“Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake” is the old adage that Labour strategists often quoted with a wink as the Conservative party tore itself apart under Boris Johnson. But two Tory leaders later, the party knows it needs to do much more to secure a decisive victory than simply ride into power on the coattails of apathy. Keir Starmer’s team are cautious, wanting to stop any potential future problems from developing. Because, while a vision, policies and a leadership team ready to be embraced by voters are most certainly needed, every niggle has the potential to be leapt upon by their opponents. Since Starmer took the helm three years ago, he has transformed what was once an openly splintered party into one where the hydra heads are laying in slumber. They have not disappeared, but stay silent. The result is a level of message discipline some say approaches what Nicola Sturgeon managed during most of her leadership of the SNP. However, it belies an unhappy underbelly – of MPs, councillors and volunteers who feel they have no choice but to keep quiet for fear of being sidelined. Labour has internal processes designed to deal with complaints fairly. However, the latest move – to place under investigation the director of the pressure group Compass, Neil Lawson, for a two-year-old tweet – has renewed concerns among some of an overzealous appetite for control among Starmer’s allies. “This is bizarre,” said one Corbyn-era shadow cabinet minister, who asked not to be named. “Neal Lawson is a completely harmless centrist Labour party activist who has campaigned for many years on proportional representation. To expel him not for a speech or an essay but for a two-year-old tweet on the subject would be ridiculous if it was not so alarming.”
The feeling that Lawson’s treatment is symptomatic of a wider issue was echoed by several other Labour MPs. “The factionalism, crushing of pluralism, democracy and freedom of speech in the Labour party is chilling,” another claimed. Dealing deftly with complaints against Labour members was one of Starmer’s initial priorities, as he sought to expel antisemites from the party’s ranks. And figures close to him argue that exclusion panels that look at cases of potential expulsion – such as the one Lawson may face – are fact-oriented, not factional. Disciplining those who express support for another political party as part of a “progressive alliance”, some Labour figures believe, is important to counter any Tory attacks that Labour is ready to form a coalition. The “coalition of chaos” attack will probably not stick next time, given the Conservatives’ own penchant for pandemonium since David Cameron issued that immortal line. But a minority government that has to be propped by up the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Greens may see pressure on Labour to make big concessions. Even a slim majority would see Starmer as in hock to his most fringe backbencher as Theresa May was during the Brexit wars. This is why some in Labour take such a strong stance against the promotion of other parties. This issue will come to a head soon, in mid-Bedfordshire: Labour and the Liberal Democrats are preparing to pit themselves against each other in what has the potential to be the first genuinely three-horse byelection in several years. Starmer-sceptics say that concerns about freedom of speech extend beyond members to candidates. They point to decisions like leaving Jamie Driscoll, the Labour North of Tyne mayor, off the party’s longlist for the new north-east mayoral candidate from 2024. But allies of the Labour leader know the closer he gets to the prize, the bigger the jeopardy for things to go wrong. They are only likely to get more determined to iron out potential issues the closer polling day gets.