John McDonald, welcome to the new Statesman. You're one of the seven MPs who lost the whip who've been interviewed by the Chief Whip over the last few days. What's the latest? I've not heard anything. The Chief Whip before told us that he'd come back to us. We've served our sentence of six months. We were suspended for six months. I haven't heard anything. I'm hoping everyone will just have the whip restored. I think there's going to be a delay with me, Andrew, because the
I was involved in the Palestinian demonstration two weekends ago and I was brought in by the police, interviewed under caution about the issue about whether we'd gone beyond the boundaries that the police had set us for the demonstration. And we're just waiting for the, we're waiting for the police decision on that. I did an interview and then we're submitting just another statement. So I'm hoping that'll be cleared up. And then I'm hoping the whip will be restored.
The reason I want the whip restore is I was elected as a Labour MP. I've been a Labour Party now for only 50 years. And so the Labour Party is me. I'm the Labour Party. The Labour Party is part of me.
And I just want to ensure that we can just get back to normal practice. You can't have it excised with a scalpel. What was the atmosphere of the conversation with the Chief Whip? I know you can't go into all of the details, but how did it go from your point of view? Do you think? I get on with Alan Campbell's the Chief Whip now. I get on very well with him. I remember when I was at a chance there, he was the Deputy to Nick Brown.
and worked very closely, very supportively. So we've always got on pretty well. And I think he's just, he has to manage the parliamentary Labour Party and understand that. That's his job. The main decisions on issues like this will be made by the leader of the party and the chief whip. And I'm hoping we just get the matter resolved as quickly as possible. There's a bit of stirring in the background. You know that the settlements within the party have quite
quite happily. A few of them were quite happily seen me either leave the party or get chopped out. I'm not leaving. This is my party. And I just want to continue my work within it. A lot of the seven, the issue was the two child cap and the rebellion over the two child cap. And it's been suggested that people have been presented with, as it were, something to sign saying, I won't rebel in future if I get the whip back on those kinds of issues. Do you think A, that's true? And do you think anyone of you would actually do that?
Well, that's not been put to me. But of course, even when we're suspended, we still have to abide by the label whip. And so, you know, we'll be told you've got to abide by the label whip in the future, just like every other MP has to. But they're always sort of matters of principle. And there's always been a sort of understanding within the party that on some issues, people will be allowed to express dissent. But that's democracy, really. And under
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband. That's always been the case. And I just want us to return to normal practice, really. I've always worked on the basis. When an issue comes up, I look at what's best for my constituents, what's best for the country, if you like, and also looking at my own principles, and then you take into account the party. And I've
I've always followed that line. I know it's got me into trouble sometimes, but I think it's the correct thing to do. And actually, it's the thing that Kia reiterated. I was really pleased because he said, look, country before party. And that's what I've always done, basically.
I just feel that if, as it were, the number 10 hope is that we'll let John McDonald back into the whip, we'll give him the whip, but what we want is a kind of smooth, resistant, safe John McDonald, that's not likely to happen. Given that things like the two child cap are going to come back for sure in the spring, there's going to be great debates inside the PLP and the party generally about welfare and welfare cuts, you are an MP for right close to Heathrow and there's the third
runway issue coming up, and I don't really see you being taciturn and quiet about that. And then, of course, there's the Gaza issues as well. There are so many things I put you that you are going to carry on speaking out on, and you're going to carry on when necessary rebelling on that it's going to be hard to let you back in. See, I'd never used the road to rebel. I actually think if we're a Democratic Party, the way in which you get best decisions, the best policies, is you have debate
and you take into account other people's views. And then on some issues, particularly on constituency issues, you recognize that actually you may not agree and you allow the person to disagree. And on a constituency issue, you mentioned a third runway. We're talking about basically anything between 8,000 and 10,000 my constituents losing their homes if it goes ahead.
Now, you'd expect a constituency MP to fight for them, wouldn't you? That's inevitable. Certainly would. Historically, there's always been a tradition where if there's a strong constituency interest, you allow that flexibility, you allow the member of Parliament to speak up on behalf of their constituents. And yes, if necessary, vote that way as well. But also on more general issues of principle, there's always been that element of respect for another different views. So for example,
I suppose one of the biggest issues whilst I've been in Parliament was the Iraq War, you know. And Tony Blair rowed a vote on that and a number of us voted against, well, a large number was voted against. And yet there was no disciplinary measures that came out of that because it was such a principled issue. And I actually do think, I do think you get better decisions when you're not ruthlessly using the whip. So interesting, Andy Burnham, no longer in Parliament, but the mayor up in Manchester and doing a good job. In one of his recent books,
He said, look, we should drop the use of the whip overall. Now, I believe you need an element of party discipline. The whip should be a guidance. But if you overuse it and you're heavy with using the whip, that's where bad decisions get made. In the past, some chronic decisions have been made as a result of forcing people to vote for things against their wishes.
and against their better judgment. So what I'm saying is let's just get back to the normal Labour Party practice where there is that element of respect. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were withdrawing the whip from people on the basis of a particular vote on an issue. Usually the whip would draw is on behaviour and standards of behaviour, that sort of thing. So why do you think that Keir Starmer has been more disciplinarian if you like? Dan, for instance, Tony Blair, not normally regarded as a man of the left.
