logo
Bluster, bullying, suspensions – this is no way to run the Labour party

Bluster, bullying, suspensions – this is no way to run the Labour party

The Guardian17-07-2025
This is a sign of weakness, not strength. To suspend four MPs for rebellion suggests a lack of authority and a lack of nerve, not a sense of confidence. Bullying and threats are no way to manage a party, but a signal that Labour has lost control, with its crude methods in cutting winter fuel payments and its attempt to cut disability benefits. As MPs head off for the summer next week, Keir Starmer and the Labour whips hope they will be mulling over their futures, having been warned of the severe penalty for disloyalty. But I doubt that's the message most will absorb.
More than 120 MPs signalled their opposition to the proposed welfare cuts, and many more agreed but didn't sign the amendment. Was the solution to sack the lot? Or just the token 'ringleaders'? In fact there were none, just a strong belief among backbenchers of all varieties that not only were the cuts wrong, they were badly done and would be politically damaging, as indeed they were. Those suspended are of the soft left, by no means Corbynites. Rachael Maskell is a bit of a moral grandstander, annoying other MPs by suggesting her conscience is clearer than theirs, but suspensions tend to play to those tendencies (though the four will find that once they are no longer representing Labour, they will lose their voice with broadcasters).
A Labour aide boasted gleefully that these 'heads on spikes' were intended as a warning shot to the new intake of MPs not to rebel, but it sounds like petty revenge for their success in forcing the leadership into U-turns. Don't even think of sacking Diane Abbott again: it didn't work out well. She would be away in the Lords now had the party not blundered last time, making her dig in her heels very effectively.
Starmer is building quite a record for stamping down on dissent. He is the first prime minister to suspend the whip from MPs in his first month in power. In fact, during that first month, when he punished the seven who voted for an SNP motion to abolish the two-child benefit cap, he suspended more MPs than Tony Blair did during his decade in No 10, despite frequent rebellions. One senior Blair aide said Jeremy Corbyn wasn't expelled even though 'he voted more often against than for the government' (not strictly true, although he did vote against the government more than 400 times). I put that to a senior No 10 source, whose riposte was: 'Well, Blair should have done! It would have saved us a lot of years in opposition.' Unlikely. If not Corbyn, it would have been someone else of his ilk.
Parties need discipline. How did Blair maintain it sufficiently, without expulsions? A Blair aide said he paid close attention to his backbenchers, holding a daily morning meeting with the chief whips Hilary Armstrong and Jackie Smith, and weekly meetings with a rotating roster of MPs including regular rebels – even Dennis Skinner – to test the contents of his speeches ahead of time.
Aides such as parliamentary private secretaries were delegated to nurture various groups of MPs – the women, the union supporters, the religious, the leftists, those with particular political issues or constituency concerns, those in marginals who kept their ears closest to the ground. If Blair disagreed with them, he said so and explained why. 'Being listened to matters,' said the aide. But the whips weren't supine or toothless. 'They didn't threaten but they could make MPs' lives miserable,' the aide added, with measures such as denying pairing.
Things will get worse when MPs return from summer recess, with the autumn budget, the review of services for children with special educational needs and disabilities and a child poverty strategy that needs to rescind the two-child benefit cap, despite 60% of the public in favour of keeping it, including half of Labour voters.
There will be many more opportunities for conflict in the party. The problem is profound. This is not about a handful of usual suspects, but a deep unease about the direction of the government, or whether it even has a direction beyond a random collection of policies. Discipline only works if there is a strong story that defines where a government is heading and why. Too many MPs do not believe Starmer's story, especially after the U-turns they forced seemed to send Labour in a better, more coherent direction. Here's an example: it's brilliant that Starmer announced on Thursday that Labour will lower the voting age to 16, but where's the more radical constitutional reform?
MPs can get arrogant when they forget they owe everything to the party that selected, financed and organised for them. However talented or beloved they think they are, few manage to buck the trend of national swings. But that also makes them more anxious about the success of the national party. Many know they won't be back after the next election, having won implausible seats by small majorities. The hailstorm of bad economic news in recent days depresses spirits: growth is lower than expected, inflation higher and unemployment up. 'Give me lucky generals,' Napoleon is reputed to have said, but Rachel Reeves so far has not been one of them. Opinion polls are dismal, with Labour overtaken alarmingly by Reform UK. The summer holiday may be approaching, but the party's MPs will go home glum.
The way to bring them back in better fettle in September is to sharpen Labour's purpose, build on the best policies of the first year and stop making others that alienate supporters without gaining new ones. Listen to MPs. Remember Aesop's fable of the north wind and the sun competing to make a man remove his cloak. The north wind fails when it blows with all its might because the man wraps his cloak tighter around him, but when the sun shines he takes it off in the heat. Persuasion works better than force.
Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fox News' Mark Levin shrugs off starvation in Gaza because malnourished Palestinian baby has pre-existing health issues
Fox News' Mark Levin shrugs off starvation in Gaza because malnourished Palestinian baby has pre-existing health issues

