Will Keir Starmer's "Iron Fist" Party Management Backfire?

It was “a very threatening letter,” says one rebel Labour MP who received it – a chilling warning of “privileges” snatched away because of a failure to give the party unswerving support. “It was telling us there would be punishments,” protests another.

The sanction was sent to around a dozen back benchers who refused to vote to cut winter fuel payments for most pensioners – just weeks after seven Labour MPs were suspended for backing a motion to repeal the two-child benefit cap.

These draconian steps laid bare how Keir Starmer plans to control his massive Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP); with an iron, unbending discipline so different to the more relaxed approaches of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the shocked rebels accuse the Prime Minister of “bullying” and “thuggish” behaviour – but what is striking, from talking to MPs across the PLP spectrum, is how that anger is simply the starkest example of much wider discontent at what is seen as a distant, dismissive and often outright hostile No 10 operation, stirring unnecessary resentments and storing up future problems.

MPs speak of anger at being blindsided by the winter fuel cut that backfired so badly; of bitterness over close Starmer allies catapulted into jobs at the expense of far more experienced MPs; of macho No 10 aides engaged in “student politics on acid”, of threats to cut off donations for bad behaviour; and of a little-seen Prime Minister disinterested in cultivating a better relationship. He “treats us like employees – ‘do what I say or you’ll be sanctioned’,” growls one.

Consider the 30-odd shadow ministers who failed to land jobs in the new government. It appears none were contacted by the Starmer team with an explanation, let alone thanks for their contribution to the July election win. Some found out their fate on X, formerly named Twitter.

“People were very upset. It was poor management to tell people they don’t care about them and consider them irrelevant in that way,” says one of the unsuccessful shadows, like so many speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of “retribution”.

“Keir should have been told to sit in a room for 90 minutes and ring through all the names on the list to say thank you and tell them it doesn’t mean they’re finished,” says another veteran MP. There was also anger over new MPs who ran against experienced colleagues for powerful posts as committee chairs, apparently at Downing Street’s behest. “It was clear they’d been put up to it by No 10, because it doesn’t want proper scrutiny,” says one chair from the last parliament who was asked for tips by one of the new intake – only to find that help used to mount a challenge.

This is seen as part of what another MP called “a divide and rule” operation, saying: “The whips are using the new intake to control the PLP. They might be able to do that for a while, because they are new kids on the block – but that will wear off as they think for themselves.” Only new MPs were invited to policy talks with some Cabinet ministers.

One ultra-loyal back bencher says: “Having discipline in the PLP is very important, but the leadership is making it harder for themselves by creating the sense that they have a very low opinion of their MPs and are not interested in any advice. That’s where the problem is.”

Clive Efford, who ran unsuccessfully to be PLP chair in July, warns of trouble ahead, telling me: “With such a large PLP, the government will have to work very hard to keep people on board, which means taking on board their concerns. You can’t expect MPs to be dictated to on sensitive issues of policy and not expect them to want to be listened to.”

The September resignation letter of ex-Labour MP Rosie Duffield put this criticism in the open, when she told Starmer: “You have never regularly engaged with your own back bench MPs. You have chosen neither to seek our individual political opinions, nor learn about our constituency experiences, nor our specific or collective areas of political knowledge. We clearly have nothing you deem to be of value.”

Even before the election, there was bitterness over MPs whose suspensions dragged on for a year or more – from Diane Abbott on the party’s left, to Conor McGinn on the other wing – with the suspicion the leadership was “running down the clock to take them out”.

Of course, some will dismiss such attacks as the carping of MPs left on the sidelines of the Starmer project. However, many see it as an example of a deeper Downing Street dysfunction epitomised by the departure of chief of staff Sue Gray after just three months.

In opposition, the task of fostering harmony between Starmer’s office and his MPs fell to his experienced and popular political director Luke Sullivan – who, to widespread surprise, was replaced by Vidhya Alakeson and left for the private sector.

However, Alakeson’s role, prior to her promotion to deputy chief of staff, was to help shape the party’s research and messaging – leaving an apparent vacuum where a trusted link is needed to straddle No 10 and Westminster’s bars and tea rooms.

“If you find out who’s doing that job, please let me know!” jokes one MP in despair. “If no one does it, you get into the mess the Tories did – when there was no one going back telling No 10: ‘if you do this, then it will cause all manner of trouble’.”

Claire Reynolds, the director of Labour Women’s Network and a former aide to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in Downing Street, has recently been appointed political director.

To Patrick Diamond, a member of Blair’s Policy Unit two decades ago and now professor of public policy at Queen Mary University, London, all this is a pale shadow of the determined efforts Labour’s most successful prime minister made to keep his PLP onside.

Diamond remembered how Blair, while marching his party to the centre, worked hard to maintain good relationships with left-wingers such as Dennis Skinner, while others – Clare Short, Dawn Primarolo and Chris Mullin – were brought into government.

Each Monday morning, Blair’s director of government relations and his political secretary met with the party’s general secretary as part of “a big focus on party management”.

“Tony was determined to keep a handle on where the PLP was, because he knew the potential for opposition,” Diamond says. “He never gave up on trying to have a better relationship with the PLP.”

The former adviser says that sort of approach “doesn’t seem to be going on now”, which is perhaps surprising given Blair’s political director was Pat McFadden – now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and crucial member of Labour’s so-called “quad” of top
Cabinet ministers.

Diamond says it is vital for MPs not to feel like “Lobby fodder”, suggesting: “The PLP has got to be given a stake in policy development, by creating a process to give the PLP a voice and opportunities to be more radical.”

Another MP says more ominously: “This will be Starmer’s undoing. The whole approach is stupid because you cannot sustain that level of aggression with MPs who are realising they may have only one term in this job.”

Related

Outgoing Hereditary Peers Criticise "Nasty" Plans To Abolish Them

By Tom Scotson

11 Dec

PoliticsHome Newsletters

PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe