Expanding the payroll vote is no substitute for good party management

As the final step in the week-long reshuffle prompted by Angela Rayner’s resignation, the government has released a list of new parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs). As ministers’ eyes and ears in the Commons, PPSs play an important part in maintaining links between ministers and the wider parliamentary party. The role is often seen as the first step on the ministerial career ladder, and 15 of the 22 MPs first elected in 2024 who got their first ministerial role in the last week were previously PPSs. 

With these new appointments, Starmer’s government now has 52 PPSs, the joint-highest number ever. An attraction of these appointments from the government’s perspective may be that, despite being unpaid roles, PPSs form part of the so-called ‘payroll vote’, the group of MPs who are expected to always vote with the government, or resign. 

Facing restive backbenchers and an autumn packed with difficult parliamentary business, government business managers may be attracted by the idea of having a larger cohort of secure votes. But better parliamentary management needs more than just votes, it requires better relations. These appointments may be motivated by a wish to remedy problems in communication between the centre of government and Labour’s backbenchers. But to do so, PPSs will need to think about how they can do the job well, and not just use the role as a chance to demonstrate their loyalty.  

The government needs to be clear what these PPSs are going to do 

Before the reshuffle, the government had 32 PPSs, each of whom will have done the role slightly differently. Exactly what role a PPS plays depends on their own initiative, their relationship with the ministers they work for, the level of access they have to information within the department they support, and many other factors. To do the role well, they need support and empowerment from the ministers they work for, which is not always forthcoming. 

The PPSs are not the only non-ministerial roles that the government has handed out, presumably in a bid to guarantee more support from backbenchers. Earlier this year the government announced a list of 27 “mission champions”, MPs who would advocate for the government’s five missions in different parts of the country. Ministers apparently engaged with the mission champions fairly regularly, but given the status of missions in the new government line-up is unclear, and three of the former champions are now ministers themselves, it is unclear whether the champions’ roles still exist and if so, what exactly they will be doing. 

If these roles are just an empty title to make MPs feel special and encourage them to vote with the government, the tactic may end up backfiring. The risk is that in giving these MPs titles, the government has created a group of people who can kick up a fuss by quitting the government without any financial penalty for doing so – this was a recurring issue during the final years of the Conservative governments, when PPSs and deputy party chairs would resign, giving the impression someone senior had taken issue with the government. Being clear about exactly how the government wants to work with PPSs and mission champions, and making sure they are adding value, means more than just giving them an extra title.

The new chief whip needs to rebuild links with the party 

Jonathan Reynolds has a lot of work to do in his new role as chief whip – and with 11 of his 16-strong team being new in the role, they will all be facing a steep learning curve. Before the summer, large numbers of Labour MPs signed up to the amendment on the welfare bill, forcing a government U-turn. While fewer voted against it than signed the amendment, none of those who signed it were given ministerial jobs in the reshuffle (though one was made a PPS). MPs are still sore about the way the government handled the vote and will be expecting the new ministerial team to approach things differently – though rebels may see the new PPS appointments as proof that they have no opportunity for a government position and may therefore be more inclined to cause problems in the future. In recent days the Peter Mandelson episode has also been a source of frustration among MPs, with several anonymously criticising the prime minister and his team for their handling of the ambassador to the US. 

To improve these relationships, ministers, special advisers and PPSs need to be out and about in parliament, spending time with their backbench colleagues and explaining their decisions to them. Former home, foreign and justice secretary Jack Straw advised ministers to “pay attention to the House of Commons, not do what a lot of my colleagues did which was to disappear into the red box, in their ministerial suite of rooms, only to reappear when they got sacked,” in order to maintain relationships with their colleagues in the party. 

Labour is not the first government to struggle with its backbenches

Of course, Starmer is not the first prime minister to struggle with backbenchers – John Major famously fell out with his eurosceptic wing, and more recently Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to Boris Johnson, seemed at times to be actively seeking to provoke Conservative MPs. This government needs to learn from those difficulties and work with the party, rather than simply co-opt everyone who is completely loyal and wash its hands of the rest. 

With difficult moments ahead – the autumn budget, and upcoming legislation on planning, courts reform and immigration – the government needs to work with its MPs, otherwise its 156-seat majority will start looking a lot shakier.