Which three Labour MPs have been suspended and why?
The move comes after a vote in Parliament over the planned – and controversial – welfare reforms earlier this month.
Sir Keir's welfare bill passed by 335 votes to 260 after last-minute changes to the proposal to have it approved after uproar over the plans to cut Universal Credit and Pip payments.
Despite the changes, some MPs rebelled in the final vote, and they have now been suspended.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
The Labour leader has reportedly suspended three first-year MPs – Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff.
Mr Duncan-Jordan and Ms Leishman confirmed the suspension.
Mr Hinchliff's suspension was first reported by The Times.
The suspension means the trio have 'lost the whip' after they voted against the government's planned welfare reforms on July 1.
MPs who belong to a party are expected to vote in Parliament as the party leadership desires.
The MPs are now expelled from the Labour Party as disciplinary action.
However, expelled politicians can continue as MPs, but they no longer have to follow the party line during voting.
Mr Duncan-Jordan, an MP for Poole, said after the news emerged: 'Since being elected, I have consistently spoken up for my constituents on a range of issues, including most recently on cuts to disability benefits.
'I understood this could come at a cost, but I couldn't support making disabled people poorer. More Trending
'Although I've been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party today, I've been part of the Labour and trade union movement for 40 years and remain as committed as ever to its values.'
Meanwhile, Mr Leishman, who represents Alloa and Grangemouth, said: 'I wish to remain a Labour MP and deliver the positive change many voters are craving.
'I have voted against the Government on issues because I want to effectively represent and be the voice for communities across Alloa and Grangemouth.
'I firmly believe that it is not my duty as an MP to make people poorer, especially those that have suffered because of austerity and its dire consequences.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: How to save 'broken' Britain? Readers discuss patriotic millionaires and propose plutocracy
MORE: Here's what to expect from Donald Trump's second UK state visit in September
MORE: Three in five Brits 'wouldn't even trust Starmer or Farage to watch their bag'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
As Labour targets trans rights, Scotland can do better
Some 38 years on and some other questions spring to mind. Firstly, were Labour really that fun in the 1980s? I wish I'd known her. And – more depressingly – was all that progress so fragile, so insubstantial, that nearly four decades later, instead of celebrating a new Labour Government as champions of LGBT+ rights, we must fear them? Fear has been the overriding emotion since the General Election last year, when the least right-wing contender for Prime Minister made flip-flopping on trans rights into an Olympic sport (it must be his biological advantage that allows him to excel in that, I suppose). Since Labour took office, those fears have proven well-founded. READ MORE: Uniformed police pulled from Glasgow Pride over 'impartiality' concerns From pushing full steam ahead with the Tories' efforts to strip back trans healthcare, to Keir Starmer's statements about trans people's right to access services based on their gender identity, it quickly became clear that any dream of a reprieve from regression would remain just that. And now, 25 years after the Labour/LibDem coalition at Holyrood repealed Clause 2A – which barred teachers from 'promoting' homosexuality in schools – and 22 years after Tony Blair's Labour government followed suit for England and Wales, Starmer's Labour have effectively introduced the same approach for transgender identity. In new statutory guidance published last week by the UK Government on sex and relationships education, teachers in England are told that, while they should teach about the legally protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they should avoid using materials which 'encourage pupils to question their gender'. That such a statement can be included in official guidance underlines that the same old unfounded fears about gay people are now being rehashed for our trans siblings. The premise at the heart of this directive is that a child or young person can be encouraged to be transgender, just like Section 28 implied an inherent risk of homosexuality being 'promoted' to children. Welcome to the Gender Agenda, just like the Gay Agenda, except Labour and the Tories are united over it. Let's just be clear: these are not ideas that any progressive political party should be endorsing, never mind mandating. Labour knew this 40 years ago when it came to gay people. They certainly knew it after watching the harm that Margaret Thatcher's government caused to both young people and teachers by introducing a policy predicated on these falsehoods. So how can this same party – insofar as it is the same party – wilfully do the same to trans people now? In the same section, schools are told to avoid materials that 'could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children', and to 'consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance'. As with other aspects of sex and relationships education, parents have the right to withdraw children from lessons. This part is familiar, not because it harks back to decades past – although it might – but because this is also the policy regarding sex education here in Scotland. Of course, Scotland has also introduced LGBT+-inclusive education across the curriculum, so it should not be possible to prevent a child from learning about trans or queer people at all. However, the assumption behind this parental rights approach is worth examining because it has taken centre stage in recent debates – and Scotland is far from immune. Amidst the moral outrage and proliferation in conspiracy theories of recent years about the supposedly shocking materials children are being exposed to in schools, the number of parents in Scotland withdrawing their kids from sex ed has quadrupled in the last five years. When those figures were reported in April, the Tories commented in support of parents' right to pull kids from these lessons, while Alba's deputy leader Neale Hanvey blamed the Scottish Government's 'gender policy difficulties' and its 2021 schools' 'sex survey' for the spike. But why should we accept that parents have an absolute right to control what their children learn? There are many subjects on which we simply wouldn't accept that. For example, if a parent believes the Earth is flat, should they have a right to pull their children out of classes that teach otherwise? It's one thing when a handful of children are withdrawn from lessons for religious reasons – although I would also quibble with that – but when media-confected hysteria is driving these numbers through the roof, it might be time to look again at who we are allowing to dictate the next generation's access to knowledge, and why. Although there's not much chance of that in England, where the Government's own guidance is being written to appease the fearmongers. Within the document, schools are instructed not to 'teach as fact that all people have a gender identity', and to instead be mindful that there is 'significant debate' around this and 'be careful not to endorse any particular view'. Only 15 years from the introduction of the Equality Act – by the last Labour Government – and it's now Labour policy that, unlike the other protected characteristics, there is so much debate around trans people that teachers should present 'for and against' arguments about them to children. Coming just months after the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act, and the various and bizarre extrapolations which have ensued from that, this shouldn't be surprising. When Starmer wouldn't commit during his election campaign to trans-inclusive policies, or to just about anything, his Government was hardly going to seek to upset the trans-exclusionary crowd now when support for his party is tanking. This is what's most frightening about the Labour leadership. About a lot of political leaders, when push comes to shove. It's not that they're driven by a deeply held belief that any of this is going to make life better for women, girls, children. Nor is it that they're fuelled by a hatred of trans people. Don't get me wrong, some of them are surely transphobic. The ease with which they've transitioned, if you will, from the role of rainbow-splashed allies to vanguards of the assault on trans people's legal rights alludes to underlying prejudices shaken free of pretence. READ MORE: Our youth orchestra shows the power of children's rights in action Above all, though, all of the political posturing – the capitulating and contorting, the derailing and distorting – that has come to define this Labour Government's approach (and one day, its legacy) on this issue can be condensed and explained by one word: power. When the tides turn, this Labour Party will do the only thing that those intent upon power and preserving their own self-interest above all else will ever do – grab a surfboard and ride the fucking wave. And rest assured, if they can do that now, about this issue, they'll do it again about the next thing, and the next thing. But here's the catch: when it comes to vilifying and ostracising marginalised people, there is no sweet spot that unscrupulous politicians can hit to satisfy the agitators. A case in point: so-called 'gender critical' campaigners are still angry about the Labour education guidance because it doesn't go far enough. This should be a lesson to the Scottish Government, present and future, while it contends with considerable pressures from those who'd like to see it turn its back on trans people. It's also a lesson they might reflect on when deciding whether to progress with legislation which is bound to be met with similar backlash. You can't control the fires of hate by adding just enough fuel, or by ignoring it – you can only fight it head-on. Rhoda Meek returns next week
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
'Vulnerability' left in UK constitution after UKIMA review
The Internal Market Act (UKIMA) faced fierce criticism from devolved administrations when it was introduced in 2020 to regulate trade within the UK following EU withdrawal. They argued it enabled Westminster to override devolved decision-making in areas such as public health and food standards in pursuit of a unified UK market. After winning power in 2024, the Labour Government announced it would be reviewing the legislation. The findings of the UKIMA review were published last Tuesday. The review introduced procedural changes – including a mechanism to fast-track exclusions from the act where the economic impact is less than £10 million per year – and pledged to prioritise the use of common frameworks, post-Brexit agreements intended to manage formerly EU-governed policy areas collaboratively. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: I was steered by BBC bosses on how to report. I ignored it However, the review's changes are not legally binding and could easily be reversed, Professor Thomas Horsley, a constitutional law expert at the University of Liverpool, said. 'All they've done is said, 'these legal powers that exist, we commit politically to exercise them in accordance with what we agree in the common frameworks',' Horsley said. 'But that is a political commitment, and we all know that intergovernmental commitments can be – even the strongest ones – can be disregarded by a particular recalcitrant government in London. 'So the constitutional vulnerability, if you want to put it like that, remains.' He also said the £10m threshold below which UKIMA exclusions would be fast-tracked was a 'low bar', noting that it could be met by the turnover of a single company. Following the publication of Labour's review, both the SNP Government in Edinburgh and the Welsh Government in Cardiff welcomed changes to the exclusions process – but called for UKIMA to be fully repealed. Welsh Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies (Image: Welsh Government) Huw Irranca-Davies, the Deputy First Minister of Wales, said: 'We particularly welcome the commitment to implement any exclusions agreed via common frameworks, which should improve the functioning of the UK internal market. The common frameworks operate on a clear set of principles which fully respect devolution and include dispute resolution mechanisms. 'However, it is our long-standing and consistent view that the act should be repealed and replaced with a system, underpinned by legislation, designed around the common frameworks.' Scottish Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson hit out in stronger terms, saying UKIMA 'introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers'. 'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable,' he went on. READ MORE: Kate Forbes calls for Internal Market Act to be scrapped 'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace UKIMA, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of UKIMA.' Horsley said he could understand the argument being made by the devolved governments, that the 'common frameworks can do it all' and UKIMA is unnecessary. 'It is precarious because if things don't get agreed through the common frameworks – or a future UK Government decides, well, these political commitments we made, we're changing our mind – the legal powers are still there,' he said. 'This review doesn't change the legal framework, it just says, wait a minute, we're going to park it in the background and we're going to try and work using more intergovernmental political mechanisms, the common frameworks.' However, Horsley said that although the Labour Government's review has resulted only in political pledges, it was 'definitely a move in the right direction and a move that speaks to the ambition of the UK Government to reset relations'. He went on: 'There are other parts of UKIMA which are just not discussed. [The devolved governments] would like to reopen discussions around the direct payments that can be made from London in devolved areas. So there are things that are not so narrowly related to intratrade that are still rubbing up wounds. 'But in terms of just narrowly looking at UKIMA and the market access principles, there are some positive things there and some clear commitments from the UK Government towards more consensual policy making … which is very different to obviously the more abrasive approach which preceded under previous governments.' READ MORE: John Swinney sets out 3-point plan for fresh independence push In late 2024, Horsley was one of four constitutional legal experts to co-author a report on UKIMA which concluded that reform of the legislation was 'essential to restore intergovernmental trust'. Asked if Labour's review had provided that essential reform, he said: 'What this review shows is that there is more work to be done, but it's around those common frameworks. 'It's now shifting the attention to making the common frameworks work. These are not off-the-shelf things that are super functioning and solve all the problems. 'So the work between the governments now is going to have to be making those common frameworks work.' Douglas Alexander is UK Trade Policy Minister (Image: UK Parliament) After the review was published, UK Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged there were 'real concerns' about how the laws have operated, and pledged "improvements'. Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'. He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
Backbench MPs should remain loyal to constituents, not parties
The very use of that term speaks volumes about how the party leadership may regard both its troops and any perceived dissension from the party line. This follows a year-long freeze of her Labour credentials dating from a letter Diane wrote to The Observer in early 2023. It also follows the suspension of seven other 'miscreants' who had the temerity to suggest the two-child cap should be history and had no place under a Labour Government. And, of course, the massive recent rebellion over changes to welfare eligibility. Featuring, among very many others, all of the latest MPs to lose the whip. READ MORE: 'Time to take action': What it was like at the national Palestine demo in Edinburgh At which stage, the Labour leadership earnestly assured its flock that it would listen more intently to its backbenchers and absolutely didn't regard the latter as mere 'voter fodder'. Abbott's letter said, not very controversially, that the kind of lifelong racism encountered by black and brown people, differs from the kind of prejudice suffered by Irish people, Travellers and Jewish people. 