How Keir Starmer Keeps His Massive Parliamentary Party In Line

Sienna Rodgers

@siennamarla

Keir Starmer is not famed for his people management skills. Labour MPs have complained about his lack of personal engagement for at least as long as he has led them.

In one regard, however, the Prime Minister is proving highly adept at keeping his troops if not happy, then at least busy. The thriving job creation scheme for those on the Labour back benches makes for an easy gag about the government plan to “get Britain working” and getting the “economically inactive” into jobs.

In expanding his powers of patronage with a host of new roles – mostly unpaid – Starmer has added carrots to a whipping operation notably harsher than those of his predecessors. That he needs more tools to control his troops is a consequence both of electoral success – there are more of them – but perhaps also of a miscalculation that competent candidates would be happy to be ‘lobby fodder’.

The 2024 general election was recognised by the leadership as a major opportunity for Labour to reshape the parliamentary party in a way Jeremy Corbyn never did. (The party’s left say he was not harsh enough in imposing his will on candidate selections, while his internal critics point out that winning lots of seats would have helped.) Accordingly, the candidate selection process overseen by Labour fixer Matthew Faulding was tightly controlled. “The only thing we’ve nationalised is our selection process,” Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds is said to have joked. Once the election was called, this even involved ringing up veteran MPs and encouraging them to stand down with the promise of peerages, allowing loyal newbies to take their places in the Commons.

Some in Starmer’s camp believe those selections have proved flawed, however, with unexpectedly independent-minded MPs slipping through. One reason is the sheer size of Labour’s majority, which includes those known as its “bonus MPs” such as Terry Jermy, who gifted Liz Truss her ‘Portillo moment’, and Peter Prinsley, who won a traditionally safe Tory seat against Rishi Sunak’s deputy chief of staff at the time.

Another explanation may be that it was sometimes incorrectly assumed an anti-Corbyn MP would be a loyal one. Crawley’s Peter Lamb, for example, has spoken out against the government’s policies on Gaza, housing and Chagos. It does not help the government that he is a former council leader who has learnt that being a back bench MP is a much less powerful role.

When No10 invited Labour MPs to book a slot for a Downing Street briefing on the controversial welfare reforms, the exchanges between aides and incisive MPs were described to The House as “brutal”. “It started with a question from Peter Lamb and got worse from there,” according to one attendee.

Labour MPs from older intakes often say they are surprised by just how scared their new colleagues are of angering the whips. And yet the list of MPs who have declared they cannot vote for the welfare reforms as they currently stand includes not just Socialist Campaign Group members, but also more unlikely names from the 2024 intake: Lee Barron, Lorraine Beavers, Cat Eccles, Andrew Ranger, Chris Hinchliff (who also criticised the government’s housebuilding plans in the last edition of The House) and even Alison Hume – a mission champion (more on that later).

To avoid surprises, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) Office has taken not only to asking MPs to say what they will ask at Prime Minister’s Questions but even, sources say, having Faulding ring MPs to ask what questions they will put to Starmer when he speaks at the weekly PLP meeting – a private forum, albeit one with a tendency to leak.

With such a large cohort of Labour MPs, there is a tendency for neglected ones to become bored, which risks them being rowdy in Strangers’, gossiping with journalists or rebelling in the voting lobbies. Starmer needs every party management tool he can get. There are many options, from carrots (such as invitations to photo opportunities in No 10) to sticks (a harsh whipping operation). One key device is handing out jobs.

PPSs

The appointment of parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs) is a long-standing way of extending enforced loyalty to government. PPSs, who assist ministers, cannot rebel on votes without losing their posts, which are technically front bench, although unpaid.

When a party has a huge majority as Labour does, there is a clear benefit to having front benchers to help time-poor ministers identify the mood of MPs and report back from their back bench colleagues. PPSs are also used as a “talent pipeline”, says Institute for Government (IfG) researcher Sachin Savur, who adds that former ministers often refer to their time as PPSs as an “apprenticeship”.

“PPSs are used in different ways. Sometimes they’re really included as part of discussions: when there’s the weekly meeting for the political team on Mondays, it will be departmental ministers, spads, whips and PPSs properly involved in discussions,” says Savur. “Other PPSs are there pretty much there solely to be the eyes and ears in Parliament.”

