Starmer criticised over action against Labour rebels
Rachael Maskell, who spearheaded plans to halt the Government's welfare reforms, had the whip suspended alongside Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff.
Responding to Sir Keir's attempt to assert his authority over the party, York Central MP Ms Maskell said: 'On this occasion, I don't think he's got it right.'
She told the BBC: 'I really hope from this process there will be reflection over the summer, but also learning.
'There needs to be a better reach-out to backbenchers to ensure that we are the safeguards of our Government.'
The four MPs all voted against the Government over the welfare reform legislation, but party sources said the decision to suspend the whip was taken as a result of persistent breaches of discipline rather than a single rebellion.
Government minister Jess Phillips said the four should not be surprised by the action against them.
The Home Office minister told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'There has to be an element of discipline otherwise you end up not being able to govern.'
She added: 'I think that constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own Government, I have to say, what did you think was going to happen?'
On Sky News she said: 'We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the Government to deliver those things, I don't know what you expect.'
Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she told Sky News: 'I didn't call it persistent knob-headery, but that's the way that it's been termed by some.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
15 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ed Miliband's deputy sent secret WhatsApp messages to Labour rebels working to torpedo PM's welfare reforms
ED Miliband's protege sent secret WhatsApp messages to Labour rebels working to torpedo Keir Starmer's welfare reforms, The Sun on Sunday can reveal. Net Zero minister Miatta Fahnbulleh was active on key WhatsApp chats used to organise the revolt - posting several messages. She was even considering resigning to inflict maximum damage on the PM, senior Labour insiders believe. Ms Fahnbulleh is a former aide to Mr Miliband and he is believed to be working to help her to be party leader one day. After being elected MP last year, she was immediately handed a plum ministerial job in his energy department. The bombshell revelations will inevitably spark questions about Red Ed's loyalty to the PM. A Labour insider said: 'It's astonishing that after just a year, this minister is more interested in her own ambitions than delivering for the people who have elected her and the Labour government.' Sir Keir was forced to tear up his plan to trim £5 billion from Britain's bloated benefits bill after an astonishing Labour backbench rebellion late last month. Over 120 Labour MPs signed a rebel amendment scuppering the plan - forcing the PM into a humiliating U-turn. It was an extraordinary challenge to Sir Keir's leadership just a year after he swooped to power in a landslide victory. And now The Sun on Sunday can reveal that a Labour minister - Ms Fahnbulleh - was in the thick of the rebel plot. She was on two separate WhatsApp chats with other Labour MPs used to organise the revolt. Changes to UC & PIP payments in full as Labour reveals bruising welfare bill concessions in bid to quell rebellion One was called Sunday Lunch Organising and the other was called Buffet Organising - covert names which gave no indication of what was actually being discussed. The minister sent several texts on the groups, including one which described the government's welfare plan as a 'mess'. She also allegedly cast doubt over the explanation given by ministers regarding the reforms. Ms Fahnbulleh was also allegedly spotted having 'victory drinks' in Parliament's famous Terrace bar - overlooking the River Thames - with a gang of Labour welfare rebels on the day the PM was forced to U-turn. Last night, Ms Fahnbulleh's office said: 'What is implied here is simply untrue. Miatta publicly backed the government and voted for the Universal Credit Bill at every stage.' They declined to comment further on the Whatsapps. Ms Fahnbulleh was elected MP for Peckham, in south London - succeeding former Labour Party deputy Harriet Harman. A high flier, she has previously worked for Mr Miliband when he was Labour leader and ran the New Economics Foundation - a leftwing think-tank. Last year, Labour bible The New Statesman put her on their 'Left Power List' as one of the 50 most influential people in leftwing politics in Britain. A Labour insider said: 'She is close to Ed Miliband and it's a pretty open secret that she is his pick to be leader one day.' A spokesman for Mr Miliband said: 'These are spurious and nonsense allegations. Ed supported the welfare bill at all stages.' Who are Labour's 'five