Suspended Labour MP: It's insulting and contemptuous to call me a k---head
Rachael Maskell was one of four Labour MPs stripped of the party whip on Wednesday as Sir Keir Starmer punished rebels who voted against his flagship welfare reforms.
A Government source told The Times some MPs would be suspended for 'persistent k---headery' and rebelling against Downing Street.
But Ms Maskell told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: 'I don't even know what that means but I think it is really insulting.
'I am here trying to do a professional job on behalf of people that desperately need a voice.
'And if that is the contempt by which I and my colleagues are treated, let alone my constituents, I find that really insulting and I hope that is withdrawn.'
The disciplinary move by the Prime Minister means the four MPs will now sit in the House of Commons as independents, raising questions about their long-term futures.
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, is in the process of setting up a new Left-wing party which he says will provide a 'real alternative'.
But Ms Maskell, who served on Mr Corbyn's front bench as shadow environment secretary in 2016-7, categorically ruled out joining the new party as she declared she was 'Labour through and through'.
Asked whether she would consider the move, she replied: 'No, no, no. I am Labour through and through. I support the Labour Party. I have been a member for so long, walked the streets, knocked the doors all those years and of course I want to see a Labour Government really succeed.
'I really hope from this process, yes there will be reflection over the summer, but also learning.
'And there needs to be a better reach out to backbenchers to ensure that we are the safeguards of the Government, ensuring that the Government do well.'
Ms Maskell was one of the most prominent critics of Sir Keir's original welfare reforms and tabled an amendment which would have killed the legislation.
A Labour revolt over the welfare bill extended to 127 MPs at one point, forcing the Government to cave in on its planned cuts to disability benefits, wiping away all of the planned £4.6bn of savings.
Ms Maskell rejected the suggestion that she had been a 'ringleader' of the rebellion.
But he signalled she does not intend to change her behaviour in terms of speaking out against the Government.
The York Central MP said it was 'not about my behaviour'.
Told that Sir Keir's decision to withdraw the whip was precisely because of her behaviour and asked again if she intended to change her approach, she replied: 'I will continue to advocate for my constituents, of course.'
The other three MPs who lost the whip were Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchliff and Brian Leishman.
A further three welfare rebels – Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin – were also punished as they lost their trade envoy roles.
The punishment was widely seen as an attempt by Sir Keir to reassert his authority after the welfare revolt struck a hammer blow to his premiership.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
37 minutes ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: Why is 16 too young for voting? Ask a brain scientist...
As the mother of two young adults (22 and 20), I am tentatively enjoying some early fruit of my parental labours. My daughter has just graduated with a first from Manchester (shameless mum-brag, guilty as charged), and my son is gainfully employed over the summer holidays in a job that not only gets him out of the house but also keeps him fit and fed (he's a busser in a restaurant). But the news last week that our glorious leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has followed through on his electoral threat to lower the voting age to 16 has rather dampened my mood. It is, quite simply, the height of idiocy. As any Year 11 teacher will tell you, most 16-year-olds aren't fit to tuck their own shirt in, let alone participate in the democratic process.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How Rachel Reeves could clobber the middle classes with a wealth tax sneaked through the back door: Money experts reveal what every family and pensioner must know now
Fears are mounting that middle-class families could face a devastating tax raid on their wealth as Rachel Reeves scrambles to find a way to fill the hole in the nation's finances. The Chancellor last week refused to rule out a new wealth tax, while only promising that protections will remain in place for 'working people'.
