Dealing with disagreement

Mother of the House and veteran firebrand Diane Abbott has caused controversy once again by saying the threat of Russian aggression in Ukraine is a “NATO fiction.” This has led to yet more calls for her to lose the Labour Whip.

I fundamentally disagree with Diane. In fact, I wish NATO were anything like as powerful as the outdated boogeyman of the far left. The political analysis of the Stop the War Coalition (whose event was where the speech was made) has not moved on since the Cold War and is so far out of alignment with reality it would be laughable if it were not a really quite dangerous strand of thinking.

But the arguments about pacifism, the left’s approach to stopping (some) wars or the relationship between the UK and NATO is not what I want to focus on this morning. Instead I want to make the more complex argument that discipline is not the right approach for dealing with those within our own party with whom we fundamentally disagree.

Politics is – in essence – about persuasion. About making and winning arguments. Whether those arguments are over social policy, defence policy or economic policy there will always be fundamental differences between Labour members about how we interpret and implement our shared values.

READ MORE: Labour Party Conference 2026: Full LabourList events programme, revealed

Over the last decade or so politics on the left has become significantly worse at persuasion and that should worry us all. If you believe that left wing ideas and values matter then you should be able to make a persuasive case for your argument. I believe that international defence cooperation is a part of my left wing values. Diane does not. We should be able to have that argument publicly. I have the confidence that I would win that fight.

But if, when politicians in the same party disagree over party policy, we reach not for persuasion, but for discipline then we do two things that damage whatever the cause is that we are fighting for.

Firstly, we reject the opportunity to have – and win – the row in public. This means that our arguments are not as well heard as they can or should be by those who are making up their own minds. It also makes us look insecure in our ability to persuade a majority of people that we are right and those we disagree with are wrong. A supposed show of strength in fact looks weak. If those of us who disagree with Diane on NATO cast her out rather than take her on, it doesn’t make her argument go away. It just creates a martyr to the cause.

Secondly, and more insidiously, we create a culture of ‘purity politics’ that will inevitably come back and bite us in the end. If one side of any area of disagreement within the Labour Party (of which, let’s face it, there are many) uses their time in charge not to defeat the arguments of those who oppose them but to punish them we open the doorway to them doing the same were they to find themselves in the ascendancy.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

No one in the Labour Party agrees with anyone else in the Labour Party on every single issue. This Friday, for example, we will see Labour MPs argue with each other passionately about assisted dying. We can all think of other issues that people care passionately about and see as fundamental to their politics on which those within the same party are diametrically opposed. This is literally what it means to be a broad church party. So while I disagree with Diane today, I am quite likely to agree with her on something else tomorrow. Something on which those who agree with me today wildly disagree with me.

Andy Burnham has spoken out often against the overuse of the whipping system arguing that it makes MPs unthinking lobby fodder – voting as instructed rather than scrutinising and strengthening legislation. I largely agree with this.

Recent history of the use of the whip to penalise MPs over policy disagreement rather than poor behaviour (where there is still absolutely an essential role for discipline) has not ended well for those holding the whip hand. The overuse of the whip under Starmer was one of the elements that led to a backlash within the PLP.

Party discipline is vital. As we are seeing repeatedly with Reform UK professional parties need rules and those who do not have them or do not abide by them become increasingly chaotic, ineffective and unattractive.

But this discipline cannot and should not replace debate. We do not win arguments by avoiding them. We do not beat our opponents (internal or external) by silencing them. We win by making the more persuasive case – loudly, confidently and publicly. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • BECOME A FRIEND: If you enjoyed this, why not consider becoming a Friend of LabourList? Help sustain our journalism, and of course Friends do get benefits…
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].