I’ll strike if the NEU decides to, and I’m not even that unhappy with my pay. Just want to do my part to stick it to this government.
1 Like
Starmer suspends three Labour MPs
Reports are swirling this afternoon that Sir Keir Starmer is clearing out a number of MPs he believes are frequently breaching party discipline.
We understand so far that at least three MPs have lost the whip, with others reported to be meeting with party whips at the moment.
The three suspended MPs are understood to be Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Neil Duncan-Jordan.
All three voted against the government’s planned welfare reforms as part of a wider rebellion earlier this month, and all were first elected at last year’s election.
Fourth Labour MP suspended
Labour MP Rachael Maskell has become the fourth to be suspended from Sir Keir Starmer’s party this afternoon.
She joins Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Neil Duncan-Jordan.
Good move, you have to take back control from the backbenchers. Doing nothing won’t help that
Such a badge of honour for those four. Hopefully they’ll join Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn’s new party.
Sir Keir is such a stupid twat. Killing the Labour Party, funding Israel’s genocide, supporting the Tories’ cover-up over Afghan data breaches, opening the door to the fascists, sucking up to the orange despot tosspot in the US, committing discrimination on those in need. What a legacy.
Just a slight mention Doc, don’t forget to post links.
Seems there was even more punishment looking at the BBC article.
Three other Labour MPs - Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin - have been stripped of their trade envoy roles.
Interesting this is involving MP’s that have been elected for the first time.
1 Like
Not to me. Entirely self promoting and self serving to have rebelled against the government and this action by Starmer only helps them. No genuine regard for whether disabled people are made poorer.
The government are of course disgraceful, but I don’t see these four as any better.
1 Like
I see that.
If I was a Labour MP I would have resigned the moment they threatened to take away the winter fuel payment. I would have been an independent by the time they turned their attention to picking on us disabled.
I still think they have the moral high-ground over all the MPs that voted for the bill without amendments though. Perhaps I don’t know enough of the detail, I’ve been firmly focused on Gaza and Washington DC this week.
1 Like
I might say they have a better voting record rather than any moral superiority but I think that might be splitting hairs a bit.
1 Like
The four suspended MPs are persistent rebels who have repeatedly criticised government policy and/or voted against it, so it doesn’t seem clear cut to me that they’re the type who only voted against the gocernment on welfare cuts because they were worried that supporting it would make them look bad.
I don’t know either way what their motivations were, but it seems fairly possible that they were doing it on principle and not just for self-serving reasons.
To convince me of that, (and I speak only for myself here, I’m not saying anyone should feel the same), they’d have needed to have left Labour, not be pushed out.
The only rebuttal I have to this is that it’s probably easier for an MP to retain their seat in parliament whilst being linked to one of the two main established parties.
Corbyn retaining his seat as an independent is a direct consequence of his massive profile and popularity in his constituency I think for a lot of MPs they don’t hold the same pull as him so probably felt that they could better influence policy internally.
1 Like
I don’t doubt that’s true but I think that also compromises the talk of what’s morally right when an MP is willing to put their name alongside the party that’s doing the things they say are so abhorrent to get the benefits of that name.
That was a little bit of a word salad but hopefully the meaning came across.
I’d like to see more people leave the party, but I’m sympathetic to the view that there’s value in having people within the party shitting on government policy, and that them being critical and voting against the government’s proposed legislation has more impact from within than it would if they did so as an independent.
I can see that, but as I said at the top, I just don’t buy that’s why they’re doing it. Especially in a party in government where the public has very little love for the people currently at the top and opportunities may exist for opponents.
Don’t know if they had to leave the party, but the concessions the ‘rebels’ demanded that Starmer relented and caved to struck me as very suspect. It was a crap policy from the beginning and the concessions turned it into an embarrassing slop. Now one can argue that was the effectiveness of shifting policy from within. I’m not persuaded on the principle that everything about it should’ve been tossed in the bin from the beginning.
A bold move and something I’ve been in favour of for a long time.
I’m indifferent/slightly not in favour of it. But this was part of the manifesto (I think?) so it’s meeting a promise which is good.
1 Like
I think it was in their manifesto. Personally, I’ve held this view since I was 16 years old when I wanted the ability to vote and have my say, so I am pleased that the younger generation will have a full opportunity to express their opinion at the next General Election.
Its been in Scottish Elections for a few years already I think
Well Scotland have been a more progressive country for years now, so it is good England is finally catching up!