logo
Constituents critical of York MP's suspension

Constituents critical of York MP's suspension

Yahoo4 days ago
On Wednesday, York Central MP Rachael Maskell was suspended from Labour, along with three other MPs, for repeated breaches of party discipline.
It came after she was a key figure in organising a rebellion against her party's welfare reform bill, which she said would introduce "Dickensian cuts belonging to a different era and a different party".
Maskell defended her decision as standing up for disabled people but the prime minister argued the MPs were "elected on a Labour manifesto" and so should back the government's agenda.
But what do Maskell's York constituents think? People in Acomb have spoken to the BBC about their reaction to the news.
'Absolutely disgusting'
Richard Lowe, from the Huntington Road area of York, is visiting shops on Front Street with his wife.
When quizzed about Maskell's suspension, he says this is a topic the couple has discussed in depth, due to their careers in healthcare.
"Rachael Maskell, for me, embodies what the Labour movement should be," the former mental health nurse says.
"My thoughts are that the suspension is absolutely disgusting.
"As she says, she's been a Labour member for 34 years, she's stood up for disability rights, she's a disability campaigner."
As an ex-nurse, Richard says he has always had a duty of care to his patients - and that Maskell has a duty of care to her constituents.
"I won't be voting Labour at the next general election," he says.
"If Rachael Maskell is still an independent MP, I'll vote for her but I'm not voting Labour.
"I hope she's retaken into the Labour Party very shortly. I can't see it happening myself, but there you go."
'Where are the lines?'
Sat on a bench alongside their dog are Angela and her mother-in-law, Carole, who both live locally.
They explain they do not share the same political views as Maskell but were on the fence about Sir Keir Starmer's decision to suspend her.
"It's difficult, isn't it? Everybody's entitled to their own opinion but where are the lines?" Angela asks.
"I think Labour has made a lot of terrible choices in the past year or so.
"They're not doing themselves any favours."
However, they both thought the welfare system needed an overhaul.
"If you're a disabled person, you should be entitled to a benefit if that benefit is appropriate for your disability," Angela says.
"But I think possibly there's been a bit of a trend of people claiming disability benefits and I don't think there's been enough checks into the background of what's actually needed for some people."
Carole believes more "double checks" should be made to see what benefit is fair for each claimant.
'Over the top'
Further down the street, Carolina Ficco, 62, also stops to chat.
She believes that no matter the political party, MPs should not be punished for representing their constituents.
"I think it was extremely harsh and over the top that she's been suspended," Carolina says.
"Everybody is entitled to an opinion and if she's representing people, why should she be dismissed for that?
"That's what politicians are supposed to be about, they're a voice for us. It's bang out of order."
She says Maskell's suspension is "absolutely, totally wrong".
The prime minister defended his decision to suspend Maskell, along with Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff.
He said: "I am determined we will change this country for the better for millions of working people – and I'm not going to be deflected from that.
"Therefore, we have to deal with people who repeatedly break the whip.
"Everyone was elected as a Labour MP on a Labour manifesto of change and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government."
In a statement, the York Central MP said she wanted this Labour government to be the "very best ever" and said she had "used every opportunity" to reach into government to be an advocate for disabled people.
"I am, of course, sad of the decision to suspend me for simply seeking the very best for others," Maskell said.
"As someone of deep conviction and faith, I bring these values with me in all I do in representing my constituents and ensuring that I advocate for them, keep them safe and ensure that their voices are taken into the very heart of politics."
Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
More on this story
Starmer says he had to 'deal with' rebel Labour MPs
Labour suspends four MPs after welfare cuts rebellion
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why Does Anyone Think Trump Will Uphold His End of a Bargain With Columbia?
Why Does Anyone Think Trump Will Uphold His End of a Bargain With Columbia?

New York Times

time21 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Why Does Anyone Think Trump Will Uphold His End of a Bargain With Columbia?