The Independent

time20 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Fox News' Mark Levin shrugs off starvation in Gaza because malnourished Palestinian baby has pre-existing health issues

Fox News host Mark Levin suggested that the widespread famine currently gripping Gaza is being grossly exaggerated, specifically referencing a New York Times story about a malnourished Palestinian child with pre-existing health conditions to make his point. Levin, a pro-Israel hawk and member of Donald Trump's Homeland Security Advisory Council, also railed against international leaders accusing Israel of conducting a campaign of starvation in Gaza, complaining that the Israelis shouldn't be 'told you need to feed the enemy while you defeat the enemy' amid a defensive war. In recent weeks, there has been a sea change both domestically and internationally when it comes to Israel's war against Gaza. With more and more reports of Palestinian children dying of malnutrition as Israel blocks most food aid from entering the war-torn territory, the Israelis have faced mounting pressure to break the Gaza blockade and agree to a lasting ceasefire. Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that his country would recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends the war and 'takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza.' Starmer's declaration – which came amid criticism from within his own party to take a tougher line on Israel – followed French President Emmanuel Macron's similar proclamation days earlier. Starmer's decision sparked fury from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed it 'rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims' while asserting that the 'jihadist state on Israel's border today will threaten Britain tomorrow.' At the same time, Netanyahu has extraordinarily denied that Gaza is currently suffering through famine, calling it a 'bold faced lie' that Israel is trying to starve the territory. 'There is no policy of starvation in Gaza and there is no starvation in Gaza,' he said this week, adding that Israel had 'enabled the amount (of aid) required by international law to come in' and that Hamas was stealing the aid. While Trump has appeared to break from Netanyahu and acknowledged 'real starvation' in Gaza, Levin appears willing to back the Israeli prime minister's position that the famine is largely a fiction that's been peddled by Hamas propaganda. During a Wednesday morning appearance on America's Newsroom, Levin groused about Starmer's declaration, saying that he's 'sick and tired of these Western Europeans lecturing the state of Israel on how to fight a war.' He also justified Israel's actions in Gaza by referencing the bombing of Dresden in World War II, as well as the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 'If you listen to that man and think about what he is asking Israel to do, it's an impossibility. Have peace in Gaza without Hamas and make sure the people are fed. Well, isn't that lovely?!' Levin griped. 'Exactly what have the Brits done to accomplish that? What have the French done to accomplish that? Everything they are saying and everything they are doing is giving aid and comfort to Hamas, just like they gave aid and comfort to Iran when President Trump decided to deal with Iran.' At that point, he took issue with the New York Times over its recent story about Gazans dying of starvation after 21 months of conflict with Israel, which featured interviews with Palestinians who are suffering through the prolonged famine. 'The Gaza Ministry of Health has reported more than 40 hunger-related deaths this month, including 16 children, and 111 since the beginning of the war, 81 of them children. The data could not be independently verified,' the Times reported. The paper also included a photograph of Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old child who was diagnosed with severe malnutrition, according to his mother. The Times would later add an update from the child's doctor, who pointed out that he also had pre-existing medical conditions. 'Mohammed, according to his doctor, had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and his muscle development,' according to the Times. 'But his health deteriorated rapidly in recent months as it became increasingly difficult to find food and medical care, and the medical clinic that treated him said he suffers from severe malnutrition.' Levin, meanwhile, suggested that this updated information about a malnourished child proved that the reports of starvation in Gaza were inflated and overstated. 'You've got the New York Times that does a photo of this poor Palestinian kid who is all skin and bones, and they're basically assigning the responsibility on the starvation in Palestine,' he exclaimed. 'Turns out he has cystic fibrosis, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the Israelis!' The Fox News star continued: 'This isn't the first time that Hamas has done this and that the European newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post run it.' Levin went on to blast the Washington Post for noting in a recent article that while the Gaza Health Ministry has estimated roughly 60,000 Palestinians have died since the war began, the total is likely an undercount. 'They keep using these Hamas numbers. Then they list thousands of children who have been killed. Who is killing them?!' Levin fumed. 'Hamas can surrender tomorrow. Give the Israelis their people back. The bodies of the people they have killed back. It will be over in two seconds! But they don't do it. Hamas needs this!' After once again claiming that the numbers of Palestinian casualties are likely inflated, Levin gumbled over the growing international calls for more humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza to feed the starving citizens in the territory. 'This is the only country in the history of modern warfare that has fed the citizens of its enemy in a time of war,' he said, adding: 'They're fighting a defensive war and they're being told enough is enough, you need to feed the enemy while you defeat the enemy!'Meanwhile, at the end of Levin's lengthy rant about Gaza, Fox News anchor Dana Perino appeared to side with her colleague, at least when it came to the New York Times' story. 'On that New York Times correction, just to point out to everybody the New York Times has tons of followers on its regular [X] account,' she concluded. 'When they do a correction, they do it through their PR account, which has only 40,000 views. So, I know you helped amplify that last night.'