families' who could cause trouble for PM Sir Keir Starmer Labour's 'five families' of rival factions have the potential to cause trouble for Sir Keir Starmer. Here are the Mafia-style clans vying for power and influence in Britain's governing party. In a nod to The Godfather film, we have given each family a horses head rating to show how dangerous they are to the PM. THE HARD-LEFT: A hardcore of around 25 former die-hard Corbynistas who are in the Socialist Campaign group. They loathe the PM and want higher taxes and spending. Led by John McDonnell inside Labour. Includes Jeremy Corbyn's new party outside. They can inflict pain on No10, but are limited in number. Head rating: 2/5 THE SOFT LEFT: A large chunk of Labour MPs are in this faction, which led the welfare rebellion. Includes Ed Miliband, Louise Haigh and suspended welfare rebel Rachael Maskell. Group most likely to swing behind Angela Rayner for leader, has strong ties with trade unions and associated with 'King of the North' Andy Burnham. Horses head rating: 4/5 AMBITIOUS NEWBIES: Starmerites who swept to power in the 2024 landslide election and are being fasttracked to Cabinet. Include new Labour royalty Hamish Falconer and Georgia Gould. They are loyal - but ambitious. Horses head rating: 1/5 THE BLAIRITES: Devotees of Tony Blair and his brand of New Labour politics, they are pro business and back market reforms in the public sector. Includes Wes Streeting and Pat McFadden - both big players in Keir's government. Horses head rating: 1/5 REDWALLERS / BLUE LABOUR: Straight-talking faction representing Labour's old industrial heartlands of the North and Midlands. Want tougher immigration policies, a crime crackdown and investment in blue collar jobs. Include Jo White, Jonathan Hinder and Gareth Snell. Impatient for change and not afraid to rebel. Horses head rating: 3/5
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour council accused of downplaying small boats crisis
A Labour-led council has been accused of downplaying the small boat crisis after one of its lawyers referred to a motion describing 'record-breaking' arrivals as 'inflammatory'. The motion was submitted by opposition councillors on Swindon borough council who were objecting to lucrative tenancy deals being offered to private landlords to house asylum seekers. Under the Home Office scheme to house asylum seekers, landlords are guaranteed five years of rent payments, funded by taxpayers, to accommodate the growing number of new arrivals to the UK. Local Conservatives had sought to pass a motion that would require asylum seekers making use of the scheme to prove a local connection to the area. But in documents seen by The Telegraph, a claim referring to a 'record-breaking surge in small boat arrivals ' was described by the council's top legal officer as 'inflammatory'. It was requested that the wording of the motion be reviewed. It is understood that this was advice, and it was at the discretion of the Labour mayor of the borough as to whether or not the motion was allowed in its current state. Kevin Hollinrake MP, the shadow levelling up, housing and communities secretary, said: 'Saying there has been a record-breaking surge of small boats in the Channel is a factual statement. The last thing any responsible Labour council should be doing is downplaying this crisis or covering for Starmer's failures. 'This isn't just about politics – it's a serious national security issue that demands urgent action, not denial.' The council denied that the officer was calling the wording of the motion 'inflammatory' and instead said the advice had 'been misunderstood when it was relayed to councillors' as 'the intention was to ask that the sentence was fact-checked'. A spokesman added: 'This story does not represent the full picture. Our chief legal officer provides confidential advice to political assistants and councillors via our committee services team when they submit any motions to full council to ensure they are fair, accurate and based on fact. 'For the record, our chief legal officer does not consider the motion to be inflammatory in any way. This is why the wording relating to small boat crossings has been published as part of the agenda for next week's meeting.' Local Conservative sources confirmed that they intended to proceed with the motion in its current state ahead of next week's meeting. The Telegraph understands that the council's chief legal officer had advised the mayor of the borough to not allow the motion to be moved at the next meeting of the council, which Swindon Conservatives said was 'subverting the democratic process'. More than 22,500 migrants have reached the UK in small boats so far this year, up 50 per cent on the same period last year and the highest number in the first six months since the first dinghies arrived in 2018. Swindon declared itself a 'city of sanctuary' shortly after Labour took control of the council in 2023. At the time, it said the status meant it would 'talk with the community about the positive impact of migration' and 'advocate for why being a welcoming and inclusive town is beneficial to us all'. A Conservative source called the description of Swindon as a sanctuary city 'council-sponsored gaslighting'. Swindon has seen the largest rise in immigration in the West of England, up 30 per cent in the past 20 years. One in five of its residents were born outside the UK. The motion stated that Swindon housed 539 asylum seekers as of this June, compared to 376 residents in similar temporary accommodation.