Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

New Labour government - legislative agenda

I'm struggling to comprehend just how evil Starmer is.

I'm sure there will be plenty more examples to choose from over the coming months.

More about the vote and the suspensions

Labour suspends seven rebel MPs over two-child benefit cap


Before the vote, Mr McDonnell said: "I don't like voting for other parties' amendments, but I'm following Keir Starmer's example as he said put country before party." The decision to remove the whip is an early show of force from the new government. This is their first rebellion. Even though it is a small one, Labour whips are trying to send a message to MPs that dissent will not be tolerated in votes. However, there are many more Labour MPs who are opposed to the two-child benefit cap. Many hope the party will make a decision in the coming months to scrap it.
 
What is particularly unfair about this is that it doesn't apply to child benefit itself. People who are on good incomes will still get child benefit for 3rd and subsequent children, but the very poorest, who rely on means-tested benefits, don't get any additional money in their Universal Credit or child tax credits for having another child.

It also disproportionately affects women, because they are the resident parent in most single parent families, earn less than men on average, and are therefore more likely to be reliant on benefits. Families who come from cultures where having lots of children are also more likely to be affected.

Utter bastards, the lot of them, except for the rebels.
 
LOL. Such a gentle way of putting "EXPELLED FROM THE PLP".

They sit as Independents now.

It’s suspension rather than expulsion though.

The King’s Speech is a finance bill, so technically it’s a vote of confidence. Voting for another party’s amendment against a three line whip is basically asking for suspension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
What is particularly unfair about this is that it doesn't apply to child benefit itself. People who are on good incomes will still get child benefit for 3rd and subsequent children, but the very poorest, who rely on means-tested benefits, don't get any additional money in their Universal Credit or child tax credits for having another child.

It also disproportionately affects women, because they are the resident parent in most single parent families, earn less than men on average, and are therefore more likely to be reliant on benefits. Families who come from cultures where having lots of children are also more likely to be affected.

Utter bastards, the lot of them, except for the rebels.
I agree.
 
They could "lift the two child benefit cap" but it would make no material difference as the actual benefit cap is in place.

eg. Greater London. single parent, private rent.

UC housing component is capped at LHA amount - my postcode 2 beds is £1545pm
single adult over 25. £393.45
child element x1 £287.92
= £2226
The benefit cap (not the 2 child limit cap) if you’re a single parent and your children live with you is £2,110.25 in greater london. Benefit cap

Ig if you have lower rent you might not cap out before your third child?


ETA: Just tried a Newcastle LHA amount. you could have three children and not reach the main benefit cap.
 
Last edited:
It’s suspension rather than expulsion though.

The King’s Speech is a finance bill, so technically it’s a vote of confidence. Voting for another party’s amendment against a three line whip is basically asking for suspension.
This is the Sad But True of it. There are other ways to protest and try to pass legislation against the cap, but they chose the worst (from the PLP's POV) way of doing it.

Not commenting on right or wrong, but that is how the system works and has always worked. None of them should be surprised in the least.
 
They can vote, the only difference is that they are not obliged to follow a whip.

They basically count as Independent MPs for now*, so can't attend (or vote at) any meetings of the PLP.

I don't know if there are other potential Parliamentary consequences like not being able to serve on committees or similar

* I read somewhere that the suspension is likely to last for 6 months
 
This is the Sad But True of it. There are other ways to protest and try to pass legislation against the cap, but they chose the worst (from the PLP's POV) way of doing it.

Not commenting on right or wrong, but that is how the system works and has always worked. None of them should be surprised in the least.

A) None of them are in the least surprised. Zarah Sultana says she slept well last night.

B) It is not the way 'the system has always worked'. Suspension was not inevitable. Blair never suspended the 47 MPs who did a similar thing in a similar situation in 1997. This is a completely intolerant approach from Starmer. Even people who followed the Whip are appalled.

The Nottingham East MP, Nadia Whittome, who did not vote for the amendment but spoke earlier in favour of abolishing the cap, said: “The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.

“Our party has a huge majority. If it is to govern from a position of strength, it should be able to tolerate disagreement without making threats and employing the most severe punishments.”

“This does not breed a healthy culture,” she added. “If MPs are unable to stand up to the frontbench when they think they’re wrong, the government is more likely to make poor decisions.”


The really funny thing of course is that Labour might (according to some observers) actually U-turn on the cap anyway at a later date. In which case they will have suspended 7 MPs for upholding principles the Party actually backs. Though I'm not holding my breath on that one it is a view expressed by supposedly a majority of Labour MPs.
 
They keep saying this is a policy which almost everybody in labour opposes, that reducing child poverty is a priority etc etc. But here we are.

<<man dressed as a hotdog saying we need to find out who did this.gif>>
 
"I am not a tribal politician"* - but here we are. 'I'm not a tribal politician, I'm just not having other individuals make up their own minds, deliver on their own conscience, for a bill proposed BY ANOTHER PARTY.'


* And what is the subtext of this non-tribal rubbish? It just means 'I hate the Left'. Have the balls to say it.
 
A) None of them are in the least surprised. Zarah Sultana says she slept well last night.

B) It is not the way 'the system has always worked'. Suspension was not inevitable. Blair never suspended the 47 MPs who did a similar thing in a similar situation in 1997. This is a completely intolerant approach from Starmer. Even people who followed the Whip are appalled.

The Nottingham East MP, Nadia Whittome, who did not vote for the amendment but spoke earlier in favour of abolishing the cap, said: “The government’s approach to party discipline has been appalling. No MP should have lost the whip for their vote this evening, especially on a policy that almost everyone in Labour opposes.

“Our party has a huge majority. If it is to govern from a position of strength, it should be able to tolerate disagreement without making threats and employing the most severe punishments.”

“This does not breed a healthy culture,” she added. “If MPs are unable to stand up to the frontbench when they think they’re wrong, the government is more likely to make poor decisions.”


The really funny thing of course is that Labour might (according to some observers) actually U-turn on the cap anyway at a later date. In which case they will have suspended 7 MPs for upholding principles the Party actually backs. Though I'm not holding my breath on that one it is a view expressed by supposedly a majority of Labour MPs.


There was a three line whip in 1997 but it wasn’t a finance bill. This stuff matters to parliamentarians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chz
Jfc. Not even the most rabid Labour right-winger I've read has come out with this bollocks.
This is how it's been for over a century. Find me an MP who didn't lose the whip for voting against their own government's finance bill. There are rules and conventions in Parliament. MPs are free to break them, but there will be consequences for it. Compare it to the Maastricht vote.

Or just what do you think it means to vote against your own government on a confidence bill?
 
I'm not sure that Rooker and Wise actually lost the whip

EDIT: Also it's all silly parliamentary games but
As a House of Commons Library note on this topic sets out, the suggestion that a Queen’s Speech or budget is tantamount to no confidence is not clear. A Queen’s Speech is the first indication that the government can demonstrate it can command confidence. However, the vote in itself is not a strict confidence motion.
 
Back
Top Bottom