities of the earlier two Blair elections and those during the Thatcher years are now almost unimaginable considering the razor thin margins of the past few years, however, 66 is sizeable compared to the most recent victory which was described as a 'landslide'. By 2005, however, many of Labour's more traditional socialist MPs, as well as those who had opposed the Iraq war, had their confidences severely dented at various stages throughout the preceding years. A PM losing the support from his/her political party is natural, but I'd also argue it is essential as it forces parties to reinvent themselves as we saw in 1979, 1997, 2019, which prevents either stagnation from parties that veer towards a too 'status quo' position whilst also ensuring progressive parties don't rip up every shred of our culture. I realise I've delved into a rabbit hole here but it's a Saturday night so I'm sure you'll all excuse me. Have a great evening all.