logo
Will Labour's backbencher purge have unexpected concequences?

Will Labour's backbencher purge have unexpected concequences?

BRIGHTON, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 22: Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott addresses delegates in the main hall of the Brighton Centre on the second day of the Labour Party conference on September 22, 2019 in Brighton, England. Labour return to Brighton for the 2019 conference against a backdrop of political turmoil over Brexit. (Photo by)
There are five fewer Labour MPs as this week closes than there were when it started. Four MPs – new intake serial rebels Chris Hinchliff, Brian Leishman and Neil Duncan Jordan, plus 2015 intake critic Rachael Maskell – had the whip removed on Wednesday. On Thursday, following a radio interview in which she defended the controversial 2023 letter that saw her suspended from the Labour Party, Diane Abbott is once again an independent, rather than Labour, MP.
The question of who, exactly, gets to be a Labour candidate or a Labour MP has been a very live one in the last few years. The selections that took place in advance of the general election were tightly controlled. I remember being genuinely surprised in 2022 when Maurice Mcleod, a councillor considered a strong candidate in the Camberwell and Peckham selection, was blocked from the longlist (I wasn't the only one; well liked moderate MP for Vauxhall Florence Eshalomi said she thought Mcleod should have been able to put himself in front of members). By the time of the general election, there had been many such cases of candidates not making the cut (most dramatically and acrimoniously in Broxtowe, a series of events surely not unrelated from the fact that many of the local councillors have now gone independent). I can't pronounce on the reasonings behind each of these, and the party was very clear that it was merely interested in high quality candidates. Taking a step back, however, it was possible to discern a very distinct factional direction. I flippantly took to telling people that the average 2019 era Labour candidate was a public sector worker with some questionable tweets, and the average 2024 candidate was a lobbyist with a good half marathon time.
The instincts for control that guided Labour's selection processes have continued into its party management (along with some of the same personnel). The opposition that was quick to block or ditch candidates is now a government quick to suspend the whip. In this regard it's vastly more trigger happy than the last Labour government. There are, however, a number of problems with this approach. Vet as hard as you like, it is just not possible to create a completely, always and forever, loyal PLP when you win so many seats and you are trying to push through legislation – like the welfare bill – unpopular with your base.
Let's consider Chris Hinchliff. Labour did not put resources into winning his North East Hertfordshire seat, and the selection process (he was picked after the election was called) did not receive the scrutiny that Labour's pick in, say, Camberwell and Peckham did. But on the day they did win it – and almost certainly won't hold it. No favours owed for selection, no realistic possibility of resource in future, or promotion – there's not much to motivate Hinchliff to follow the party line rather than his conscience. The same applies to Neil Duncan-Jordan, who was a Unison official before becoming the Labour MP for Poole last year with a majority of just 18. When he was suspended earlier this week, he said that he 'couldn't support making disabled people poorer' and that 'although I've been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party today, I've been part of the Labour and trade union movement for 40 years and remain as committed as ever to its values'. In short, Duncan-Jordan is just a normal Labour guy and he, like the membership of the party as a whole, didn't like the proposed PIP cuts. When you win seats like Poole and North East Hertforshire, you end up having selected a whole bunch of normal Labour types (and you probably made their activists go elsewhere at the election, creating a sense that they owe less to the party than more caressed candidates). And in truth, my glib line about lobbyists and half marathon times has proved ungenerous: on the whole, the PLP is more interesting than I might have expected a year ago.
Let's also think about Diane Abbott. Her decision to re-litigate her 2023 letter is a harder to defend bone of contention than the general rebelliousness that has seen the other ejected, but she also has status the others don't, as an icon of the party and a genuinely famous person. She was the first black woman MP; she has been a regular on television and radio for decades; she ran to be Labour leader and was shadow home secretary. Fundamentally, lots of people know who Diane Abbott is and not very many know who Chris Hinchliff is. In the last election I knocked on the doors of people many miles from her constituency who said they wouldn't vote Labour because of how she had been treated; it's not a comment on his merits to say I struggle to imagine Brian Leishman provoking this response.
This Labour Party's instinct for control and a church that can be broad as long as it's quiet about it is longstanding. When the world changes, however, you need to change with it: there is now a space opening up to the left of Labour, and an overall move from the two party system to something more complicated. Independents, Greens, and whatever ultimately emerges from Zarah Sultana's recent announcement all now present real threats to Labour – and will presumably want to court the newly un-whipped MPs. Whether or not they're successful (I think people often under-rate the emotional connection politicians have to Labour, so would be hesitant to predict any concrete defections), it's not an ideal position. Keeping so many troops in line is a genuinely difficult proposal. The party are unlikely to reconsider its heretofore very decisive view on whether it is in fact better to have your opponents in your tent pissing out than outside pissing in – but perhaps they should.
[See also: A day out with Jeremy Corbyn's new party]
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UK will recognise Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends ‘appalling situation' in Gaza, Starmer vows
UK will recognise Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends ‘appalling situation' in Gaza, Starmer vows

The Independent

time19 minutes ago

  • The Independent

UK will recognise Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends ‘appalling situation' in Gaza, Starmer vows