I think there's two things, one with regard to Keir himself. He hasn't been in Parliament that long, to be frank, and I don't think he's got that experience, and he hasn't got the experience put to the end government of a more confident style of government where you allow people to express different views. That's the first thing. And the second thing is, I have to say,
the elements on the right of the party are using exploiting the situation to try and eliminate sections of the left. There's no doubt about that. And you always have that too and I'm throwing. And that's where a leader comes in, where you just, you tell them, look calm down, we're going to hold this together. We're a broad church. We always have been, and we're going to maintain that tradition. And you know, I've been a strong advocate of the broad church. I've never ever
call for anyone on the right to be kicked out of the party or anything like that. Because actually, I think that concept of the broad church that we founded our party on, of bringing all the elements of the progressive left together, respecting different views, actually strengthens us. Keir said, well, he's like me. He's an advocate of admirer of Harold Wilson.
You look back Harold Wilson's cabinets, God, they were unbusted. They certainly were. It had rouse and all sorts of things, but they came out with better decisions as a result. And there was a respectful one another, you know, and you had some momentous characters in there. And it's the same in the athlete cabinet as well.
at the allowed debate, and then that was it. But he wasn't kicking people out of the party left and right. So you would say it's a mixture of lack of self-confidence, if I can put it that way, and an element of sectarianism is the problem at the moment. Do you think that under Keir Starmer the government has what it takes to shift direction and reopen the broad church, unlock the gates again? I think so. I think so. I think it's inevitable as well. Especially when you've got a large majority like this,
because we have a large number of new MPs who are just settling down, over 200 Andrew, they're just settling down, finding their feet. And as we go on, they'll be coming back and saying to the Labour leadership and the whips, in my constituency, this doesn't work. You need to listen to what's happening on the ground. I want you to know, we just saw that over the last week in the recent vote with regard to waspy, you know, the 1950s women,
And when the Ombudsman reported back that they should receive some compensation, but left it to the government to decide how to go forward, and then to all our surprise, the Chancellor just said, no, we're not going to do this. We're not compensated. We'll say we're sorry, but we're not going to give them compensation. There was a debate in Westminster Hall, and then there was a vote the other day on an SMP motion.
about this, and I was shocked in the Westminster Holders Bank, the number of new labour MPs getting up and saying, I'm sorry, I can't support the government on this. And then the other day, there was an SMP 10-minute rule bill vote. It was just a way of getting a vote.
I think it was 10 Labour MPs, new Labour MPs actually voted for the SNP motion. And I was really surprised at the numbers. I thought there'd just be one or two people. And, you know, as you describe usual suspects, but it went well beyond that. Returning, if I may, to the usual suspects, John, have you heard back from the police about the Palestinian demonstration? No, not yet. We're just submitting our statement. We haven't heard anything at all. It was a strange thing that happened.
There'd been negotiations by the 11 organizations that come together that organize these events with the police for about, for months. I think a route was agreed months ago. Then the police had some concerns, a bit of a tune of throwing. And then the police said, you can have white hall. So he said, okay, we'll have a rallying white hall. But what we'll do, the speakers in the organizations will march to the boundary where the police line is and we'll lay flowers. We get to the boundary and the police say, come through.
So all our shock and confusion, we go to the next please line, we say the same, and they arrest this chief steward, but then we lay the flowers, we'll come back to France when asked people to disperse. I thought in a bit of a cock-up rather than anything. It doesn't sound exactly Rosa Luxembourg to me, but we'll see what happens. But there's seven of you. So far as you're aware, has anybody received word that they're going to get the word back yet?
No, we haven't received any communication like that now. It might be over the next few days or weeks or whatever, but I'm hoping it's fairly quick and people can get back to the normal practice really.
Okay, we're going to take a break now, but join us afterwards when we will be discussing the economy and the horrendous choices in front of Rachel Reeves. Subscribe to the new Statesman and get your first five weeks for five quid. Visit newstatesman.com forward slash Jan 25 for details. We'll be back in a couple of minutes. Welcome back to politics from the new Statesman with me Andrew Marr as well as John McDonnell MP.
Let me just turn to economics, if I can, because you were, of course, shadow chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn. And I just like your reflection on the really brutal choices and the tough place that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, now finds herself in, because taxes are very high at the moment, borrowing is very, very high at the moment.
and the demands on her from all sides, you know, defence, welfare, social security, the NHS are growing, not lessening. And one can see a big argument coming in the party, I guess, in the spring about spending. What's your thoughts about the dilemma that she's in? OK, I have genuinely tried to be as supportive as I can, but I have been honest with people and straight with them. I think early decisions were made that were not the right decisions.
