The Government’s suspension of seven Labour MPs is more likely to encourage dissent than crush it. The Prime Minister’s position will look increasingly unreasonable to those in the Labour Party. Starmer should learn from Blair if he wants to command a unified party.
You’re likely getting tired of hearing this word, but yesterday’s events really were unprecedented. Since the birth of modern British democracy in 1832, a ruling party has never had to suspend the whip from its own MPs within a month of coming to power.
As covered in a previous article, yesterday saw MPs vote on amendments to the King’s speech, with an SNP-backed motion calling for the government to repeal the two-child benefit cap. Although the Government won the vote, seven Labour MPs supported the motion.
The suspension of MPs itself is nothing new. Suspension of rebels on this scale has happened five times since 1945, in 1954, 1957, 1961, 1994, and most recently against the 21 MPs who rebelled against the government’s Brexit deal in 2019.
But whilst suspensions themselves are not unprecedented, the suspension of the whip in such an early stage of government is a strong stance to take. Strong and likely disastrous.
Why Did The Government Do This?
Starmer’s response is best explained by him having no other choice. Although some were senior members of the shadow cabinet under Jeremy Corbyn, none of the seven MPs hold any significant role in the current government.
With the seven MPs who defied the government whip having no real position to take away, the only thing Starmer could do to punish them was suspend their whip
As explained in more detail in our article looking at Starmer’s motivation for not scraping the cap, although the government will likely repeal the cap anyway, Starmer is keen to look like he won’t be pushed around by his MPs.
The result has been to draw further attention to the government’s position to the wavering young demographic, with among the suspended being the most followed MP on social media.
The fact that the government was only able to resort to the nuclear option is the result of a structural flaw in Starmer’s government, one that his predecessors worked hard to avoid.
Lessons From 1997
It’s no secret that Keir Starmer’s leadership is greatly inspired by the last elected Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Starmer is particularly impressed by Blair’s ability to lead the party, rather than be lead by it.
Perhaps the most consistent feature of Blair’s Premiership was the strength of its executive, a sharp contrast with the bickering and infighting which had characterised not only Labour in opposition, but the last seven years of conservative government.
With Starmer in 2019 taking leadership of a fractious Labour party and facing a squabbling Conservative government, it makes sense that the Prime Minister would try to replicate New Labour’s enforcement of the party line in which Blair would not alter policies to please his MPs.
However, Blair never did anything like yesterday, in fact, Starmer suspended more MPs yesterday than Blair did in ten years. In fact, of the four MPs that Blair suspended, none were for rebelling against the government. Rather than suspending rebels, Blair had other methods to keep them in line
On the 11th of December 1997, five months after his landslide victory, Blair faced his first rebellion. Like yesterday, it was against the government’s unpopular position on benefits to parents, with the government reducing the amount of money going to single parent benefit receivers.
Blair’s appointment of leftist MPs to cabinet positions was so great that in 1999, he received criticism within his own National Executive Committee, with Mark Seddon accusing Blair of running a “Leninist” cabinet.
It was due to this structure that Labour had been able to forestall any rebellion in the first five months of government, something that Starmer has not replicated. Even after being sacked, the possibility of a future Ministerial role still existed for leftist MPs. They still had something to lose.
Unlike Blair, Starmer has made no attempt to incorporate dissenting members of his party. Blair was careful to appoint left-wing figures to positions that were often important, but completely unrelated to major left-right clashes.
The result was that when resignations happened in protest of government policy, such as in December 1997, they occurred by ministers in unrelated positions, such as the Under Secretary of Scotland, the Minister for Transport and various Private Parliamentary Secretaries.
This maximised the government’s leverage over dissenting ministers, whilst minimising theirs over his.
What leverage does Labour have over left wing MPs? The whip is all that Starmer has to keep the leftists in check. On the one hand this avoids the publicity of senior ministers resigning from government
A Recent Lesson
For all of his allusions to New Labour and idealisation of Blair’s strength, Starmer’s leadership style is shaped far more by the only leader he served under, Jeremy Corbyn.
Due to his unpopularity in the parliamentary party, Corbyn had a big-tent approach to the shadow cabinet. Although maintaining leftists such as John McDonnell in key government positions,
However, his “unifying” cabinet was anything but. The placing of dissenting MPs in high positions meant that his government was repeatedly undermined by high-ranking resignations and suspensions.
With a political birth in this context, Starmer’s actions yesterday, and his broader leadership approach seems far more rational. From his own experience, allowing dissidents into the government only empowers them. The stick is the only thing that can be used to keep rebels in line.
Final Thought
This time the rebellion was relatively small. The suspension of rebel MPs will likely broaden and radicalise the base of criticism towards the Government’s position on this issue, which has been publicly criticised by a number of senior Labour party figures.
The response to the rebellion shows the inadequacy of the party’s current approach to managing dissent. If Labour responds to every rebellion by suspending backbenchers, a growingly large number of MPs will be increasingly isolated from the government.
This is a strategy destined for chaos. If Starmer doesn’t change tack, that will be exactly what happens.
For more of Chamber UK’s British political analysis please click here.
This article was written by Chamber UK’s features writer – Alex Connor.