Will Labour's backbencher purge have unexpected concequences?
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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW PIERCE: How humiliating! Starmer could lose seat to Corbyn ally
After his disastrous first 12 months in No 10, most polls already point to Sir Keir Starmer losing the next general election. But will he forfeit his Commons seat as well? That indignity looks increasingly likely thanks to the efforts of his predecessor as Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who was expelled from the party last May. Over the past week, Jezza's newly launched rival party has set up shop in Holborn & St Pancras, the north London constituency held by Starmer since 2015. More worrying for the PM is the candidate who will contest the seat for Corbyn's party at the next election: Andrew Feinstein, the pro-Palestinian activist who ran as an independent in the constituency last year. He secured an astonishing 19 per cent of the vote, slashing Starmer's majority from 28,000 to just 11,000. Next time round, with the resources of Corbyn's party behind him, Feinstein is likely to fight an even more effective campaign. And his supporters are confident it will take him all the way to Westminster. PS Whispers from the Westminster cloisters: Keir Starmer has fallen out with his Commons Chief Whip, Sir Alan Campbell. I'm told Campbell was unhappy when Starmer and his sidekick Morgan McSweeney suspended York MP Rachael Maskell from the Labour Party for rebelling over benefits cuts. Prime Ministers seldom prosper when they argue with their Chief Whips – and Campbell is nobody's fool. He was hardly known for his charm and good manners when it came to his successor Margaret Thatcher, but it seems former PM Ted Heath was just as rude to his staff. Lord Patten remembers being summoned to Heath's Piccadilly apartment in the mid-1970s. Patten and his colleagues arrived at 9am but Heath did not appear until 10am – in a kimono. 'About 1pm, his housekeeper comes in with a silver tray with a bottle of Chablis, a plate of lobster salad, and some brie and camembert,' recalls Patten, who hadn't even been offered a coffee. 'As Heath tucked in, he asked: 'Have you had anything to eat, boys?' We said: 'No, Ted, we haven't.' He said, 'Aww, you must be very hungry then.' That was it.' Jets on a wing and a prayer Labour's commitment to hike defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 will include the purchase from US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin of 12 F-35 stealth jets, which can carry nuclear warheads. So how much will they cost? Cue this answer from defence minister Maria Eagle: 'Prices will be identified during contract negotiations.' No wonder the defence procurement budget is in such a mess. Tory culture spokesman Nigel Huddleston can't be accused of not being on top of his, er, brief at the lower end of the arts. His brother-in-law was a member of all-male strip troupe the Chippendales, and even stripped off at the Tory MP's wedding in 1999. Sadly, he no longer provides that kind of entertainment. As Nigel says: 'They retire young in that line of work.' On his Rosebud podcast, former MP Gyles Brandreth says he was proud to watch his MP daughter Aphra in a Commons debate she initiated: 'Watching her speaking was moving, and she was brilliant. What was interesting was the subject... potholes!' Political leaders like to bask in the reflected glory of giving awards to rock stars, but Noddy Holder, lead singer of Slade, has gone one better than Sirs Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart and Paul McCartney. He's been offered a token Lordship... from the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
How to make Great British Railways a success
Before Labour ministers choose slick slogans for their new state-run trains they should recall Henry Ford's words: 'Nothing happens until somebody sells something.' Contrary to what some in the rail sector and Whitehall seem to think, rail services cannot exist without their passengers — what they want and what they are prepared to pay. A herculean effort to win more customers from the airlines and road users is essential. Britain's railways are at a watershed. Under privatisation, passenger journeys almost doubled. By the 2010s, private franchises were running three times as many trains between London and Manchester as the old British Rail (BR) had in the early 1990s. During the two decades between privatisation and the pandemic, passenger journeys increased by 107 per cent and services by 32 per cent. Passenger satisfaction in Britain was higher than for any other major European railway. Revenue increased by 145 per cent in real terms, compared with only a 16 per cent rise in operating costs, and £14 billion of private investment went into improving the train fleet. • Ministers heading for union clash in bid for hi-tech rail travel Privatisation introduced innovations in marketing, ticketing and operational efficiency. The volume of rail travel in Britain rose to a level not seen since the 1930s, on a network half the size and with a very good safety record. The pandemic was devastating for rail. It wasn't just that train travel collapsed during the lockdowns, requiring subsidies of £20.5 billion in 2023-24 prices) to cover losses. People's travel and working behaviour changed, probably for ever. Traditional flows of revenue from business travel, first class and five-day commuter season tickets, particularly in London and the southeast, have fallen away. In the year to March only 13 per cent of journeys were made using season tickets, compared with 34 per cent before the pandemic. Even though passenger numbers are close to 100 per cent of pre-pandemic levels, revenue is still down by £1.4 billion, at 89.1 per cent. Passengers are paying less to travel outside the old peaks. The taxpayer continues to cover an unacceptably high annual subsidy of £12 billion for a sector that only delivers 2 per cent of all journeys taken by the public. Consequently, ministers must now prioritise growth as they prepare to introduce the bill to create the state-owned Great British Railways (GBR), almost 80 years after Clement Attlee first nationalised rail. Without a ruthless focus on what passengers want alongside a demand-led model, a spiral of decline — higher subsidy and fares — could easily take root. GBR risks being a solution in search of a problem and morphing into the ghost of BR unless ministers develop a viable long-term vision. New research from the Centre for Policy Studies highlights four key areas which, if supported, would deliver more passengers, more income and better services for passengers. • Great British Railways 'won't be run by civil servants' First, ministers should support a mixed model across the intercity high-speed network so GBR trains faces competition from non-subsidised 'open access' operators. For 25 years this model has successfully delivered passenger growth and satisfaction on the East Coast Main Line between London, the northeast and