My message to doctors, after five days of strikes? Work with us: if you go to war with us, you'll lose
My message to doctors, after five days of strikes? Work with us: if you go to war with us, you'll lose

The Guardian

time20 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

My message to doctors, after five days of strikes? Work with us: if you go to war with us, you'll lose

As five days of strike action by resident doctors come to an end, the BMA has written asking me to return to the negotiating table. I've responded, with the irony of their letter being that I never left the table. We are back to where we were two weeks ago, when I sat down in good faith and offered to work intensively with them over a few weeks to negotiate a package of measures that would make a real difference in meeting the costs of doctors' training, the costs associated with being a doctor and the lack of promotion opportunities. The only difference between now and a fortnight ago is the damage that the BMA has done to the NHS through its reckless strike action. Thanks to the hard work of NHS leaders and the heroic efforts of frontline staff who stepped up, including many resident doctors who showed up for work, the disruption was not as bad as it might have been. We managed to protect more operations and procedures than in previous years, and our accident and emergency response times improved during the period of strike action. But I do not want for a moment to play down the real impact of strike action on patients. The BMA has made no bones about the fact that it wanted to do damage to the progress we are making on cutting waiting lists and waiting times, and use the suffering of patients as leverage against the government. It cannot duck the consequences of its actions now. On Saturday, I spoke to a patient whose kidney cancer surgery has been postponed by a month until the end of August. I rang him personally to apologise because, having been through kidney cancer myself, I know exactly how it feels to wait, and the impact the fear and anxiety has on our families and close friends. It was just one of countless examples of cancer care that was affected, not to mention many other operations, appointments and procedures. We are still counting the costs of strike action on patients and stretched NHS budgets – budgets that doctors are relying on to deliver real improvements to their working conditions, as well as to patient care. Doctors are not the only staff I am responsible for in the NHS. The Royal College of Nursing will shortly publish a survey of its members and, without having seen the results, I have spent enough time with our nurses to know that they have not felt valued by the previous government and they are looking to Labour to deliver meaningful change to their profession. The GMB union has made similar representations on behalf of paramedics. Unite returned a negative ballot this week. Unison, the largest trade union in the country, knows better than anyone that staff right across the NHS are looking for material improvements to their pay and conditions. Many of them will never earn as much as the lowest-paid doctor. I have committed to work with them through the NHS staff council to make sure that we drive real change for their members, too. None of them have had a pay rise of 28.9%. Only resident doctors can claim to have received the highest pay rise in the public sector two years in a row. No wonder other NHS staff have looked on aghast at the action of the BMA. The BMA's demands, and the speed with which it launched a strike – and a five-day strike at that – have left many other NHS staff, most of them paid far less than doctors, dismayed and appalled. The BMA is now adding jobs to its pay dispute, presumably because its members agree that picking a fight on pay after a 28.9% pay increase is unprecedented and unreasonable, and they are more worried about whether they have jobs to go into. They are right to be concerned, but working with the BMA to address doctor unemployment and career bottlenecks are among a number of things we are able and willing to do to improve the lives of doctors. All I ask of the BMA is two things. The first is to drop this unnecessary and unreasonable rush to strike action. It harms doctors, it harms patients and it is fundamentally self-defeating, because it leaves the NHS with less money to address the issues that doctors care about. The second is to recognise that this government has a responsibility to all NHS staff and, above all, to patients. We can't fix everything for everyone everywhere all at once. Labour didn't break the NHS, nor did the doctors. Patients are looking to us to work together, as a team, to get their NHS back on its feet and build an NHS fit for the future. The past 12 months has shown what this government and the NHS can achieve when we pull together. Waiting lists are at their lowest levels in two years and it feels like the NHS is finally moving in the right direction. It should be clear to the BMA by now that it will lose a war with this government. It's not too late for us both to win the peace. Wes Streeting is secretary of state for health and social care Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: the time for the west to act decisively is now
The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: the time for the west to act decisively is now

