Keir Starmer may proclaim himself as a socialist, and Rachel Reeves a social democrat, but whether Diane Abbott will stand as a Labour candidate is leading many to question whether some socialists risk being deliberately excluded by the leadership.
In such circumstances, it is easy to forget that Abbott hasn’t yet been prevented from standing. She, and a report in The Times, have suggested that the national party wants to exclude her, and she has said she will look to stay in parliament. But can Starmer really be seen to back down, or would that now make him look weak?
It has already emboldened Jeremy Hunt on the Today programme to say: “If Keir Starmer can’t deal with Diane Abbott, how on earth is he going to deal with Vladimir Putin?†And the more Abbott puts herself in direct opposition to the leadership, the more likely that exclusion becomes.
Starmer has an opportunity to shape the party as he wants
The exclusion of Jeremy Corbyn last year provided a ‘victory against the left’, and a big question is why Abbott’s suspension and potential action against her had been left to fester.
This is an issue entirely of the party’s own making, which was always going to arise during the election campaign if not sorted before. That may have been part of the thinking but, if so, it was high risk to say the least.
It is though too easy to bring the names of all those who potentially may not be allowed to stand to try to show a pattern of behaviour by Starmer and his team. The reality is that many of these cases are quite different. The reasons for the exclusions are different. Using words like ‘purge’ wrongly tries to bring all these different cases together.
The issue has already impacted on the party’s ‘NHS day’ and given the Conservatives a much-needed boost.
Given the current opinion poll lead, which has remained largely unchanged after a week of campaigning, if Labour were to lose seats to Corbyn, and Abbott if she ran as an independent too, it would be embarrassing – but it would not risk the party’s ability to form a government with a sizeable majority. That is doubtless part of the thinking.
It may be that this election period is one that provides Starmer with the opportunity to look at the whole of the potential parliamentary party and shape it in the way he wants. His political capital is high, and he does not want anything to stand in the way of being an effective government. The chances of winning several terms to implement a programme of change are at stake.
‘Exclusionary’ behaviour could be seen as a consequence of leadership
Those on the left often claim that Labour leaderships are trying to exclude them. Clare Short called out the “people in the dark†managing Tony Blair’s image in the run-up to 1997, and he was regularly compared to dictators such as Stalin so much so that he had to defend himself against that charge. Ken Livingstone was prevented from standing as a Labour candidate in the first London mayoral election, much to the annoyance of many on the left.
But, rewind to 2019, and parts of Corbyn-led Labour were accused of similar tacticsin Ilford South. ‘Exclusionary’ behaviour could be thought of as a consequence of leadership rather than a left-right divide. Leaders take the decision they believe to be necessary for the good of the country and the party.
The issue now is that this needs to be sorted as a matter of urgency. It cannot be allowed to drag on during the heat of a campaign. If Starmer backs down in the face of Abbott’s challenge then the electorate will be encouraged by the Conservatives to believe that potential internal opponents will have been given additional impetus to ‘control’ the party after the election – ‘Vote Starmer, Get Abbott’.
A number of trade unions may have written in support of Abbott, but is anyone really going to want to risk a Labour win? Throwing it away now because of internal rows would consign the party to history. It needs a quick and decisive decision and now the whole country is watching.