How the Labour Government can manage rebellions

In common political parlance the Government has made three 'U-turns' in policy areas in the last few months. Each had their own dynamic - winter fuel allowance, grooming gangs, and welfare reform - but each had a common factor that brought about a change in the policy: Labour supporters didn't like the original one.

And these were not the usual run of the mill pressure group type supporters, such as unions and third party groups. No, it was the Government's own backbench troops that united in opposition to their own Government. The threat of losing a vote because the numbers looked too close was, allegedly, the call of the Prime Minister probably advised by those closest to the issue and voting intentions, such as the Chief Whip and others. But many would argue it is pretty damning when your own side is dictating policy decisions it's own Government has made which they now do not like.

Of course it happens and has in time immemorial in Parliaments through the ages. Nothing new there. But we're just into the second year of the newish Government's tenure, backed by a massive majority in the Commons, but who now have conspired to cast doubt and confusion on the Government's ability to, well, govern. Is this a temporary blip or is the apparently muddled thinking in some areas of policy at the heart of the Government conspiring against it to achieve its mandate?

In my opinion it's neither. As the Roman statesman and orator Cicero once said that "any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error". The Government will make what they might term 'mis-steps' but they will be alive to the consequences of future ones. Year two to year three of any Government who seeks a further mandate at the next election is all about showing delivery, progress, and success against the manifesto on which they were elected. Starmer's Government know they have to show improvements in all three areas if they are to convince their own side, never mind the broader electorate.

Where do they start? In my view, quite simply through listening, and communicating better.

I believe the issues comes down to the gap between the executive (Government Ministers) and their own backbenches. The executive doesn't seem to be listening enough to their own side, while seemingly at the same time communicating in a way which to some is patronising and to others insufficient. Members of Parliament with a job to do, but little to do if they are not part of the Government payroll, can become easily distracted if they feel they are not listened to. No wonder there are so many groups among Labour backbenchers focused on all sorts of areas they believe important for the Government. It is not clear to me that the Government think they are as important as those groups do. That is an error that can be overcome.

How? Well short of having a massive weekend party at Chequers to build bridges with the troops, the answer is baby steps of an equivalence to that. The Cabinet and junior Ministers should engage in a listening exercise with those troops; divide them up by region, or interest, or whichever might be sensible - but make it real, not a charm offensive which could backfire. Spend some of what's left of the summer, ahead of the autumn conferences, meeting in groups of ten or so, and listen, engage, and feedback any good ideas arising (there will be). Ironically the Whips should do this but they are associated with discipline, so I think that a more open approach in the way described could yield better results. And use the many assets the Government has such as the Special Adviser network by encouraging their participation in this. Finally use the party conference not as some form of self-congratulatory jamboree or worse an introspective griping session, but by allowing backbenchers to determine policy topics, and give them speaking slots rather than the boring and rather predictable Ministerial updates by each Department.

While the media may call this a re-set, and too late etc etc the Government and backbenchers should not care. It's good to talk.