Managing the message: Party discipline and the politics of Reform

Labour maintains that the four MPs lost the whip due to “persistent breaches of party discipline,” rather than their opposition to last week’s welfare reforms. While the leadership continues to face challenges in uniting MPs behind complex legislation, recent events highlight the broader difficulty of managing dissent across a range of policy areas. 

Further upset followed the whip being taken from four MPs - Rachel Maskell, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan, and Brian Leishman – as three MPs lost their roles as trade envoys – Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, and Mohammed Yasin. This serves as a warning shot to ambitious back benchers, but also a sign that there is a willingness to switch up personnel in government roles, possibly leading the way to a cabinet reshuffle in autumn. 

Such changes will need to be managed carefully. Two weeks ago, the markets reacted to the perceived loss of stability that a change in Chancellor could bring. Labour needs to avoid the perception that shuffles in, currently voluntary roles like trade envoys but likely extending to cabinet roles, are being done for party management reasons rather than for the good of fulfilling the government’s “missions”. The need to put on a unified front as party conference season comes closer, makes this more pressing. But how do you manage a party that seems to lack a unifying thread? 

It remains to be seen whether this heavy-handed approach to party discipline will quell dissenters over the summer recess. But a previous attempt to put off dissenters is perhaps a warning of what may come next. This time a year ago seven MPs had the whip removed for voting against keeping the two-child benefit cap. One of these MPs, Zarah Sultana MP, has recently proposed a new party on the Left and some polls indicate that support for the half-baked offering almost equals Labour. 

The current cohort of newly independent MPs so far appear shocked to have lost the whip – Rachel Maskell MP purports to be “still committed to the Party, one that upholds the values of equality and justice” – and may be unlikely to jump ship to another immediately. However, there is a risk that a greater chasm will grow between their view of what the Labour government should value compared to the practical realities of governing as the government appears to go from crisis to crisis without a strong narrative thread.  

The dominant thread currently appears to be that of fiscal responsibility. This may be going down well in the City, despite grumblings about lacking growth. However, MPs in swing seats, reared on 14 years of criticising Conservative austerity, are looking for a more powerful framing to justify tough reforms needed in areas such as welfare and planning. Driving generational equality could be a powerful framing here (can young people also expect a triple lock pension, fuel allowance, and home ownership when they retire in 40 years), and today’s announcement of lowering the voting age could be a useful impetus. A government with a clearer overarching vision would place this as a centrepiece to talk to younger voters, currently looking further left and further right, about what Labour can offer them. But again, the current incremental approach to announcing change makes this policy, with legacy-leaving potential, seem like nothing more than a reactive announcement pushed out on a random Thursday.