KEIR Starmer appeared to easily see off the first backbench rebellion of his premiership as Labour voted to keep two-child benefit cap.
But was the result all it seemed?
Labour MPs have been fairly open – even if they were not one of the seven who voted to scrap the policy – that they’re not happy about the situation.
They blame the Tories for the economic inheritance with which they have been lumped. Some of the Scots among them even tell their constituents to ask the Scottish Government about it instead.
No matter how cynical you are about the Labour Party, very few of them want child poverty to worsen on their watch.
Towards the fag end of their time in power, reducing child poverty was one of the central boasts of New Labour. It’s what a lot of these people got into politics for, though you may disagree with their methods.
While today’s effort by the SNP failed as it was always bound to, it does pose an existential question for Labour MPs: What are you here for?
It is one that will continue to haunt Labour throughout their time in power. It’s why Starmer is now so focused on “delivery” – “change” becomes stale quickly.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour MP says 'contact your MSP' in copy-and-paste two-child cap email
Come the next election, they must have concrete things to which they can point and say: “Look, see we did that, vote for me again!”
There is also a historical element to Labour’s anguish over attacks by the SNP from their left. For years, before the monumental political shifts in Scottish politics after the referendum, Labour and many voters saw the SNP as the “Tartan Tories”.
They would argue the SNP were responsible for letting Margaret Thatcher in back in 1979.
It’s wounding for them psychologically to be outflanked to the left by the SNP – that’s probably part of the reason they keep doing it.
One of the things that helped Starmer get over the line at this election was strict discipline within his party. He practically neutered the left and rigged internal processes in favour of party high command to ensure no candidates suffered from wrongthink.
READ MORE: SNP MP with perfect dig at 'sad lonely figure' Nigel Farage in Commons speech
But five years is an aeon in politics. Take the SNP as an object lesson in this. In 2019, after the party returned 48 MPs to Westminster under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon, it was unthinkable they would find themselves in the situation they do now.
That discipline dissolved. Their iron leader gone.
Many within the new Labour intake are fundamentally technocrats. They are definitively not ideologues to such an extent that many of them would, in fact, view ideology as a dirty word.
READ MORE: Car crash interview sees Labour minister squirm over arms sales to Israel
Policy must be, in their view, directed by the evidence. The problem is, evidence can be interpreted in as many ways as there are new Labour MPs. Ideology would help guide them to apply the evidence in a way that tells a story.
The story they are looking for is that question the SNP have been posing for months: What’s the point in Labour?
As the Holyrood election fast approaches and Labour look to seize back control of the Scottish Government, that is a question for which they must find an answer.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel