12 September 2025

Why the Labour right shut down my deputy leadership campaign

Socialism is being squeezed out of the party

In the 2015 leadership contest, a respected New Labour strategist condemned the “moronic MPs” who, despite their political differences with Jeremy Corbyn, nominated him to ensure a proper debate took place. Of all the lessons that might be learnt from that moment in Labour’s history, those who run the party today seem to have drawn only one: that terrible mistake, of permitting an open leadership contest, must never be repeated.

That’s why my deputy leadership campaign has lasted just three days. Not because party members don’t want to hear my pitch; not because my ideas are unpopular with the public, and not because I’m unqualified for the job – in each case, the opposite is true. No, my challenge was so short-lived because Labour’s ruling faction is so terrified of challenge that they rigged the rules to stop members being able to choose between candidates from all wings of the party.

Everybody knows the leadership has defined itself against the Labour left, to which I belong, as a proud member of the Socialist Campaign Group. Few candidates of a similar persuasion were allowed to stand at the General Election last year, and such factionalism is even wielded against soft-left, trade union-aligned colleagues, as we’ve seen in the recent reshuffle. This approach might have succeeded in marginalising me and many other colleagues within the parliamentary party.

But how well has the paranoid, controlling style served the Labour government? How well has it served our party? From the events of recent months, I think there is a clear answer to that question: very badly indeed. We on the left believe in a democratic, member-led Labour Party not only on grounds of principle – just as important is that democracy, consisting in open debate, challenge, and, yes, even sharp disagreement, produces better political outcomes.

Disability benefits, child poverty, Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Peter Mandelson’s close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein: on all of these issues and more, this government has ended up on the rocks. And each and every time, had the leadership listened to dissenting MPs and the common sense of the membership, crises could have been averted.

In shutting down and even sanctioning dissenting views – suspending colleagues from the whip – the Labour leadership is doing serious harm to itself and to our party. Indeed, if this approach does not end, it could wreck the country too, handing the next election to Reform on a plate.

Despite a relentless campaign to convince us otherwise and erase the almost 13 million votes we won in 2017 from the historical record, the Labour left’s programme remains popular – with party members and the public. A full 92 per cent of Labour members back public ownership of water, while 91 per cent are in favour of wealth taxes on the richest; 84 per cent support both stopping all arms sales to Israel and scrapping the two-child benefit cap.

Party members were owed a proper debate in this contest. I hope to see Lucy Powell and Bridget Phillipson, my two colleagues who will be on the ballot paper, represent these views to No 10 Downing Street. They should argue, too, for more pluralism and tolerance of disagreement, including restoring the whip to the suspended Labour MPs and putting an end to the rigging of candidate selections.

We need a bold, anti-establishment politics which governs without apology in the interests of the vast majority. It’s the only way to transform our country, and the only way to defeat the populist right. I’m in equal parts proud to have articulated that vision in my deputy leadership campaign and angry that open contests have been rendered impossible by undemocratic rules. If my Socialist Campaign Group colleagues and I are really so unpopular and irrelevant, why not let the members decide?