Labour MPs cannot repeatedly rebel, cause our party political damage and expect no consequences
Keir Starmer in Liverpool for conference 2024 (Credit: GaryRobertsphotography)
4 min read
I was somewhat bemused by the recent article in The House by Chris Hinchliff MP and Neil Duncan-Jordan MP bemoaning their suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).
I don’t bear them any ill will and am sorry that they have ended up (at least temporarily) without the whip, as I want the largest possible number of Labour MPs, not a gradual erosion of our strength. But their surprise that this has happened suggests a naiveté about the consequences of actions you take as a Labour MP.
They were not, as they claim, suspended merely “for voting out of step with our party”. If that was where the bar was set, all 49 Labour MPs who rebelled at Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill would have been suspended. But only four were – the two authors, plus Brian Leishman and Rachael Maskell. In each case, there were apparently factors beyond merely breaking the whip, such as actively organising colleagues, or a repeated pattern of behaviour involving other votes as well.
Nor is it a fair criticism for them to demand “whether those in charge still accept that parliamentary scrutiny, debate and amendment leads to improved legislation and government policy”.
It’s not reasonable to act like this and expect whips to just turn the other cheek
In the specific case of the Welfare Reform Bill, ministers negotiated in good faith with leading critics of the bill, most notably Dame Meg Hillier, the sponsor of the initial reasoned amendment, and made major concessions. In return, Meg and most of the supporters of her reasoned amendment agreed to vote for the amended bill. That is how “scrutiny, debate and amendment” to improve legislation can work.
Ministers and whips were obviously exasperated when, after such significant negotiated concessions, a rump of rebels tabled a new reasoned amendment, and still voted against the bill. Some did so even after yet more concessions to completely remove all the changes to Personal Independence Payments were announced by Stephen Timms during the debate!
Causing this degree of political damage to your own party and government isn’t something you can do casually and expect no sanction for. As well as the short-term political damage, the government is now left with an extra £2.5bn hole in the public finances due to the additional concessions, which will have to be filled with unpopular tax rises or spending cuts in the Budget. It’s not reasonable to act like this and expect whips to just turn the other cheek.
I understand there will be matters of very deep personal political conviction or profound constituency interest that occasionally face MPs and mean they feel little choice but to rebel.
But those need to be very few and far between.
The purpose of having parties and whips is to create a stable government with an agreed legislative programme. The trade-off is that we must sometimes accept we are in a minority within the PLP and stick with the team for the wider good. As a new MP, whilst of course scrutinising ministers where appropriate, I am also very conscious of not presumptuously believing that – having arrived in Westminster the political equivalent of five minutes ago – I can ‘back-seat drive’ them, when they are able to see the bigger policy and fiscal picture.
Where there are points of policy difference, as government backbenchers we have a very wide range of forums and mechanisms for raising these in a comradely, constructive way. The authors dismiss “conversations behind closed doors”, but they can and do shape government policy.
I’m sorry if these colleagues feel that being asked to vote for a Labour government’s legislation makes them “lobby fodder”. Personally, I believe I was elected in North Durham because people there wanted a Labour MP and a Labour government. I signed up for this job because I wanted to be a team player and, far from feeling like “lobby fodder”, I am proud every time I walk through the division lobbies with my Labour colleagues.
Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham
