Labour minister Jess Phillips says rebel MPs right to be punished for ‘slagging off own government'
Keir Starmer suspended Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff on Wednesday after the four rebels voted against the government's flagship benefits bill earlier this month.
Responding to controversy over the prime minister 's decision, home office minister Jess Phillips said on Thursday: 'I disagree often with directions that are going on and I spend time working with colleagues on the back and front benches ensuring that we discuss these things.
'Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say: what did you think was going to happen?'
There had to be a level of party discipline for the government to function, Ms Phillips, who is the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The four MPs all voted against the government over the welfare reform legislation, but party sources said the decision to suspend the whip was taken as a result of persistent breaches of discipline rather than a single rebellion.
Speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: 'We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don't know what you expect.'
Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she told Sky News: 'I didn't call it persistent knob-headery, but that's the way that it's been termed by some.'
Ms Maskell, who spearheaded plans to halt the government's welfare reforms, hit out at Sir Keir's attempt to assert his authority over the party, saying he was wrong to carry out a purge of persistent rebels.
The York Central MP said: 'On this occasion, I don't think he's got it right.'
Speaking to the BBC, she added: 'I really hope from this process there will be reflection over the summer, but also learning. There needs to be a better reach-out to backbenchers to ensure that we are the safeguards of our government.'
Meanwhile, Sir Keir faced a fresh challenge to his authority when senior left-winger Diane Abbott said she had no regrets about comments on racism that led to her being suspended from Labour for a year.
The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was disciplined for saying in 2023 that people of colour experienced racism 'all their lives' and in a different way to Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers.
Despite withdrawing the remarks at the time, she was suspended from the Labour party after Sir Keir said her comments were antisemitic.
In a new intervention, Ms Abbott, who was subsequently readmitted to Labour, said she does not regret her remarks and stands by her argument.
She told the BBC: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ministers must summon the courage to right an ‘obvious injustice'
The very judges who handed out 'unfair' indefinite prison sentences have joined The Independent 's campaign to resentence thousands of offenders who are still trapped by a law that was abolished in 2012. Sir John Saunders, a former High Court judge, tells us that he would apologise to offenders he sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) terms. 'I should say I'm really sorry this has happened; it's extremely unfair,' he said. 'I didn't want to be party to unfairness. I would feel very bad about it, I would apologise to them.' The sentences, described as an 'obvious injustice' by one former senior judge, were introduced by David Blunkett as home secretary in 2005 in an attempt to deal with a small number of offenders who might continue to be a danger to the public. Such prisoners were given no release date, were subject to stringent assessment before being let out, and were then liable indefinitely for recall to prison if they broke the conditions of their release. However, the sentences were used more often than Lord Blunkett intended, and the psychological effects of indefinite detention caused more problems than it solved. Lord Blunkett now describes the policy as his 'biggest regret'. The law was repealed by the coalition government in 2012, but it continued to apply to the thousands of prisoners still serving IPP sentences. Victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been taken up by The Independent, include Leroy Douglas, who has served 19 years for stealing a mobile phone; Thomas White, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. The Independent supports a plan put forward by an expert panel convened by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing. They should, in effect, be resentenced and treated henceforth on the same basis as all other offenders. James Timpson, the prisons minister, says: 'We have significantly improved support for these offenders, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support. There is more work to do as we reduce the number of IPP offenders in custody, but we will only do so in a way that protects the public.' We understand why ministers in successive governments have been reluctant to go further. They are fearful of the consequences if someone released from an IPP sentence goes on to commit a serious offence. And they are right to make the protection of the public the highest priority. But that will not be achieved by the continued indefinite detention of 2,500 prisoners who were unlucky enough to be sentenced at the wrong time. Especially when a greater risk to the public is probably posed by the early release of prisoners to free up space in our overcrowded prisons. Simon Tonking, the former recorder of Stafford, told The Independent that the Labour government should use its majority to end the injustice by taking up the Howard League's proposals: 'Virtually everybody who has had any professional dealings with IPP knows that it is unjust and now is the time to act.' It is no use for former ministers such as Lord Blunkett and Alex Chalk, the former justice secretary, calling for justice to be done after they have left office. It is up to Lord Timpson, his boss Shabana Mahmood and ultimately Sir Keir Starmer to do the right thing while they can.
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.
Channel 4
an hour ago
- Channel 4
Hostage release should be ‘pre-condition' to recognise Palestinian state
We spoke to Adam Rose, a lawyer acting for British families whose relatives are being held hostage in Gaza. We asked him why the hostages' families were so upset at the Government's proposal to recognise a Palestinian state with certain conditions.
