It is Cameron vs. the Tories as EU vote approaches

The PM is facing the biggest ever Conservative rebellion on Europe -- a crisis largely of his own ma

David Cameron today faces the biggest Commons revolt of his premiership -- and potentially the biggest ever Conservative rebellion on the issue of Europe.

On 20th May 1993, 41 Conservative MPs voted against John Major on the third reading of the Maastricht Treaty. To date, this was the biggest ever Tory rebellion on whipped business on Europe.

Coincidentally, it is also the figure for the largest Conservative rebellion so far in this Parliament. Earlier this month, on 10 October, 41 Tory MPs voted against attempts to criminalise "insulting" words or behaviour. This did not make much of a splash in the news -- unlike the current vote, which has gathered attention both for the spectacle of the Tories fighting over Europe (again), and because of Cameron's belated decision to impose a three-line whip.

It is still unclear how many MPs will defy the whips to vote in favour of a UK referendum on Europe, but according to the highest estimates, it could be nearly double that 41 figure. If the list of Conservative MPs who openly pledged to support the referendum is combined with those who have already defied whips over Europe since the beginning of this government, the number is closer to 78. Separately, Sunny Hundal suggests that up to 10 Labour MPs could defy their whips to vote in favour of a referendum.

Cameron is attempting to reassure the doubters that in the event of treaty change, he will renegotiate Britain's position. The story dominating the papers this morning -- that Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy had a heated exchange on Europe -- fits the narrative that the Prime Minister wishes to further: that he is not afraid to anger European leaders in his defence Britain's interests. However, this does not appear to be getting through to his party.

In a survey for Conservative Home, 64 per cent of respondents said that they did not believe that Cameron was "very committed to repatriating any powers from the European Union", despite his promises, compared with just 18 per cent who did believe he wanted to repatriate "significant" powers.

It is impossible to say exactly how large today's Commons rebellion will be, and, as the Ballots and Bullets blog points out, the number that actually votes against the whip is almost always invariably less than that predicted. Even if the revolt is not as large as expected, however, it is difficult to see how Cameron can emerge well from this, and one must question his logic in applying the whip in the first place. Mary Anne Sieghart argues today:

If there had been a free vote, the motion might not even have been carried. But if it had, Cameron could easily have said, "I hear what you say. I agree that any renegotiated relationship with the EU will have to be endorsed by a referendum. But it's too early to call one now, when we don't yet know what shape the eurozone will take or what any new relationship will look like." He would have sounded both responsive and responsible. Instead he has absolutely infuriated his party.

Emotions in the Tory party are certainly running high, with at least one ministerial aide -- Stewart Jackson (£), aide to Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary -- willing to vote against the whips even if it costs him his job. Graham Brady, the head of the powerful 1922 committee which represents backbenchers, is also set to defy the government (Lord Tebbit said yesterday that "not even Ted Heath faced the chairman of the 1922 Committee voting against a three-line whip"). While the vote is likely to go Cameron's way, the damage within his party will take longer to heal.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.