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Votes at 16 are the least of Britain's democratic woes
Of all the halfwitted arguments advanced to justify handing the vote to teenagers deemed too immature to drink, smoke or purchase cutlery, a personal favourite is the idea that it will improve voter turnout. While the denominator may change, the percentage heading to the polls will only increase if young people are more likely to vote than the old – an outcome that recent electoral history says is extremely unlikely. Since 1997, the general election turnout rate among over-65s has consistently been at least 20 percentage points higher than for those aged 18-24. Mathematical illiteracy of the single-issue campaign group aside, however, it's not wrong to worry about Britain's growing apathy towards polling day. In 1950, turnout was 84 per cent. By the late-1990s, it was down to 71 per cent. In 2024, just 59.7 per cent could be bothered to vote. It's how Two-Tier Keir secured a landslide when only about a fifth of eligible voters backed Labour. Why does anybody take part? Consider the paradox of voting: rational people incur some cost in going to the polls, yet the probability their choice makes a difference to the outcome is vanishingly small. Perhaps we get some utility from playing our part in a community, or some enjoyment from witnessing democracy in action? Still, many don't regard it as worth their time – and the proportion thinking like this is rising. But there's more to it than indolence. People don't make the effort because it doesn't seem to matter who wins; it's the same clique of the politically committed who get in. Most of us want more liberty, and recoil at the idea that some gentleman (or nowadays more likely some determined lady) in Whitehall knows best. Yet, whoever we support, we have more inexplicable regulations foisted on us. Few of our parliamentarians, focusing on their own hobby-horses, from Gaza to assisted dying to trail-hunting, could honestly say they're aware of more than a small fraction of what they're signing up to. John Stuart Mill's tyranny of the majority has been supplanted by the tyranny of a minority who want to boss us around and waste our money on their pet projects. Politicians and policymakers have become a detached cadre, with obsessions and appetites that don't match those of the rest of us. It's how we end up with a pointless new football regulator. Or a Commonwealth Sponsorship Commission with a budget of £28m, used to subsidise foreign students even though hundreds of thousands already fight for places here. And these bodies are endlessly expanding, with more and more functionaries interfering in trivial matters that infringe our freedom. Rather than serve the consumers (us), they are run for the producers. Or, too often, for the non-producers. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the glacial pace of our planning system, where fusspot regulators quibble over a cat's cradle of restrictions imposed on us by special interests. It's why Britain hasn't built a reservoir since 1992. And many politicians, when they're not plugging some nutty scheme, are simply acting as overpaid and inefficient social workers. Did Churchill or Macmillan, even as backbenchers, spend much time on constituency work? Voter turnout was far higher when MPs were less attached to their patch. Yet the public did not mind because they saw, rightly, that a parliamentarian's core role went beyond sorting out Mr Smith's water bill or Ms Jones's bin collection. Recall how Roy Jenkins won Glasgow Hillhead in 1982 for the SDP, because the public still understood what politics was about and what MPs were there for. Now, it has all been replaced with talk of 'local champions'. Attempting to solve low voter engagement by letting 16-year-olds into the polling booth is useless displacement activity at a time when a third of those aged 13-27 think the country would be better off 'if the army was in charge'. If Labour were genuinely serious about addressing declining trust in the system, it would do something about the brewing scandal of postal votes – which could well be exacerbated if youngsters are added to the family block vote.