In 1672, Charles II unilaterally suspended repayment of 1.2 million pounds to London's private bankers. Having run up this debt, and unable to finance a flotilla of ships to fight the Dutch, Charles became neither the first nor the last absolute monarch to break his word. James II, his sibling successor, went further, claiming royal prerogative to bypass laws and purge Protestant judges, generals and functionaries. The solemn oaths he made at his coronation, to respect Parliament and the Church of England, wound up being worth not very much. James ruled for less than four years, deserting after the Glorious Revolution began the era of parliamentary supremacy. Parliament would approve only those loans it would be willing to pay back with taxes, enabling deals with creditors now willing to lend. By restraining the monarch's power, it enabled the crown to make deals it couldn't otherwise get. In economic history, we teach the 1688 creation of parliamentary supremacy as a solution to what economists call 'commitment problems.' In the absence of a third party sufficiently strong to make sure all sides stick to their promises, the powerful can renege on the powerless. The powerless, seeing this, wisely choose to not contract with the powerful. Absolutist rulers are victims of their own lack of restraints; a sovereign who is too powerful cannot get inexpensive credit, because nothing stops the ruler from defaulting on any bond. President Trump, by smashing checks on his authority, has wound up undermining his own ability to make credible deals, including the one just reached with Columbia University, where I teach. The entities that have been striking deals with Mr. Trump, my own employer included, have not learned the lessons of the Glorious Revolution. Trade negotiators from longtime partner countries, government contractors, law firms, federal employees, permanent residents, the Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, even the Transportation Security Administration labor union are all experiencing contractual vertigo, finding out that the administration will not honor previous agreements. The first Trump administration renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement to get the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, but Mr. Trump has imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada in violation of even that agreement. Parties thinking they can wheedle their way into a bargain with a capricious administration are bringing intuitions from the world of private deals, backstopped by the rule of law, into the very different realm of political bargains with absolutism-adjacent executive branches. I understand the desire for a deal. My colleagues and I have eagerly clicked on every news story hinting that Columbia's leaders might have secured the hundreds of millions of dollars the Trump administration has frozen or cut. Our community has borne devastating cuts, with researchers and administrative staff members laid off and participants in medical research losing access to treatment midcourse. On top of that, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained a number of our students, and there have been endless leaks, doxxing attacks, campus lockdowns and computer hacks. All of this manifests as a never-ending stream of anxiety — financial, physical, moral — that narrows whatever intellectual horizons the research university is supposed to foster. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Europe won't pay its NATO share, COVID tied to bioweapons work and other commentary
Europe won't pay its NATO share, COVID tied to bioweapons work and other commentary

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

Europe won't pay its NATO share, COVID tied to bioweapons work and other commentary

Defense beat: Europe Won't Pay Its NATO Share President Trump's call for Europe to pay 5% of GDP for its defense has been much 'ballyhooed,' notes Gerard Baker at The Wall Street Journal, but the 'math agreed to by all members except Spain is on closer inspection a little fuzzy.' While some Euro nations such as Poland and Finland are 'serious about their defense,' Germany, France and Britain 'face economic, demographic, political and cultural challenges' that will make real change unlikely because the 'fiscal positions of most European countries' are simply too ugly for them to pay more. 'Budget restraint' in Labour-run Britain is impossible to impose, and European 'climate policies are blowing even larger holes in budgets.' Only 'economic growth' can get these countries on the right footing to afford to pay more for their own defense. Foreign desk: COVID Tied to Bioweapons Work 'A bioweapons expert likely to head the Trump administration's top Pentagon post for countering weapons of mass destruction has charged in a new report that the Covid-19 pandemic was probably the result of a military-research-related accident in a Chinese laboratory, and that work at that lab may have been part of research China was conducting in possible violation of a treaty banning biological weapons,' reports City Journal's Judith Miller. The report, by Robert Kadlec, 'adds to the growing consensus' that COVID 'was the result of a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and not a naturally occurring outbreak of a deadly virus originating in animals.' But the report is strong grounds for Team Trump to start 'prioritizing U.S. intelligence efforts aimed at Chinese bioweapons research.' Mideast journal: Iran's Long Road Back to Nukes The '19 senior Iranian nuclear scientists' Israel assassinated during the 12-Day War had 'nuclear knowledge spanning decades' — much 'centered on explosives, nuclear coding, and ballistic missiles,' cheers Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon, citing a new intelligence assessment by a leading nonproliferation organization. The scientists' 'average age was 60,' suggesting 'Israel targeted the most experienced crop of engineers.' Plus, the Jewish state 'successfully destroyed' Iran's nuclear 'technological blueprints.' Indeed, the attacks 'evaporated decades of nuclear know-how, striking at the heart of Tehran's weapons program in a way kinetic attacks could not.' The result: 'Recovering may be far more difficult and take far longer.' From the right: Poll Flags Border Ignorance A new CBS poll suggests 'significant numbers of Americans, even now, are not fully informed' about immigration under President Trump, marvels the Washington Examiner's Byron York. The poll found 56% of respondents disapprove of Trump's immigration approach, but it also asked a factual question: whether Trump's policies are making the number of migrants crossing the border 'go up, go down, or not change.' Only 64% 'gave the obviously correct response — Trump has made the number of migrants crossing' go down. 'And 8% said crossings have actually gone up, which was crazy wrong.' This reveals a 'lack of knowledge' of basic facts and 'could tell us something about the answers to all the other immigration questions in the CBS poll, and perhaps in other polls as well.' Education beat: Don't Use AI To 'Teach' The Computer Lab 'was that magical room' where students could experience 'the wonders of the Oregon Trail, Number Munchers, and Mavis Beacon,' reminisces Understanding America's Oren Cass. Back then, computers 'did not teach, they were a subject to be taught.' Yet 'the irresistible logic of technophilia determined that every child needed a computer' to 'compete in the global economy of tomorrow.' Today, the same is being said of AI: 'All students need to know how to use AI,' and 'AI should be integrated throughout the educational experience.' Trouble is, AI 'will offer counterproductive shortcuts for not only unengaged students, but also their teachers.' Kids need to understand that 'learning is not a technological function' but 'a habit of mind.' — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store