Labour sackings: exuding authority or petty and vindictive?
House of Commons This July, just like last July, the prime minister has decided to kick some of his MPs out of the Parliamentary Labour Party. A year ago, just weeks after winning the general election, seven Labour MPs had the whip removed, to use the Westminster jargon, having voted against the two-child benefit cap….
House of CommonsThis July, just like last July, the prime minister has decided to kick some of his MPs out of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
A year ago, just weeks after winning the general election, seven Labour MPs had the whip removed, to use the Westminster jargon, having voted against the two-child benefit cap.
Here we are 12 months later, just as MPs may have thought things were quietening down before Parliament’s summer break starting next week, and here we go again.
Four MPs have had the party whip removed, meaning they will sit as independents in the House of Commons.
Three other Labour MPs have been stripped of their trade envoy roles.
The logic last summer was it would act as a marker and a big disincentive for other Labour MPs to contemplate rebellion.
Perhaps it worked, at least for a bit, but then came those colossal benefits rebellions earlier this summer.
The four MPs who have been given the heave-ho were called in one at a time to see the Chief Whip Sir Alan Campbell just after Prime Minister’s Question Time.
The three now former trade envoys were rung by a senior figure in Downing Street to be told their (unpaid) services were no longer required.
One of those to lose the whip told me they were “emotional” and “devastated” – barely a year into their time as a Labour MP, they are no more, sitting instead now as an independent.
But I detect a defiance from them too – and from other Labour MPs as well.
“Ridiculous,” “petty,” “vindictive,” “weak” are just four of the words I have scribbled into my notebook while listening down the phone to some Labour MPs.
Downing Street wants to show authority and squash any potential future rebellions, such as on changes to special educational needs provision in England, before they begin.
Senior figures attribute the timing of these suspensions to giving themselves time to reach a considered decision.
The suspensions, they insist, weren’t for an individual act of rebellion but for repeatedly organising against the government.
UK ParliamentToo right say some Labour MPs, this is still a new-ish government and those elected on a Labour ticket ought to be more loyal.
Others witness the spectacle with a wry smile.
“They’re public executions!” one said. “It is quite something seeing them removed one by one from the various WhatsApp groups.”
One suspended rebel said the 20-minute conversation with the chief whip was “frank but cordial”.
One of the sacked trade envoys told me “I understand why they did it” but described it as “petty and a bit pointless”.
They had each received a call from the prime minister’s political director Claire Reynolds, who, as it happens, is married to the Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
They were told voting against the government on welfare was incompatible with continuing as a government trade envoy.
It is not lost on those who have been sacked as envoys that they are all minority ethnic and the government has Liberal Democrats as trade envoys too – who are not expected to vote with the government, but nonetheless they are expected to.
“It is greatest sacking of a role with no salary I have ever known,” one told me.
“Morale is already down in the dumps among the base, among members and councillors. How is this going to help?” another Labour figure said.
“I can’t imagine Harold Wilson or Tony Blair doing this. It shows weakness and pettiness,” said a frustrated Labour MP still in possession of the whip.
The prime minister has been stepping up the amount of time he spends with his MPs, having been bruised by accusations that he is too detached from them.
He spent a couple of hours in parliament after Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday afternoon, and had lunch with a group of his colleagues.
His MPs had expected this more softly softly approach, and greater outreach, to be the noticeable difference after the bumpy last few weeks.
It turns out it is part of the approach, but only part.
Sir Keir Starmer has to hope this splash of discipline helps soothe and calm his party, rather than relitigating these recent rows.
Let’s see how that turns out.
