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

Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants
Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants

Telegraph

time26 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Elite police unit to monitor online critics of migrants

An elite team of police officers is to monitor social media for anti-migrant sentiment amid fears of summer riots. Detectives will be drawn from forces across the country to take part in a new investigations unit that will flag up early signs of potential civil unrest. The division, assembled by the Home Office, will aim to 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering after police forces were criticised over their response to last year's riots. It comes amid growing concern that Britain is facing another summer of disorder, as protests outside asylum hotels spread. On Saturday, crowds gathered in towns and cities including Norwich, Leeds and Bournemouth to demand action, with more protests planned for Sunday. Angela Rayner warned the Cabinet last week that the Government must act to address the 'the real concerns that people have' about immigration. But critics on Saturday night branded the social media plans 'disturbing' and raised concerns over whether they would lead to a restriction of free speech. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Two-tier Keir can't police the streets, so he's trying to police opinions instead. They're setting up a central team to monitor what you post, what you share, what you think, because deep down they know the public don't buy what they're selling. 'Labour have stopped pretending to fix Britain and started trying to mute it. This is a Prime Minister who's happy to turn Britain into a surveillance state, but won't deport foreign criminals, won't patrol high streets, won't fund frontline policing. 'Labour are scared of the public, Labour don't trust the public, Labour don't even know the public.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: 'This is the beginning of the state controlling free speech. It is sinister, dangerous and must be fought. Reform UK will do just that.' In a further sign of dissent over the Government's approach to social media, campaigners claimed on Saturday that posts about anti-migrant protests in the past week had been censored because of new online safety laws.

Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind
Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind

Sky News

timean hour ago

  • Sky News

Eighty years on from Labour's landslide, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza brings Clement Attlee's failure on Israel and Palestine to mind

Here's one for the aficionados: 26 July 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Labour's landslide victory in the 1945 general election. Trade unionists and Labour MPs are celebrating, claiming the nation still owes a debt of gratitude for the historic achievements of Clement Attlee's government. Yet today, as the world watches the humanitarian crisis in Gaza with horror, it's worth recalling that one of Attlee's biggest failures was his Israel - Palestine policy. (Oh, and while Attlee's health minister Aneurin Bevan boasted he "stuffed their mouths with gold" to overcome doctors' opposition to the NHS, today doctors are on strike over pay again.) The 1945 election took place on 5 July, the same date Sir Keir Starmer entered 10 Downing Street last year. But with British armed forces still serving overseas in 1945, it took until 26 July to declare the result. 9:30 Labour won 393 seats in 1945, compared with 411 last year. But while Sir Keir's Labour only won 34% of the votes, Mr Attlee won nearly 50%. But then, there was no insurgent Reform UK back then. Celebrating the 80th anniversary, Joanne Thomas, who became general secretary of the shopworkers' union Usdaw in April this year, said the Attlee government left a lasting legacy. "Usdaw's predecessor unions were proud to play a role in the 1945 election victory and to see 18 of our members elected," she said. "Not least a hero of our union 'Red Ellen', a fiery trade union organiser who led the Jarrow hunger march and went on to serve as education minister." Wilkinson was indeed red. Attlee biographer Trevor Burridge wrote: "Ellen Wilkinson was made minister of education despite the fact that she had actively campaigned against his leadership." She was MP for Jarrow, not a million miles from the current education secretary and Starmer super-loyalist Bridget Phillipson's Houghton and Sunderland South constituency. But not even her best friends would call her red! Ellen Wilkinson was also the only woman in Attlee's 1945 cabinet. Last year, Sir Keir made history by appointing 11 women to his cabinet. Labour MP Marie Tidball, elected last year, joined the tributes to Attlee. "He transformed Britain for working people and this legacy laid the foundations for Britain today - our NHS, welfare state and homes for heroes. "Those public services meant I could grow up to fulfil my potential. Labour legend." But if Attlee's NHS, welfare state and nationalisation are viewed as successes by Labour trade unionists and MPs, his government's policy on Palestine is widely agreed to have been a failure. In his acclaimed biography of Attlee's foreign secretary, "Ernest Bevin: Labour's Churchill", former Blairite cabinet minister Andrew Adonis wrote: "Why did Bevin get Israel/Palestine so wrong?" Adonis says Bevin's policy on Palestine "led to the precise opposite of its declared intention of stability and the peaceful co-existence of the Jewish and Palestinian communities within one state at peace with its neighbours". He concluded: "Instead, Bevin's legacy was a Jewish state of Israel, much larger than even most of its advocates previously favoured, in periodic war and perpetual tension with both its Palestinians and its Arab neighbours." Where did Bevin go wrong? Adonis wrote: "In the first place, because, during the three key years 1945-48, he did not agree that his central policy objective was 'good relations with the United States'." As Sir Keir Starmer prepares to meet Donald Trump in Scotland, 80 years after the historic Attlee victory, that's clearly not a mistake the current Labour PM has made in his relations with the US president. " I like your prime minister," the president said as he arrived in Scotland, "he's slightly more liberal than I am, but I like him". So, 80 years on from Attlee, lessons have been learned. So far, so good, that is.

Labour accused of hypocrisy after giving 16-year-olds the vote – while banning them from becoming local party bosses
Labour accused of hypocrisy after giving 16-year-olds the vote – while banning them from becoming local party bosses

The Sun

timean hour ago

  • The Sun

Labour accused of hypocrisy after giving 16-year-olds the vote – while banning them from becoming local party bosses

LABOUR has been accused of 'staggering hypocrisy' by banning 16-year-olds from being local party bosses - despite letting them vote in general elections. Sir Keir Starmer's party is introducing a new rule raising the minimum age for constituency association chairs, treasurers and secretaries to 18 years old. 1 It was signed off by the party's ruling national executive on Wednesday with several Cabinet Ministers in attendance. It came just days after the PM announced controversial plans to let 1.5million 16 and 17-year-olds participate in general elections. He claimed they were responsible enough to pay tax and join the army so should be able to cast ballots. A Labour Party insider said: 'We just look totally ridiculous now because it has made the entire logic behind the policy incoherent. 'We can't say 16-year-olds are mature enough to decide who is the next prime minister, but in the same breath that they can't take the minutes at a local party meeting. It's just staggering hypocrisy.' Sir Keir's plan to lower the voting age has widely been seen as a cynical ploy to boost his chances of re-election. Polling shows they would mop up about a third of all 16 and 17-year-olds if an election were held today. However social media-savvy Reform is also polling well in that age bracket as are left-wing parties like the Greens. A Labour spokesman said: 'Electoral law doesn't currently protect under-18s from legal liability. This change to the Party's rules will protect young people. 'That has nothing to do with votes at 16 and is a total false equivalence. It's right that those who pay tax and fight for our country can have a say in its future.'

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