'Any fair-minded person will know what I meant,' she later said in a statement to BBC Newsnight. Indeed. Surely a textbook example of 'we ken whit she meant'. (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) In an interview for James Naughtie's Reflections programme last Thursday, she said she had no regrets about these remarks despite having apologised for them at the time. She reiterated that face colour is an immediate red rag to racists in a way that their identity probably isn't for other minorities. Cue portions of the Labour roof falling on her head. Again. It may be that her real crime was a historical closeness to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. At any rate, the Mother Of The House has now been unceremoniously flung oot the Labour house. You might think that a government with a large majority of seats on under 34% of votes cast in a poll where fewer than 60% of electors bothered to use their vote might display some humility. Rather than take a sledgehammer to crack people denounced as irritating nutcases. Especially since their MPs – more than half of them in parliament for the first time – are there to represent a constituency where two-thirds of electors either didn't vote for them, or simply didn't vote. The Labour Party's draconian attitude to dissenters suggests complacency and a tendency for overreaction. It also suggests they hope their hardline stance will result in fewer Labour MPs willing to take risks. Not so much the firm smack of government as political punishment beatings. From a Scottish perspective, the most instructive victim is Brian Leishman, the luckless Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth. Grangemouth, you will know, was Scotland's solitary refinery, a place the Scottish Labour leader promised to save during the election campaign. Leishman, unsurprisingly, thought he would therefore be on safe ground when he vocally supported the workforce. Alas, that, plus his stance on welfare reform, meant he would instead get his jotters. Without warning. He said, thereafter, that he hadn't been elected to make people poorer. He also argued that he'd been elected 'to be a voice for my constituents across [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]]'. Not, it seems, if that voice fails to chime with the latest stance of his leader. Anas Sarwar's silence on this matter, at the time of writing, has been positively deafening. READ MORE: 55 arrested in Westminster as protests grow over Palestine Action ban The [[Alloa]] and [[Grangemouth]] MP says that the Scottish Labour leader has not been in touch since a WhatsApp message last January. You might have thought he'd pick up the phone over Grangemouth at least, if not over the latest party row which saw one of his own Scots Labour representatives publicly humiliated. However, Leishman says he still supports Sir Keir's leadership and 'I will be out campaigning to get Scottish Labour candidates elected for Holyrood next year. I'll be doing everything I possibly can to get Anas into Bute House'. Each to their own and all that. Also interesting is the role and function of MPs of all parties. They don't have a statutory one, but they do have a code of conduct based on seven principles of 'selflessness, integrity, objectivity, honesty, accountability, openness and leadership.' However, the code also acknowledges the challenges faced by MPs when the needs and views of their constituents come into conflict with those of the party whose rosette they sported on election night. Or, as the code puts it: 'As members of a political party, MPs are expected to support and promote the policies and principles of their party. However, this should not come at the expense of their duties to their constituents or the wider public interest.' So let's suppose that the chap representing the workforce at Grangemouth was doing little more than exercising his duty to his constituents and the wider public interest. Not even to mention demonstrating integrity objectivity, and accountability. The code does understand the complexity of the MP's role in a way their parties may not: 'At times a constituent's demands may conflict with party policy and your MP will have to decide where their first loyalty should lie.' And woe betide any MP if their first loyalty is not to their party, it seems. Thus far, the people who found themselves minus the Labour whip were, to a man and woman, all demonstrating their commitment to what used to be thought of as traditional Labour values. For other quite mouthy MPs like the usually admirable Jess Phillips there was instead a plea for party unity and a respect for party discipline. So says the MP who resigned from the Labour front bench in 2023 over the carnage in Gaza, having backed an SNP-instigated vote on a ceasefire. Then she said: 'On this occasion, I must vote with my constituents, my head, and my heart which has felt as if it were breaking over the last four weeks with the horror of the situation in Israel and Palestine.' This time, the tune seems to have changed and she says: 'Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?' Maybe, Jess, they hadn't realised voting for the wider public interest shouldn't be a hanging offence in a party which once described itself as 'a broad church'. Or, as Abbott wrote on a social media post: 'Silencing dissent is not leadership. It's control.' But voting with your constituents, your head and your heart is not apparently an option for others whose inner voice tells them their party has simply got it wrong. Angela Rayner, one time darling of the Labour left, confined herself to saying that the Abbott situation presented 'a real challenge for the party' (sure is)! READ MORE: The Chancellor's words don't line up with her actions Rayner is an enigmatic case in point. She was, after all, a prime mover in getting the party to admit Abbott as a Labour candidate after her last long suspension. Labour's very own working-class woman has obviously decided that she can exert more influence as a deputy leader than a serial rebel with a number of causes. You might think that she had rather more in common with Abbott than, for instance, the current Chancellor. But for heavens sake, don't say so out loud if you have a Labour Party card about your person. The moral of this latest debacle is that if you get elected to parliament as a Labour candidate, please be sure to check in your conscience at the door. It has no place in the chamber these days.
