They got voted in on a manifesto that made no commitment to dropping the policy tbf. I do think it should be dropped, and I do think it will be dropped. But ultimately it feels weird to me for Labour MPs to turn around less than a month from an election and moaning about policy when they just spent a month canvassing as Labour candidates. By all means, form a new party. Become Independents. But people can't seriously be surprised that a party is disciplining MPs for voting against them 3 weeks after they won a mandate? If parties just let MPs vote how they wanted all the time then the Government would lose authority.
It's not any bill or vote though its the first major vote on an opposition amendment to Labour's first King's Speech of the parliament. It was never going to pass and just done to embarrass Starmer. At least Corbyn had the bottle to stand against a Labour candidate although he didn't have any choice in the matter. Long-Bailey, Burgon and McDonnell are dying to re-join Corbyn they just didn't have the guts to leave the party and stand as independents they waited to cause embarrassment at the first attempt.
I highly doubt he will tbh. All this episode has shown is how bad at politics the left of the Labour party is. They've given Starmer a chance to show his authority and painted a target on their backs for a policy that was likely to be dropped anyway. They should have abstained like 40+ Labour MPs did. There's plenty of issues they will want to make a stand over in the next near 5 years of the Parliament but as it stands none of them will have the whip for it the matter. I guess when the policy is inevitably dropped anyway they can tweet about it as a W, anyway. But by 2029 none of them will be Labour MPs at this rate, so what was the point of standing?
Can you not align with a majority of labour's principles but still disagree on certain things to maintain Labour membership? Can you not agree with policies from other parties or do you just have to disregard anything put forward from another party? Cross-party support for policies should be encouraged and seen as a good thing. Just because you're a Reform MP, doesn't automatically make every Green amendment or policy proposed a bad one and vice versa. Ultimately they remain MP's so it doesn't matter that much but it feels really wrong to me that you can be disciplined for a difference in opinion upon any given issue. Supporting an SNP policy doesn't make you anti-Labour / Starmer on everything else. It's a bad precedent to set imo. Is there any real reason to have 400 odd Labour MP's if they have to follow every instruction of their party leader and will face punishment if they dare to go against it? Each to their own but I'd argue Starmer looks worse off having suspended them. I don't think it'd have been much of a fuss had the vote happened and there were a few Labour MP's voting against an overall majority.
He has to punish dissenting MPs on the first big vote. If he doesn't then he is just setting himself up for a bigger rebellion on a bigger issue. There's many issues that do garner cross party consensus. There's many issues that aren't whipped votes. But this was whipped. They made their call. I think it's stupid of them and will lose them an already weak influence within the party. I highly doubt any other Labour MPs think it was the right decision from them so soon. There's going to be issues they will want to convince Labour MPs over but now they will make it harder for Labour MPs to listen to them because they'll just seem like troublemakers. You have to pick your battles.
You don't vote for opposition party amendments to be added to your own parties King's Speech. They will have known the consequences and have been given the opportunity to abstain which means the exact same as a vote for when you know the motion won't pass. They chose not to do it and have to face the music. It's so ****ing stupid because Labour will get rid of the two child tax benefit in a couple of months anyway after the fiscal review
Personally, I'm not even saying what the rebels did was the right thing to do, but the reaction of suspending them was stupid. As indicated by someone else, they will have loved the headlines this has caused.
I mean there had to be a reaction from the leadership though? I guess the argument can be made on the severity of the punishment, but there had to be a punishment or else what is the point of having whipped votes to begin with. Personally I don't get why many of these MPs are still in the party. I am not saying there isn't a place for them but after what happened with Corbyn (and then even Diane Abbott) I never understood why they didn't splinter off together tbh. The fact it's taken less than a month for this to happen adds to my confusion.
They're not going to drop it in that budget imo. The optics of suspending MPs for 6 months for voting for something they plan to do in 3 are far from ideal. Maybe. I think it's equally as likely the longer the two child limit stays in place, the more support they gain across Labour MPs. We'll see on both of the above, I suppose. Hope I'm wrong and it is scrapped at the next budget. FWIW, something else that surprises me from the broader reactions to this is the lack of acknowledgement that this level of punishment for such a minor rebellion is completely unprecedented.
Prior to the vote the Education Secretary suggested it could be dropped. Two child benefit limit may be scrapped, says Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson And Starmer did too. Keir Starmer indicates he will consider scrapping two-child benefit cap. Perhaps because of this rebellion it is less likely to be dropped though.... doh!!