Scotland. It has meant better services, more routes, faster trains and cheaper tickets while also bringing more passengers to the route. This has led to new, popular rail operators entering the market, which has pushed the dominant, government-run train operator, LNER, to deliver better services for its customers. European railways that have copied this successful model have seen a 40 per cent increase in passengers and fare reductions of between 20 and 60 per cent. Second, GBR should not regulate itself, especially as the white paper proposes taking key sector powers away from the independent Office of Rail and Road. In no other regulated sector does the dominant market operator also control and deliver key elements of its own regulation, such as decisions on market access and charging. This could have huge implications for growth, open access and more rail freight. Only last week the environment secretary slammed the water companies for 'marking their own homework' and pledged to end 'operator self-monitoring'. But there is a risk that this will become the case on the railways. Third, GBR must adopt an unforgiving focus on making train travel as easy, cheap and user-friendly as possible, not least when designing a new GBR ticketing app to replace those of existing train companies. In addition to competing with popular ticketing sites it must be designed by the world's leading retail software companies rather than civil servants. GBR should deliver a 'Rail Miles' loyalty scheme, which is years overdue and could be linked with purchases made in the hospitality and retail sectors. • The Times View: Prejudice against private train operators is misguided Fourth, the vast 52,000-hectare railway estate can and must generate much more income. Commercial and residential development, renewable energy generation, light parcel freight, health hubs at stations alongside a higher-quality retail offer are all underused sources of income. We must learn from countries such as Japan, where railways earn at least one third of their revenue from non-ticket sources. Rail can and must be at the centre of Britain's industrial, employment, housing and regeneration strategies. The ghost of BR hangs over GBR. But if the passenger is put first and proven models are embraced then the future could be very different. Rail might not get another chance. Tony Lodge is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies and author of Rail's Last Chance, published today by the CPS
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Now shut migrant protest hotel: As demonstrators clash again in Epping, Tories demand that Labour listen to local concerns and move asylum seekers
Labour faced mounting pressure last night to shut the asylum hotel at the centre of angry protests. But ministers stayed silent as senior Tories joined demands for migrants to be removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, over 'legitimate' concerns about crime. As frustrated organisers of the growing demonstrations said they would not stop until it was closed, fresh clashes broke out outside the hotel yesterday, despite a heavy police presence to separate rival groups of protesters. The demonstrations were triggered after Ethiopian man Hadush Kebatu was charged with sexually assaulting a schoolgirl just days after he arrived in Britain in a Channel dinghy. Police chiefs have already described the unrest at The Bell as a 'signal flare' for another summer of disorder. Epping Council voted unanimously last week to urge the Government to close it. But Treasury minister James Murray refused to comment yesterday when asked why the Government has not listened to the demands. He told Sky News: 'I'm not going to comment on specific cases, but I do understand people's frustration. 'And whilst, obviously, there can never be any place for criminal violence, there's absolutely a right for people to protest about this.' It came after polling found that immigration has overtaken the economy to become voters' biggest concern about the country after the NHS. The survey by Opinium found 49 per cent of people put immigration among their top three concerns – a seven-point increase since May. Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer could also come under pressure to act from Donald Trump when they meet in Scotland today, after the US President said he had 'sealed our borders' in America and urged Europe to follow suit. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the Mail: 'Ministers must recognise the strength of feeling from the public about this hotel, listen to their genuine and real concerns, and shut it down. 'The Government has lost control of our borders. They need to listen to the public anger on this issue and deport all illegal immigrants immediately upon arrival. 'I am furious we are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants. What has happened at The Bell is a consequence of that.' Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said 'agitators' were coming in to whip up trouble, telling GB News: 'The Conservatives have been calling for that hotel to be closed down, because you have to show people there is a response when they have legitimate concerns.' Kebatu, 38, is due to be tried for allegedly trying to kiss a schoolgirl as she ate pizza in Epping on July 7, eight days after he arrived in the UK. He denies sexual assault, inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and a charge of harassment. There were more ugly scenes outside The Bell yesterday when up to 1,000 demonstrators clashed. Around 400 protesting against the migrants – mostly locals – gathered after lunch, with counter-protesters, including of pro-Palestine groups and trade unions, arriving at around 4pm, and staying for barely an hour. Despite police from 31 forces including Merseyside and Lancashire separating them, at least three people were arrested. Sarah White, 40, who organised the protest against the hotel, said: 'We won't stop. Today has been a great opportunity for our voices to be heard. We've got the message out there that we don't want these hotels. 'This, I think, has been the biggest – there's more to come. We need to feel safe – we don't currently. It's shocking. We won't stop until that hotel is closed.' Maureen Chapman, 73, said she felt 'under threat', adding: 'I have grandchildren living locally. We want this closed and we won't stop until it is. Despite police from 31 forces including Merseyside and Lancashire separating them, at least three people were arrested 'These people moaning, would they want it at the end of their street?' The Home Office said: 'The Government is reducing expensive hotel use as part of a complete overhaul of the asylum system. 'From over 400 asylum hotels in summer 2023, costing almost £9million a day, there are now less than 210. We want them all closed by the end of this Parliament. 'People rightly want to see a robust and effective asylum system and we have a duty to support people who would otherwise be destitute and sleeping rough while their case is decided.'
