Starmer’s control freakery comes at a price for Labour
Is Keir Starmer’s Labour Party a broad church? The leader ran as an open-minded and unifying candidate in 2020, but those days are seemingly long gone. Most of his advisers either worked for Blair and Brown or obviously wish they did, and the shadow cabinet doesn’t even pretend to have a left flank.
Perhaps more importantly, party discipline has become noticeably stricter. Take Nadia Whittome, who tweeted last month that Rishi Sunak wasn’t “a win for Asian representation”. She wrote: “He’s a multimillionaire who, as chancellor, cut taxes on bank profits while overseeing the biggest drop in living standards since 1956. Black, white or Asian: if you work for a living, he is not on your side.”
The Nottingham East MP was told to delete the post by the party. It was an eyebrow-raising move; after all, Whittome is Asian herself, and never alleged that Sunak wasn’t a “real” minority, as others controversially did.
This was, at worst, a difference in opinion between a backbencher and the leader of the opposition. That she was not allowed to get away with it says a lot about the grip Starmer intends to have on his benches.
Interestingly, it doesn’t even only apply to currently serving members of parliament. If the Labour Party manages to win the next election, its intake will be remarkably uniform.
As The Times pointed out this morning: “Of the 39 candidates so far selected by local parties to the seats that must turn red if Labour is to win the next election, none – not one – are what you could call a Corbynite or even of the left.” It is a striking fact.
Though said Corbynites may be inclined to feel betrayed and angry at the control freak currently heading the party, it is worth wondering if there is another dynamic at play here. “Is Keir Starmer’s Labour party a broad church?” is easy to ask, as the answer is obviously “not if he can help it”.
Instead, the real question should be: can Keir Starmer’s Labour Party be a broad church? Again, take Nadia Whittome’s tweet. Had the whole incident occurred say 10 or 15 years ago, the backbencher wouldn’t have been able to post anything publicly.
It’s worth wondering what would be lost if parties became ideologically narrower. Diversity of thought, experiences and opinions makes politics richer
She probably would have been asked for her views by the local paper or, at best, a local radio or TV programme. Few people would have been aware of it. Had the monitoring unit in Labour HQ noticed it, it seems likely that they would have let it slide. MPs are people; as long as they do not directly contradict the leadership, they can have opinions.
It is also unreasonable to expect a group of anything from roughly 200 to 400 people to always be seen to agree on everything. Leeway isn’t just allowed; it is usually encouraged, as long as it doesn’t end up turning into damaging, national news. You do, after all, need to be able to keep your MPs on side.
The only problem is that, thanks to social media, it is now incredibly easy for virtually any MP, no matter how obscure, to end up making damaging, national news. They can tweet and post on Facebook and Instagram and, either by mistake or by design, turn themselves into the story.
There is no straightforward way to deal with this. Should MPs be banned from posting on social media altogether? Perhaps, but it doesn’t feel like a realistic option. Should they be remorselessly disciplined whenever they get out of line? Maybe, but it will end up antagonising many of them in the long run, and it isn’t clear that it is worth it.
The third option, which Starmer seems to be aiming for, is to make sure that the Labour benches are shaped in his image. This way, the risk of people like Whittome contradicting the party line instantly diminishes.
It may seem drastic but, if you want to see what factionalism and a widespread social media addiction can do to a party, you can always look at today’s Conservatives. Well, or the Labour Party in the Corbyn years. You really don’t have to go far. Starmer may appear to be a control freak, but what he is trying to do makes sense.
It just feels worth wondering about what would be lost if parties became ideologically narrower. Diversity of thought, experiences and opinions makes politics richer. Gobby and independent-minded backbenchers may be occasionally inconvenient, but they should have their place in a healthy democratic system.
Few will stick their head above the parapet to defend them but, really, we’ll all miss them when they’re gone. Well, most of us anyway.
Want your views to be included in The Independent Daily Edition letters page? Email us by tapping here letters@independent.co.uk. Please include your address