Why Keir Starmer has purged Labour rebels again
Keir Starmer's premiership began with discord, not harmony. Just three weeks after Labour's landslide victory, seven MPs had the whip suspended for voting in favour of a SNP amendment backing the abolition of the two-child benefit cap (something Starmer has since described in private as his personal priority).
Almost exactly a year on, and in the aftermath of the mass welfare revolt, Starmer has enacted new reprisals. Four Labour MPs – Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, Brian Leishman and Rachael Maskell – have had the whip removed for 'repeated breaches of party discipline' while an additional three – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – have lost their trade envoy posts (all seven were among the 47 Labour MPs who voted against the welfare bill in its amended form).
The latter move is unsurprising: trade envoys are appointed to support the government and, as such, are expected to follow collective responsibility. More contentious among MPs is the renewed targeting of backbenchers. But one Starmer ally was unrepentant: 'These people were openly and publicly organising against the government whose programme they were elected to deliver,' they said (three of the four whipless MPs were elected for the first time in 2024). 'Government doesn't work unless they feel the weight of rebelling against it in the flagrant way these guys did'.
In language that enraged some inside Labour, Maskell wrote in the New Statesman: 'What happened last Tuesday, on 1 July, was more significant than a policy climb-down. Power shifted. Keir Starmer's government was forced to recognise that autocracy is no way to rule: power is given by consent and can equally be taken away.'
By acting now, No 10 has sent a warning to would-be ringleaders of anticipated rebellions over special educational needs reform, the two-child limit and the forthcoming immigration bill. But the timing – a week before the summer recess – has stunned MPs who believed Starmer had entered a more conciliatory phase of his premiership – more carrot and less stick (Downing Street has spoken of 'the need to bring people with us').
And there are at least two unflattering historical comparisons that are being made among MPs. The first is with Tony Blair who endured numerous revolts but allowed rebels such as Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell to retain the whip even as they broke it hundreds of times. 'Both Blair and [Gordon] Brown were relaxed because they were always confident that they could win the argument and didn't need threats,' John McDonnell, who lost the Labour whip last July, told me.
The second is with Dominic Cummings. It was Boris Johnson's strategist who in recent history pioneered the tactic of removing the whip from rebels – 21 Conservative MPs suffered this fate in September 2019 after seeking to thwart a no-deal Brexit. This was ruthlessness but for a clear purpose: removing all obstacles to the UK leaving the EU. The challenge for Starmer – after multiple U-turns – is that even sympathisers remain uncertain what his is.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform puts power companies on notice over clean energy plans
Reform UK has informed major wind and solar developers that it would terminate their access to the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme if the party comes to power. Deputy leader Richard Tice sent a formal notice, warning companies that participating in the upcoming CfD auction (AR7) would be at their own risk. The CfD scheme currently guarantees renewable energy developers a fixed price for electricity, insulating them from market volatility and encouraging investment. Climate analysts warned that scrapping the scheme would deter investment, jeopardise British jobs, and increase the UK's reliance on foreign gas. Labour criticised Reform UK's position, stating it would discourage clean energy investment, threaten jobs, and put the nation's energy security at risk.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer and Merz sign biggest UK-German treaty since WW2 with deals on migration, trade and security
The UK and Germany have agreed to collaborate on migration, trade and security in the biggest treaty between the two countries since the end of the Second World War. Meeting at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, Sir Keir Starmer and the German chancellor Friedrich Merz also agreed to "work ever more closely" on a range of issues. Under the deal, Germany will close a loophole to allow police to seize small boats being used by migrants to cross the Channel. As part of moves designed to cut post-Brexit red tape, German school trips to the UK will also become visa-free by the end of the year, while British visitors to Germany will be able to use its passport e-gates by the end of August. The fast-track will initially be for frequent travellers but will eventually be extended to all British visitors, as part of Sir Keir's wider Brexit 'reset' with the EU. Sir Keir described the document, known as the Kensington Treaty, as 'very special'. The Labour leader said it was "evidence of the closeness of our relationship as it stands today" as well as a "statement of intent, a statement of our ambition to work ever more closely together". The treaty also includes a new taskforce designed to pave the way for direct train services between the two countries, which it is hoped could begin within the next decade. After the signing ceremony, the two leaders then travelled to Downing Street for a further meeting. Mr Merz said he had been "surprised" to learn that the agreement was the first UK-Germany treaty since the Second World War. "We had you in the European Union and we thought that was enough," he said. "But we are now learning that it's not enough so we have to do more on that." On small boats, Germany has agreed to make people smuggling to the UK an offence by the end of 2025. While people smuggling into fellow EU countries is a crime under German law, trafficking migrants into the UK has not been illegal since Brexit. Most asylum seekers who cross the Channel embark from the French coast, however Germany is viewed as a transit country for migrants and is frequently used as a storage hubs for boats and transport equipment. At least 22,000 people have already made the journey since January, putting 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, had won German agreement to change the law to criminalise assisting the smuggling of migrants to the UK in December with Mr Merz's predecessor Olaf Scholz. However, a change in government in Berlin meant that it had to be renegotiated. Prior to his visit, Sir Keir said: 'Chancellor Merz's commitment to make necessary changes to German law to disrupt the supply lines of the dangerous vessels which carry illegal migrants across the Channel is hugely welcome. 'As the closest of allies, we will continue to work closely together to deliver on the priorities that Brits and Germans share.' The leaders also agreed to jointly produce defence exports such as Boxer armoured vehicles and Typhoon jets and commit to developing their deep precision strike missile in the next decade, with a range of more than 2,000 kilometres. A series of commercial investments are being announced to coincide with the visit, worth more than £200 million and will create more than 600 new jobs. These include defence tech company Stark setting up a production facility in Swindon, its first outside Germany, and conversational AI firm Cognigy investing £50 million and expanding its UK team from 13 to 150.