Keir Starmer and his senior ministers have agreed to recognise to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends its starvation tactics in Gaza. The prime minister held an emergency virtual cabinet meeting where he laid out his plan for peace agreed over the weekend with French President Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz. In an ultimatum to Benjamin Netanyahu's government, he used the threat of recognising Palestine in September to try to force Israel to change tactics. A readout from the cabinet meeting stated: 'The Prime Minister said it had been this Government's longstanding position that recognition of a Palestinian state was an inalienable right of the Palestinian people and that we would recognise a Palestinian state as part of a process to peace and a two state solution. 'He said that because of the increasingly intolerable situation in Gaza and the diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two state solution, now was the right time to move this position forward. 'He said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two state solution.' Pressure had been mounting on Sir Keir to recognise Palestine as a state, but the decision to put the ball in the Israeli government's court was a compromise to satisfy two competing factions in his cabinet. Senior Cabinet members who support plans to recognise a Palestinian state include deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, energy secretary Ed Miliband and foreign secretary David Lammy. Mr Lammy is at a conference in New York discussing recognising Palestine as a state where he is due to speak. But on the other side chancellor Rachel Reeves, tech secretary Peter Kyle, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, who have been officers of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), were worried recognition would 'reward Hamas'. Politically Sir Keir had been helped by Donald Trump when they met in Scotland on Monday, where the US president said he did not object to the prime minister taking a position on state recognition. This undermined the US State Department's opposition to the move, expressed angrily by secretary of state Marco Rubio last week, when President Macron announced France would recognise a Palestinian state. At home Sir Keir has been threatened by the creation of Jeremy Corbyn's new party which includes the former Gaza independents who unseated senior Labour MPs at the last election and came close to defeating Ms Mahmood and health secretary Wes Streeting. Added to that more than 250 MPs from nine different parties have called for Palestine to be recognised as a state. This included more than 90 of the new Labour MPs elected last year.

UK will recognise state of Palestine by September unless Israel meets conditions
UK will recognise state of Palestine by September unless Israel meets conditions

STV News

time19 minutes ago

  • STV News

UK will recognise state of Palestine by September unless Israel meets conditions

The UK will recognise the state of Palestine by September, at the UN General Assembly, unless Israel agrees to a peace plan based on a two-state solution and the free flow of aid into Gaza. Hamas must also agree to a ceasefire and to release remaining hostages. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has faced mounting calls in recent weeks to recognise Palestinian statehood immediately. Downing Street previously said Starmer was working with France and Germany to 'bring about a lasting peace' with US President Donald Trump. Starmer plans to share details with Arab states and other key allies in the coming days. Recognition of a Palestinian state is supported by more than 200 MPs and was a commitment in Labour's election manifesto. The Prime Minister's official spokesman previously said: 'This week, the Prime Minister is focused on a pathway to peace to ensure immediate relief for those on the ground, and a sustainable route to a two-state solution. 'We are clear that the recognition of the Palestinian state is a matter of when, not if, but it must be one of the steps on the path to a two-state solution as part of a wider plan that delivers lasting security for both Palestinians and Israelis.' Amid international alarm over starvation in Gaza, Israel announced at the weekend that it would suspend fighting in three areas for ten hours a day and open secure routes for aid delivery. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Labour are engulfed in major online safety furore
Labour are engulfed in major online safety furore

The National

time19 minutes ago

  • The National

Labour are engulfed in major online safety furore

It worked for rapper Kendrick Lamar; why not Technology Secretary Peter Kyle? Kyle delivered a quite extraordinary, spittle-flecked response to critics of the Online Safety Act on Tuesday morning. Nigel Farage is on the same side as paedophiles, Kyle spat. Not just any paedos either, the minister said that Farage would be on the same side as Jimmy Savile, were he still alive. Going even further later on, he said that anyone wanting to overturn the controversial legislation is 'on the side of predators'. That includes more than 400,000 people who have signed a petition calling for the Act to be repealed and could expand to organisations like Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship and the parent companies of Facebook and Wikipedia. Even Ian Russell, the chair of the Molly Russell Foundation, a child protection charity, said that the Act was not up to snuff and had to be replaced by something even tougher. Who knew paedophiles had so many allies? Quite why Labour are defending a Tory piece of legislation – the Act was passed by the Conservatives but is only coming into force now – is a question with a couple of answers. The first is a political one. 'Protect our children' has become a potent rallying cry for the right, identifying bogeymen in everyone from asylum seekers to drag queens. This is Labour's counterblast: You're putting children at risk. If you're against us, you're on the same side as child abusers. READ MORE: Labour respond as 400k demand repeal of Online Safety Act As a strategy it could work. Many parents will doubtless be glad to see the Government come down hard on the worst bits of the internet. It will certainly be welcomed by many that unregulated social media companies will be held responsible for removing content like child pornography and blocking children's access to sexual content or instructions for committing acts of self-harm or suicide. There is unlikely to be great amounts of sympathy for arguments about the sanctity of end-to-end encryption or free online speech. The flipside: are Reform UK railing against the Act – which this week enforced age restrictions on adult content – as a means to target the porn-addicted, misanthropic young men likely to make up its youth base at the next election? Quite possibly. (Image: James Manning/PA) The other reason that Kyle and his Labour comrades so aggressively back the Act is that they genuinely believe in it. They do not care about warnings that by introducing strict age checks, people might be pushed into downloading software to evade restrictions and access the darker corners of the internet. Demand for virtual private networks, which allow people to browse the web away from the prying eyes of regulators, is soaring. Kyle, as a rational being, must consider it plausible that the Act could have unintended consequences, though he shows no signs that he does. He seems to believe that the intention of legislation is its effect. He appears to care only about why laws were introduced, not how they work. Keir Starmer's response to criticism of the Act earlier this week took a similar approach: 'I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.' It surely cannot be beyond him that the two are not mutually exclusive. So it was with the SNP's doomed Named Person Scheme. Ministers were warned in 2016 that while the aim of the policy was 'unquestionably legitimate', it would violate people's human rights. It took another three years before it was officially ditched by the Scottish Government. With Donald Trump's sidekick JD Vance threatening consequences for governments insufficiently amenable to his definition of free speech, perhaps Starmer and co might catch up with the laws of unintended consequences sooner rather than later.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store