UK's Starmer suspends several Labour rebels
MPs Brian Leishman, Neil Duncan-Jordan, and Rachael Maskell said they had been suspended while the Times newspaper reported that Chris Hinchliff had suffered the same fate.
All four voted against the welfare reforms on July 1 after Starmer made his authority-sapping climbdown to avoid a humiliating defeat in parliament.
Leishman's office confirmed to AFP that the Scottish MP had been temporarily suspended from the party.
Duncan-Jordan, the representative for Poole in southern England, said he understood that voting against the government "could come at a cost, but I couldn't support making disabled people poorer".
Starmer has endured a difficult first year in power and has made several damaging U-turns in recent weeks.
Political scientist Steven Fielding said the purge was a bid by Starmer to reinforce party discipline.
"He wants to send a signal to all the others that rebelled over the welfare bill and have rebelled on other things that, 'Okay, you've got away with this one, but if you keep going, this is going to be your fate,'" Fielding told AFP.
But the University of Nottingham politics professor added it was a risky strategy considering the large numbers of lawmakers who had opposed the welfare reforms.
"I think he's going about it in the wrong way. He needs to talk (to) and understand why the MPs are doing this," Fielding told AFP.
Labour did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Starmer's popularity has plummeted since he won a landslide general election result in July last year, ending 14 consecutive years of Conservative rule.
Labour now trails Eurosceptic Nigel Farage's hard-right Reform UK party in many national polls, although the next election is likely four years away.
In June, the government reversed a policy to scrap a winter heating benefit for millions of pensioners, following widespread criticism and another rebellion from its own MPs.
The same month, Starmer -- a former chief state prosecutor in England and Wales -- announced a national inquiry focused on a UK child sex exploitation scandal after previously resisting calls.
The prime minister has a massive majority of about 160 MPs, meaning he should be able to force whatever legislation he wants through parliament.
But some in the party complain of a disconnect between Starmer's leadership, which is focused on combatting the rise of Reform, and Labour's traditional centre-left principles.
Confirming she had been suspended, Maskell urged Starmer to engage with his backbenchers, saying she wanted to see "bridges built" and this would "make him a better prime minister".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Harvard fights Trump administration in court over $2.6 billion funding cut
Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Donald Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvardwas told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education." Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.'
France 24
3 hours ago
- France 24
White House restricts WSJ access to Trump over Epstein story
The move comes after Trump on Friday sued the WSJ and its media magnate owner Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion over the allegation in the article, which Trump denies. The Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case has threatened to split the Republican's far-right Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, with some of his supporters calling for a full release of the so-called "Epstein Files." The punishment of the Wall Street Journal marks at least the second time the Trump administration has moved to exclude a major news outlet from the press pool over its reporting, having barred Associated Press journalists from multiple key events since February. "As the appeals court confirmed, The Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Due to The Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board (Air Force One)." Trump departs this weekend for Scotland, where he owns two golf resorts and will meet with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice, under Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi, said there was no evidence suggesting disgraced financier Epstein had kept a "client list" or was blackmailing powerful figures before his death in 2019. In its story on Thursday, the WSJ reported that Trump had written a suggestive birthday letter to Epstein in 2003, illustrated with a naked woman and alluding to a shared "secret." Epstein, a longtime friend of Trump and multiple other high-profile men, was found hanging dead in a New York prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges that he sexually exploited dozens of underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida. The case sparked conspiracy theories, especially among Trump's far-right voters, about an alleged international cabal of wealthy pedophiles. Epstein's death -- declared a suicide -- before he could face trial supercharged that narrative. Since returning to power in January, Trump has moved to increase control over the press covering the White House. In February, the Oval Office stripped the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) of its nearly century-old authority to oversee which outlets have access to certain restricted presidential events, with Trump saying that he was now "calling the shots" on media access. In a statement, the WHCA president urged the White House to "restore" the Journal to the pool. "This attempt by the White House to punish a media outlet whose coverage it does not like is deeply troubling, and it defies the First Amendment," said WHCA President Weijia Jiang.
France 24
14 hours ago
- France 24
UK calls for 50-day drive to arm Ukraine
Earlier this month, Trump gave Russian President Vladimir Putin 50 days to strike a peace deal with Kyiv in the three-year war or face sanctions. UK Defence Secretary John Healey told a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (UDCG) that Kyiv's backers stand at a moment of "maximum opportunity". "As members of this UDCG, we need to step up, in turn, a 50-day drive to arm Ukraine on the battlefield and to help push Putin to the negotiating table," Healey told the virtual meeting of 52 nations. Trump also pledged to supply Kyiv with new military aid, sponsored by NATO allies, as its cities suffer ever-increasing Russian aerial attacks since Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Healey, chairing the meeting alongside German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, said the UK "backs this policy". "We will play our full part in its success," he added. Russia has escalated long-range aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities as well as frontline assaults and shelling over recent months, defying Trump's warning. Healey said Britain and Germany have "agreed to partner in providing critical air defence missiles to Ukraine". Pistorius said the two countries would provide 220,000 rounds of 35 millimetre ammunition for anti-aircraft guns used by Ukraine. According to the UK defence ministry, Britain has sent £150 million ($200 million) worth of air defence missiles and artillery rounds to Ukraine in the past two months. The UK has pledged to spend £700 million on air defence and artillery ammunition for Ukraine this year. The commitment is in addition to other funding to provide more of the drones that have become key weapons in the war with Russia. Some 50,000 drones have been delivered to Ukraine in the last six months, with another 20,000 coming from a coalition of nations led by Britain and Latvia. © 2025 AFP