New Statesman
7 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Diane Abbott v the Labour Party
Photo by Daniel Leal-Olivas - WPA Pool / Getty Images It has been over two years since Diane Abbott sent that letter to the Observer, in which she argued that while Irish, Jewish and Traveller people could experience 'prejudice', 'they are not all their lives subject to racism', comparing the impact on their lives to the prejudice faced by 'redheads'. At the time, it looked as though that letter might have ended her political career. Having spent the first years of his Labour leadership attempting to purge the party of the anti-Semitism that had plagued it under his predecessor, Keir Starmer's response was swift. Abbott immediately had the Labour whip suspended – a suspension which lasted almost until the 2024 election, raising questions about whether she would even be allowed to stand again as a Labour candidate in Hackney North and Stoke Newington. Abbott did stand, winning her tenth election to become the Mother of the House – the honorific for the longest-serving female MP – and a vocal critic of the government. If her letter had not been forgotten or forgiven, it appeared to have been brushed under the carpet, with all concerned thinking it more expedient to move on. But Abbott herself seems to have other ideas. In an interview today (17 July) on BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme, she was asked about her comments in 2023 – and doubled down on them. 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know,' she said. 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. I don't know why people would say that.' In the aftermath of the original row, Abbott withdrew her remarks and apologised 'for any anguish caused'. During her suspension, this apology was noted by those advocated for her to be readmitted into the Labour party. But asked today if she regretted the incident, Abbott responded: 'No, not at all.' The interview has sparked renewed backlash, with calls for her to be suspended again. The Labour Party has said it is looking at the interview 'incredibly seriously', with senior Labour sources saying she is likely to be suspended. But we should not be surprised that Abbott does not regret what she said. Her memoir A Woman Like Me , published in September 2024, made it very clear what she thought about both the letter she wrote and how it was received. She wrote then that while her comments may have been 'ill-judged' and 'clumsy', she stood by them. As in the Reflections interview, she tries to make a distinction between visible and less visible characteristics that might put an individual at risk of a prejudice (an argument which is interesting to consider in light of the demographics of her constituency, which includes the Hasidic community in Stamford Hill whose members are highly identifiable as Jews). Instead of an apology, this passage in the book is an apologia, a defence of the entire incident. The only error Abbott admits to being naïve about what the fall-out might be, which she takes as not a reaction to the implications of what she says but a personal attack: 'The vitriol of the response in the press and the public debate surprised me, although perhaps I should have known by that point not to be surprised by any attacks against me in the media.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe If there are any doubts about whether her views might be interpreted as anti-Semitic, she argues these should be cast aside in light of her electoral success in such a Jewish seat: 'If I really did hate Jewish people, I think that after more than thirty years my neighbours and constituents would certainly have worked that out.' Today's interview echoes this argument: 'I do get a bit weary of people trying to pin the anti-Semitic label on me because I've spent a lifetime fighting racism of all kinds and in particular fighting anti-Semitism, partly because of the nature of my constituency.' This was not a case Abbott made while the investigation into her comments was ongoing and she was waiting for the Labour Party to decide whether to restore the whip. There was some confusion over her status in the run-up to the election, with conflicting reports that Abbott had been banned from standing again for Labour (something she is understood to have found out herself via media reports) or that a deal was being brokered to give her back the whip on the understanding she would not seek re-election. Whatever the plan may have been, it went awry – and the result was that Abbott did indeed stand again. If the Labour leadership expected gratitude on her part for this decision, they will have been disappointed. Discussing her book at the Cambridge Literary Festival in April this year, Abbott told the audience: 'I was elected for the tenth time last year, but that was no thanks to the people around Keir Starmer.' 'I could have stood down last year,' she continued, 'but I thought, F you, F you' – a line met with a round of applause. 'If I have to crawl back to parliament on my hands and knees, I'm going back.' Abbott did not choose to bring up the comments that had lead to her suspension in the first place. But had there been an audience question on it, the answer is right there in the book. If she feels emboldened to maintain her side of the story now, it is no wonder. Abbott's position has clearly been strengthened by winning the row over whether she would be allowed to stand: as Mother of the House and a trail-blazing veteran MP, she regularly attacks the Government in the chamber on issues from Gaza to welfare spending, and has so far faced no sanction from her party. In a week in which four Labour MPs have lost the whip due to persistent disobedience, her comments today sent a message to the Labour leadership attempting to stamp out dissent on the backbenches: bring it on. [Further reading: Why Keir Starmer has purged Labour rebels again] Related
