1.2.2 – Established parties
2.3.2 – The concept of collective ministerial responsibility
The recent comments from Lucy Powell, Labour’s new Deputy Leader, have exposed some of the difficulties that can arise when a party’s deputy is not part of the Cabinet and therefore not bound by collective ministerial responsibility. Powell’s intervention, in which she urged the government to stick to its manifesto promise not to raise key taxes, has drawn attention to potential fault lines within the Labour Party between the government and some of its backbenchers.
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live, Powell insisted that Labour “should be following through on our manifesto” and that “it’s really important we stand by the promises that we were elected on.” Ahead of the 2024 general election, Labour had pledged not to raise National Insurance, Income Tax, or VAT for “working people.” However, Chancellor Reeves is widely expected to announce tax rises in the forthcoming Budget to fill a projected £30 billion gap in the public finances. Reeves has consistently refused to rule out an income tax increase, arguing that fiscal prudence is essential to maintain economic stability and market confidence.
Powell’s comments are significant because they suggest unease within Labour’s ranks about the direction of government policy. Her statement that “we should be following through on our manifesto” could be read as a subtle criticism of Reeves and Starmer if they proceed with tax rises. Although Powell’s team later issued a statement emphasising the “difficult context” for the Budget and
her continuing support for the government, her words nevertheless highlight the delicate balance between loyalty and independence in her role.
The issue is further complicated by Powell’s position outside the Cabinet. Unlike her predecessor, Angela Rayner, Powell was not appointed Deputy Prime Minister. Instead, that title went to Justice Secretary David Lammy, one of Starmer’s closest allies. Powell’s exclusion from the Cabinet means she is not bound by the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, which requires ministers to publicly support collective government decisions or resign. This gives her greater freedom to speak out – something she pledged to do during her campaign for the deputy leadership – but it also risks creating public confusion about Labour’s message and undermining the unity of the government.
That tension is magnified by Powell’s personal history with Starmer. She was sacked from his Cabinet in September 2024 when she served as Leader of the House of Commons, reportedly after disagreements over strategy and tone. Her election as Deputy Leader, defeating Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson – Starmer’s preferred candidate – was therefore seen as a setback for the leadership. It reflected the desire of many party members for a deputy who would represent grassroots concerns and act as a counterbalance to Starmer’s cautious, centralised style.
Powell’s renewed call to abolish the two-child benefit cap “in full” further illustrates how her independent position could create friction. While
Reeves is reportedly considering limited reforms to the cap, Powell insisted that only full abolition would significantly reduce child poverty, directly challenging the Treasury’s cost-conscious approach.
Lucy Powell’s early interventions reveal
how the Labour Party’s leadership structure may prove a source of tension in government. A Deputy Leader with no Cabinet post enjoys the freedom to speak for the party’s members and moral conscience – but at the cost of potentially undermining collective discipline and blurring the line between party and government. For Starmer, managing that relationship may prove one of his greatest political challenges.
Lucy Powell’s position as Labour’s new Deputy Leader bears striking similarities to that of Tom Watson during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Watson, who was elected Deputy Leader in 2015, was frequently at odds with Corbyn’s leadership and political direction. He positioned himself as a representative of Labour’s centrist wing and of the party’s traditional grassroots, often challenging Corbyn’s approach to Brexit, internal party management, and allegations of antisemitism. His independence, combined with his exclusion from Corbyn’s inner circle, made him a vocal internal critic but also a rallying point for those uneasy about Corbyn’s leadership. Over time, Corbyn’s inner circle developed plans to abolish the deputy leadership position as a means of removing Watson, although this failed to materialise.
Both deputies embody the tension between party democracy and leadership unity – figures elected by members to voice dissent, yet whose freedom to do so risks undermining cohesion at the top of the party.