There was not an honest debate by any of the political parties about the economy during the general election campaign. I understand that. I just agree with it, but I understand it. You don't upset people and you don't want to give anything to your opponents that they can use as a stick to beat you in. So I disagree with it, but I understand it. But then to actually then box ourselves in where we deny ourselves the flexibility and room to manoeuvre by saying,
We're not going to increase the taxes on the wealthy. We're not going to increase income taxes on the wealthy. We're not going to increase corporation tax. We've ruled out a wealth tax. And although actually, Rachel Ries did come some way towards me with regard to the fiscal rule on borrowing, I don't think she went far enough. Anyway, I think we just boxed ourselves in. And then when the budget came about, I was worried about it because
If you're going to rule out income tax increase on the wealthy, if you're going to rule out corporation taxes, where do you go? To go towards national insurance, I think was always a mistake. I never touched it before because I actually do think then it does become a bit of a tax on jobs. So I just think we boxed ourselves in unnecessarily there. And then there were a couple of things that happened that just came out of the blue.
which no one expected, the winter fuel allowance. I don't know who thought that was a bright idea, but it's gone down like more than a lead balloon in our constituencies. I'm still getting people raising it with on the bus and the street in my constituency. You know the sort of people they are there. You know, I've got Heathrow and my constituency. Lots of particularly women have worked at Heathrow, not necessarily on high wages, but enough to get a little bit of a decent pension.
And then that rules them out on pension credits. So even though we've done pension credit campaigns, they're not within. You're talking about people on 11 or 12,000 income a year. And as a result of that, they lose the winter fuel allowance. And actually it did mean a lot during the winter. It did help on those energy bills. So people are pretty angry about that. Then you've got the decision around the two child limit. And it doesn't just affect those with children and living in poverty.
But it affects all those other people who actually are offended by poverty in our society. And that would have been a method of taking nearly half a million children out of poverty. And we've just had this week, a Joseph Rountree report, actually with devastating figures about how many children are not just living in poverty but in destitution. So there's been decisions like that. And I think where they come from. And it's just, we've alienated section by section of our support. It's the same with the waspy women. Why did we just do something on them?
So the obvious question then is what now? What should happen now? One of the things that could happen, at least in theory, is the government could go back to the people and say, look, we said we weren't going to raise these taxes. The situation that we have inherited is so bad. And the new pressures on us are so great. I'm really sorry. We have to break that pledge. We have to break that promise. Is that what you would do?
I just want to make one final point on the strategy if that's all right. What it is is this, when you come into government and you're inheriting a mess, and by God it was a mess, you know, let's be honest about it, 14 years of austerity, when you come into government, you want to expose that and of course you want to blame the last administration because honestly they delivered that, they delivered this mess. But when you do that, it does get doom and gloom, it's inevitable.
Alongside it, you say, this is a mess, but actually this is what we're going to do to turn it round. What seems to have happened in the cycle of things is we've had, this is a mess. Here's some pain we're going to inflict on you, but then the positive side hasn't been done until only this week.
You know, the investment infrastructure and all the rest of it. Normally, what you do is you do those things together. You wouldn't wait a few months while people have accusing you of talking the economy down and all that. You need that positive hit at the same time as when you're exposing how bad things are. And I think the sequence of those events, I think, have been completely miscalculated. That's my view. Now we've got to get back on track. And I think we have to be honest with people.
That part of our problems is that we've got a grotesque levels of inequality, a mal distribution of wealth in within our society. So yes, we are going to come back in tax and we're going to do exactly as Keir said, those are the broadest shoulders are going to pay the heaviest burden. So we're going to increase income tax, we're going to do just on the wealthiest, we're going to introduce a wealth tax as well. And we're also going to look at how we
tackle corporation tax. And I think we've just got to be straight. But otherwise, we're not going to be able to lift people out of poverty. We're not going to have the money for the public services that we need. And we get mid-term and disillusionment sets in. And who's sitting there to feed off that disillusionment reform? And that's my biggest fear. You're seeing that right the way across Europe now, the move to the far right as a result. Failure of delivery of social democratic parties and disillusionment setting in.
So that is the great argument coming this spring, coming later this year. John McDonald, are you going to end 2025 as a Labour MP with the Labour whip? Do you think? My greatest wish is that's going to happen, but it's not within my control. I'll do everything I possibly can to ensure the Labour government is a success and play the role of a Labour MP to make that. But I've got to be honest, where I think they're making a mistake, I think it would be
absolutely irresponsible of me, not to point that out because so much is at stake, particularly within my community and amongst working class people. John Macdonald, thank you. You have been listening to politics from the New Statesmen with me, Andrew Marr and my guest, John Macdonald MP. The podcast will be back on Monday with the Culture Show when Tom Gatti will be asking, how do you solve the riddle of Margaret Thatcher on screen?