The Guardian

time20 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on famine in Gaza: the time for the west to act decisively is now

The symbolism of Palestinian statehood matters. For months, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his far-right coalition allies have cruelly laboured to make Gaza an uninhabitable hellscape. In the West Bank, the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements is likewise intended to foreclose, for ever, the possibility of a viable, independent Palestinian state. Mr Netanyahu's approach to calls for a two-state solution in the Middle East has been to systematically work to ensure it never happens. Sir Keir Starmer has thus sent a welcome signal by declaring that, in the absence of a ceasefire and a revived peace process, Britain will move to formally recognise Palestine. Against a backdrop of images of starvation in Gaza that recall the 20th-century horror of Biafra or Ethiopia, Sir Keir's intervention (and that of the French president, Emmanuel Macron) gestures to the necessity of creating a different future to the one envisioned by Israel's extremist government. But the urgent imperative is not to build a state; it is to save a population on the brink of social and physical collapse. On Tuesday, the United Nations food security agency confirmed that 'the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in the Gaza Strip'. The four Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites, touted by Israel as an alternative to blocked UN aid, are both hideously inadequate and lethally dangerous to access. Close to 100,000 women and children are in urgent need of treatment for malnutrition, while one in three Palestinians in Gaza are going for days without eating. Seeking to massage international opinion, Israel has resumed its past tactic of introducing partial mitigations and temporarily easing barriers to the delivery of aid. But in a ravaged landscape, where social cohesion and order has broken down, Gaza's starvation crisis is much too advanced to be resolved by 'humanitarian pauses' to the military onslaught. Similarly, airdropping aid may salve the consciences of western countries, but it will provide minimal food and has proved dangerous as well as inefficient in the past. The existential reality is plain. Unless Israel agrees to end the war, and stands back to allow a vast and sustained injection of UN aid, thousands of Palestinians will die either directly or indirectly as a result of a human-made famine. The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (Unrwa), scandalously banned from operating on spurious grounds by Israel, has the equivalent of 6,000 trucks of food and medicine ready to cross into Gaza. Along with other aid organisations, it must be empowered to use its experience and expertise to bring the territory back from the brink. Diplomatic gestures towards Palestinian statehood will do little to force that outcome, as Mr Netanyahu's dismissive response to Sir Keir's declaration swiftly underlined. Sanctions might, though, by potentially ratcheting up pressure on Mr Netanyahu as more tangible effects of Israel's moral isolation hit home. The European Union, which is Israel's largest export destination, has cards to play. Britain could move to pause preferential trade access, and expand current restrictions on arms sales. As Israel's response to the horrific massacre of 7 October 2023 has become shockingly disproportionate, its allies in the west have done far too little to influence the course of events. This week, in Europe at least, the mood has begun to shift. But if Gaza is to be saved, decisive action is required.

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