The moves not to “re-adopt” Conservative MP Nicholas Boles by his local constituency party because he has “gone rogue”, and to deselect Labour’s Luciana Berger for disloyalty, are straws in the political wind. Both MPs are semi-detached from their party leadership, and both have crucially become so over the issue of Britain’s departure from the European Union. Mr Boles has not endeared himself to Tory party activists in Lincolnshire, who voted heavily to leave, for working with Labour’s Yvette Cooper to delay Brexit and scupper a catastrophic no-deal outcome. Ms Berger backs a second referendum, in defiance of her leadership, and last week refused to rule out leaving Labour for another party.
There are other reasons why some activists in Liverpool’s Wavertree and the east Midlands seat of Grantham and Stamford want to get rid of their MPs. Mr Boles snubbed locals by refusing to move to his constituency and there is a feeling that he is too “London-centric”. In Liverpool Ms Berger has been a thorn in the side of Jeremy Corbyn over what she says is his failure to crack down on antisemitism. Mr Corbyn comes from the left of the party, which has argued that the charge of antisemitism is often levelled without substance to close down criticism of repressive Israeli actions against Palestinians. There are strong views on each side. However, it is welcome that the motions of no confidence were rescinded, particularly as Ms Berger is pregnant and has suffered outrageous misogynistic and antisemitic abuse. Efforts to oust Mr Boles ought to be similarly dropped.
Political parties need to be broad churches to remain relevant. No single thread of political opinion has a monopoly on the popular mood. Parties that slim down their thinking will find themselves shrinking their potential electorate. That is why purging rebel MPs because they disagree is the wrong course of action. In Britain MPs are representatives, not delegates. They obey their own judgment over the opinions of their constituents. They might respect local activists’ views and take them into account when reaching decisions, but MPs ought to retain an independence of thought.
There are good reasons to remove an MP: corruption, criminality, fecklessness or voting to bring down their own government. But expelling someone for a difference of opinion does little to engender faith in political pluralism. It is a turn-off for voters.
As Brexit goes down to the wire, British politics is likely to see rebellions by groups of MPs and cross-party coalitions as well as parliamentarians who dissent from the leadership line. All those involved may face being deselected through campaigns by local activists, radicalised by the pro- and anti-Brexit lines of cleavage. Party affiliations are obscuring the dominant issue in British politics. But to paraphrase John Stuart Mill, Westminster needs dissenters, even if they are wrong, to sharpen our view of the truth.