There's a substantial number of Labour MPs (including in the cabinet) who want to drop it. But... they realise the way to apply pressure and get it done is by not voting for an opposition amendment.
To be honest, halting progress on scrapping a policy to help bring people out of "child poverty" because a tiny fraction of your MPs voted for it when you didn't a few months ago is exactly the sort of "playing politics" that no-one should stand for. Especially when there isn't any justifiable practical economic reason not to lift the policy immediately, nevermind at the next budget. Starmer has overblown the whole thing. It's a nothing story if he doesn't suspend the whip.
It 100% isn't a nothing story. It has been a constant story since the middle of the election. There's a reason the PM has been fielding questions about it. They were never going to drop it until the budget so all this carry on has been an utter waste of energy. The only reason the vote happened is because the SNP knew it would raise discipline issues for Labour and it did. The mistake Labour has perhaps made is not getting the budget out the way early to set their agenda but they're going hard on taking their time on spending issues.
If you're fearful of a bigger rebellion on other issues then maybe the problem is that particular amendment / policy? If Starmer is standing by Labour's principles then Labour will be fine. They have more than enough numbers to push through anything they want to in this parliament. The likelihood of facing a large rebellion seems small given Labour's majority. Why though? Because that's how it's always been? I don't get why MP's should be fearful of supporting any amendment / policy irrespective of where it's come from. Ultimately these MP's aren't elected by Starmer, they're elected by the public and representing their constituency. Whether it's right or wrong, they should be free to vote as they wish and as they've been elected to do. Punishing MP's who go against the party line is a bad look when you've openly talked about being a "country before party" leader. This is more my thing too. I'm not overly interested in how they decide to vote but suspending them for it seems an extreme reaction. It's ultimately a statement from Starmer but I don't know that it's the right one. Facing that challenge so early in your reign as MP perhaps isn't ideal but having voices within your own party that can disagree and challenge you probably isn't a bad thing. Tbf this is probably more my issue anyway. I don't get 'whip voting', certainly when the majority is as big as it is. It feels really unnecessary. MP's should largely be focusing on doing their best for the country and constituents, even if that means voting against their own party at times. Labour MP's will largely support Labour policies (and likewise for MP's of whichever party). If they're voting otherwise then there's probably good reason for it. On a somewhat related note - my MP is the youngest in the country (also Labour). I want an MP that faces accountability for their actions (i.e voting record). Suspending dissenting Labour MP's so early on sends out a strong message that maybe deters new MP's (of which there are many for Labour) from actually voting the way they'd like to.
If Labour had it in their manifesto and then excluded it in the Kings Speech I would get it, but they haven't. They are going to remove it almost certainly in the budget. Exactly why couldn't these 7 members wait until the planned review is complete and give Starmer that victory of having a policy announcement in September and making it look like a thorough review was done and we are glad to say we have made space in our budget for it? I get it, it's playing politics with real people's lives and the lives of those most highly affected but i'm sure it would take just as long to put in place the amendment removing the two child limit than when Rachel Reeve's announces it in her budget in September. It's the Labour King's Speech, not the Labour Kings Speech with changes the SNP and Lib Dems want. You don't give opposition parties a victory in the landmark legislation of the parliament. You wait and get the victories yourself. Yes it's party political but it's a team game and those 7 members are not on team Starmer they are trying to embarrass him for Corbyn.
Seems a little low to me but if that's the case it should be something they're able to fund with the first budget. I agree, unless there's a factor to this we are unaware of. Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk
I'd agree with you totally if they had stood in the election as Independent candidates, but they didn't, they stood as Labour prospective MPs. As George Galloway found out after his 92 day stint as MP for Rochdale, once he found himself up against a fully supported Labour candidate in the General Election he lost by a couple of thousand votes. I think in the UK people tend to vote for a party in the General Election, rather than a personality, as they sometimes do in a By-Election.
I agree but it was Labour that brought them in giving the contract to French firm Atos and The Tories just made it harder for disabled people,thankfully i had a good Lib Dem MP in 2014 who won my PIP appeal for me,she has now won back her seat in Wells so i know she would help me again.
Glad to hear mush, the way people with disabilities in this country are treated is a shame on us as a nation. There cannot be many governments in the developed world who’ve been taken to the UN for violating the rights of people with disabilities like the last government were UK government failing to protect disabled people, warns equality watchdog report | EHRC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Tories never expressed a single second of embarrassment or regret about such policies, in fact towards the end they seemed to take pride in their cruelty and spite.