Under the Ministerial Code, they are significantly restricted in what they can say, not being able to comment on any matter relating to the department they are linked to as PPSs. Why subject your contributions to such limits, all for no pay? “Your reward is getting to see how government works,” says one PPS.

After some churn and another round of appointments, there are currently 43 PPSs, with most departments having two; some three; and the Department for Health four. In 2010, the Public Administration Select Committee recommended that PPSs should be limited to one per secretary of state.

Mission champions

Select committees are often seen by older intakes as the most respectable job a back bencher can secure. Chairs are proud of their posts, with one saying they are more powerful than ministers. When asked about the roles handed out by government, one select committee member replies: “Select committee is a proper job. The others are not!”

But many 2024 intake Labour MPs were unsuccessful when they tried to chair select committees and all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) at the start of the Parliament. “A lot of the newbies mobilised… but we got wise to it,” an older intake Labour MP says of the early fight over APPG chair roles. And since the Wright reforms saw party whips stripped of their power to appoint select committee members after the 2010 election, other party management tools had to be created.

David Cameron had “big society ambassadors”. Theresa May appointed many trade envoys, and was criticised for only having Conservatives at one point in what is supposed to be a cross-party group. Boris Johnson was fond of adding party vice-chairs.

It is not always effective. As Sam Freedman recounts in his book Failed State, former Tory MP Charlotte Leslie’s whip threatened to take away her big society ambassadorship if she rebelled on Lords reform. “Do you honestly think that matters?” she laughed in response. Today, she describes the role as a “ridiculous hat that someone gives you to wear”.

This government’s cheap way of filling the payroll vote? “Mission champions”: 27 posts, most of them allocated on a regional basis, with a further five for each national mission (crime, energy, growth, opportunity and health). The regional ones act as chairs of their region’s PLP group. Sources say they all report to Faulding and No 10.

While veteran Labour MPs pour scorn on these jobs, most of the mission champions who speak to The House take their roles seriously (though regional champions less so, with one admitting theirs is a “bullshit job” handed out as “busy work”).

Why be a mission champion instead of a select committee member? “Because it’s brilliant,” replies one enthusiastic champion. They say it offers more independence: on a committee, the chair decides the timing and topics.

There is little transparency about the role of mission champions. Like PPSs, it is clearly used as a talent pipeline, with four mission champions already moving to PPS roles earlier this year. National mission champions say their job involves liaising with the PLP; attending mission board updates; and meeting with stakeholders, allowing them to feed into government without waiting months to see a minister.

It can also mean influencing policy via informal channels, and involve advocating for the government in the media. “I can be more of an attack dog,” says one champion, comparing themselves to ministers. “I can be as political as I want,” says another, citing this as an advantage compared to PPSs.

There are no formal rules for mission champions, but they partly rely on the precedent set for PPSs, in that it is seen as a conflict to stand for a select committee linked to a national champion’s relevant mission.

Whether a mission champion would lose their status if they rebelled on any matter is unclear. “We’ll cross that bridge when we jump off it,” quips a whip. “I don’t think anyone has thought about that. Champions are champions for the government, so it wouldn’t come up for any of us,” says a loyal mission champion. It will be interesting to see whether any who rebel on welfare cuts have their champion status withdrawn.

For Savur at the IfG, the key benefit is how the regional champions could help to “diversify” the talent pipeline: “If and when mission champions later become ministers, it means you don’t have loads of ministers concentrated around London.”

Labour business champions

Mission champions are not to be confused with Labour business champions, of which there are dozens (including, initially, some PPSs who have since been told their champion status was an error as they cannot be both).

Each business champion is allocated an industry – from tech to biotechnology; utilities to public affairs – and, like regional mission champions, their role is tied to an area of the country. They are technically appointed by the Department for Business and Trade, but the whole network sits under Dan Tomlinson as the national mission champion for growth.

