Labour's four ‘rebels' aren't persistent – they are principled
Starmer fails to topple the megalomaniac Donald Trump for the honour, since the prime minister considers an MP's three votes against the government over 12 months, out of 271 divisions, as being 'persistent'. The rebels aren't persistent – they are principled.
Paul WB Marsden
Oakenholt, Flintshire
I am saddened by the decision to remove the whip from Rachael Maskell. Before the 2019 election, I phoned many potential Labour voters in her constituency of York Central. While I was surprised at the level of distrust voiced about the party, I was impressed by the number of those who spontaneously referred to Rachael, praising her as a committed and caring MP. Labour can ill afford to lose such an outstanding representative.
Sheila Cross
Newby Wiske, North Yorkshire
This weak, self-serving prime minister has disenfranchised me. I voted Labour and Chris Hinchliff is a good constituency MP who certainly represented my views on universal credit and personal independence payments and on Gaza. If he stands in 2029, and I am still alive, I will vote for him again – if the current cabinet has been replaced with visionaries or if he stands as an independent.
Margaret Waddingham
Ware, Hertfordshire
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer's former shadow chancellor urges Reeves to consider wealth tax at next budget
Former Labour minister Anneliese Dodds has urged the government to consider a wealth tax at the next budget in order to plug holes in the public finances. The former shadow chancellor – who quit Sir Keir Starmer's government in February over the PM's decision to cut the foreign aid budget to fund a boost in defence spending – warned that spending cuts will not 'deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary'. It comes amid mounting questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the black hole in the public finances left by a series of major U-turns and spending commitments. Ministers have already squeezed significant savings out of their departments in cuts that were unveiled at last month's spending review, meaning there is now a mounting expectation that the chancellor will be forced to raise taxes instead. But Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people' leaves the chancellor with a limited number of workable options. Speaking to Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Ms Dodds pointed to work undertaken by the Commission on Wealth Tax. 'They looked at the operation of lots of different wealth tax. They looked at all of that evidence and set out how it would be possible to deliver something like that in a UK context', she said. 'I would hope that the Treasury is considering that kind of evidence as well as other changes that have been put forward. 'We've seen the deputy leader of the Labour Party, for example, put forward suggestions. I think it's important for all of those to be considered now." It comes after a memo leaked earlier this year showed Ms Rayner suggesting eight wealth taxes on the super-rich and corporations in a move supporters described as the 'progressive alternative'. Ms Dodds added: 'I don't think you can, particularly via cuts, actually deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary. But I know Rachel will be thinking deeply about this.' The Labour MP for Oxford East also urged the government to take a 'longer term approach' to the public finances, after the prime minister was bounced into a £5bn U-turn on welfare cuts by his own MPs. Speaking about the welfare cuts, Ms Dodds said: 'It can sometimes seem like the right thing to do for tactical reasons, in order to deal with a gap that had opened up because of the OBR's assessment, to try and plug that by cutting spending. 'It may make sense tactically, but strategically a longer-term approach is needed and that's the big issue that the government has to face up to.' The government has so far failed to rule out a wealth tax, but the prime minister has previously said 'we can't just tax our way to growth' when pressed on the subject at PMQs last month. Rachael Maskell, the leader of the rebel Labour MPs who forced Sir Keir to abandon his welfare reforms, called for a wealth tax to meet the cost of the U-turn, suggesting that as much as £24bn a year could be raised by increases in capital gains tax and other measures. pensioners following a U-turn on the issue earlier this year will cost the Treasury a further £1.25bn. The Treasury has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Wealth tax should be considered by Treasury, former Labour minister suggests
A former Labour minister has suggested a wealth tax should be considered by the Treasury, as she argued the Government must face up to the fact that a longer-term approach is needed. Anneliese Dodds has argued it is 'important' for the Government to consider evidence set out by the Wealth Tax Commission, which looked at whether such a tax would be desirable and deliverable in the UK. In its final report, released in 2020, the Commission said a one-off wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1% a year for five years would raise £260 billion. Others in the Labour Party, including former leader Lord Neil Kinnock and Wales's First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan, have also called for a wealth tax. Union leaders, including Sharon Graham of Unite, are also pressuring ministers to consider the move. A tax on the wealthy has not been formally ruled out by ministers, but Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds branded the idea as 'daft' in June this year. Ms Dodds resigned as a Foreign Office minister over the Government's decision to cut overseas aid to fund a boost to defence spending in February. Speaking to Sky News' Electoral Dysfunction, she said work undertaken by the Wealth Tax Commission 'has changed the debate'. The MP for Oxford East added: 'They looked at the operation of lots of different wealth tax. They looked at all of that evidence and set out how it would be possible to deliver something like that in a UK context. 'I would hope that the Treasury is considering that kind of evidence as well as other changes that have been put forward. 'We've seen the deputy leader of the Labour Party, for example, put forward suggestions. I think it's important for all of those to be considered now.' On Rachel Reeves' approach to welfare, Ms Dodds said: 'An attempt was made to deal with a quite immediate problem, but I don't think you can, particularly via cuts, actually deliver the kind of fiscal room that is necessary.' 'It may make sense tactically, but strategically a longer-term approach is needed and that's the the big issue that the Government has to face up to,' she added.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Voters will agree with Donald Trump, not Ed Miliband about wind farms
Who's right about wind farms? Donald Trump or Labour and the SNP? The question arises because the wheels of Air Force One had barely touched down back in the USA before his opponents started singing the praises of wind farms. After Trump's pretty savage attack in which he described them, variously, as 'ugly' and as bird killers, ministers from both the British and Scottish Governments queued up to disagree with him. Labour and the SNP heaped praise on the decision to allow the development of what may turn out to be one of the world's biggest wind farms – with 307 turbines – at what's known as Berwick Bank, off the coast of East Lothian. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray welcomed the decision taken by the SNP – an extremely rare event – and said it tied in with his determination to prioritise more clean energy jobs in Scotland. And he said that the Berwick Bank project had the potential to make a 'huge contribution' to the UK Government's energy policy. Mind you, I don't for a second think that Mr Murray's priorities played any part in the Nats' decision. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband also praised the SNP decision saying that it meant the British Government was now 'within touching distance' of its offshore wind targets to deliver clean power by 2030. He added that the Berwick Bank decision was helping secure Britain's energy security. However, it's pretty certain that the relevant SNP minister, Kate Forbes, while acknowledging the gratitude of her political enemies, would prefer to hail her decision as a major contribution to Scotland's – and not necessarily Britain's – energy future. With opponents of this huge venture insisting that a wind farm on this scale would result in the death of thousands of sea birds – including everyone's favourite, puffins – Scotland's Deputy First Minister insisted that her final approval was subject to a 'detailed seabird compensation plan', to show how the birds could be saved. How's that for a bit of typical SNP 'havering' and trying to keep everyone sweet – from hungry developers to bird lovers? But Kate Forbes is at least one of the more practical nationalists and said that this project was a major step in Scotland's progress towards achieving net zero and tackling the climate crisis, as well as supporting national energy security and growing our green economy. During his recent Scottish visit Trump returned to his frequently expressed view that wind turbines were 'ugly, costly and harmful to wildlife', while large scale wind farms were 'a con job'. Both Labour and the SNP are super-keen on renewables, but while voters might still be persuaded about a rosy future for wind power, ministers in both parties would be mad to sneer at Trump's words about North Sea oil and gas being a 'treasure chest' for the UK. I'm certain that a great many voters agree with him, and will vote accordingly in next year's Scottish Parliament election.