Their background informs which area of expertise they are given. New MP for Northampton South, Mike Reader, for example, is Labour’s business champion for construction. A civil engineer, he worked in construction consultancy and operations for 15 years before his election to Parliament last July. These growth champions are intended to do business engagement, and their duties have mostly consisted of hosting round tables to invite industry views on government policy.

Trade envoys

The Prime Minister’s trade envoy programme was set up in 2012. Under this Labour government, it has been renamed the United Kingdom trade envoy programme – perhaps to remove the impression of “personal patronage”, Savur suggests. “This is another party management tool, ultimately.”

There are currently 32 trade envoys covering 79 markets across six continents, building relationships in their assigned country or region and working with UK businesses. All are unpaid. Membership of the programme is cross-party, but with the Commons so heavily tipped in Labour’s favour, just four are not members of the governing party.

And the rest

The roles above are the best-known ways of widening the payroll vote, but there are other behind-the-scenes jobs Labour can use. Currently causing controversy are Labour’s parliamentary committee representatives.

Before recess, the PLP Office tried to push through changes to their standing orders and code of conduct, which act as a rulebook for Labour MPs. One reform was that MPs could be subject to a disciplinary process if they do not comply with the requirement to “be an active campaigner within your constituency and deliver on key targets as agreed with your regional office/national party office”.

To the fury of some MPs, party chair Ellie Reeves has been sending weekly emails instructing them to campaign more in their seats and those they are twinned with. “It’s going down like a cup of cold sick,” as one disgruntled MP puts it, pointing out that twinned seats can be hours away from their own.

Another rule change was removing annual elections for the six parliamentary committee reps, and instead, electing them only at the start of a parliament. The reps attend weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, Chief Whip, Labour chair, general secretary and others to communicate the feelings of back benchers. But those currently in post – all six of whom are from the 2024 intake – are accused of not fighting the rule proposals hard enough, in a row that has exacerbated tensions with their longer-standing colleagues.

“Democracy works if you can get rid of the people you’ve elected. But if you elect people as your parliamentary rep for the life of the parliament, you’ve got no chance of getting rid of them before the electorate potentially gets rid of them,” a veteran MP complains. “If we are to have accountability for this cohort,” they add, referring to the 2024 intake of MPs, “we must have the ability to get rid of the reps.”

Labour ‘back bench committee’ chairs are another job MPs can take up. These MPs chair meetings akin to select committees, in that a minister or external guest speaks and answers questions – but “everyone can be more frank”, in the words of one MP, as the attendees are all Labour.

Each back bench committee, or departmental group, meets once a month and Labour MPs can go to whichever they are interested in. “It’s like reading a human version of The Economist,” one appreciative new intake MP says of the country-specific Foreign Office ones.

And then, deep breath, there are ‘political leads’. These are campaign-focused roles whereby MPs are assigned large swathes of the country – the North East of England, for example – to take some responsibility for.

If all of those jobs are not enough, MPs can spend their time on bill committees – which newbies do appear to sincerely appreciate. “Bill committee has been the best few weeks of my life,” says one, who enthused about the chance to do a deep dive into a subject and learn about legislating. “That was the turning point for me in feeling confident about speaking in the Chamber,” says another MP, who used bill committee as a safe way to practise intervening on ministers.

Labour figures can argue that, with a bigger parliamentary party, these jobs are needed. And the current number of PPSs overall – 43 – is unremarkable: the figure has hovered around this level since the 1990s, peaking at 52 in 2022.

As IfG researcher Savur says: “Considering some of the disquiet around aid spending and obviously around welfare reforms, it’s quite understandable that they might want to have that finger on the pulse.”

These various jobs, from the long-established to the recently made-up, serve to inflate the size of the payroll vote without breaching limits set by Parliament on the number of ministers a government can have. They also limit the extent to which Labour MPs robustly scrutinise government policy.

In this ever more challenging fiscal climate, which requires increasingly uncomfortable policy responses for Labour MPs, No10 can make a good case for taking measures to secure all the help and loyalty it can muster. Fear of scrutiny, however, will not do government any favours in the long term.

Related

Keir Starmer Would Harm Labour’s Chances In Runcorn By-Election, Say Labour MPs

By Harriet Symonds

5 hr