Latest news with #House of Commons
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Suspended Labour MP: It's insulting and contemptuous to call me a k---head
A suspended Labour MP has said it is 'insulting' to be accused of 'k---headery'. 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by which I and my colleagues are treated, let alone my constituents, I find that really insulting and I hope that is withdrawn.'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.
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Labour minister Jess Phillips says rebel MPs right to be punished for ‘slagging off own government'
A government minister has told Labour MPs punished for voting against welfare reforms that they have only themselves to blame in the escalating rebels row. Keir Starmer suspended Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff on Wednesday after the four rebels voted against the government's flagship benefits bill earlier this month. Responding to controversy over the prime minister's decision, home office minister Jess Phillips said on Thursday: 'I disagree often with directions that are going on and I spend time working with colleagues on the back and front benches ensuring that we discuss these things. 'Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say: what did you think was going to happen?' There had to be a level of party discipline for the government to function, Ms Phillips, who is the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Government minister Jess Phillips has told Labour MPs punished for voting against welfare reforms that they have only themselves to blame in the escalating rebels row (House of Commons) 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. Speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips 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.' Ms Maskell, who spearheaded plans to halt the government's welfare reforms, hit out at Sir Keir's attempt to assert his authority over the party, saying he was wrong to carry out a purge of persistent rebels. Labour MP Rachael Maskell spearheaded plans to halt the government's welfare reforms (PA Archive) The York Central MP said: 'On this occasion, I don't think he's got it right.' Speaking to the BBC, she added: '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.' Meanwhile, Sir Keir faced a fresh challenge to his authority when senior left-winger Diane Abbott said she had no regrets about comments on racism that led to her being suspended from Labour for a year. Diane Abbott has said she has no regrets about comments on racism that led to her being suspended from Labour for a year (PA Archive) The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was disciplined for saying in 2023 that people of colour experienced racism 'all their lives' and in a different way to Jewish people, Irish people and Travellers. Despite withdrawing the remarks at the time, she was suspended from the Labour party after Sir Keir said her comments were antisemitic. In a new intervention, Ms Abbott, who was subsequently readmitted to Labour, said she does not regret her remarks and stands by her argument. She told the BBC: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.'
CNN
17-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
UK plans to lower voting age to 16 in landmark electoral reform
The British government said on Thursday it planned to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections in a major overhaul of the country's democratic system. The government said the proposed changes, which are subject to parliament approvals, would align voting rights across the UK with Scotland and Wales, where younger voters already participate in devolved elections. 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy,' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said in a statement. Turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%, the lowest at a general election since 2001, according to a parliamentary report. According to the House of Commons library, research from countries that have lowered the voting age to 16 shows it has had no impact on election outcomes, and that 16-year-olds were more likely to vote than those first eligible at 18. Labour, whose popularity has fallen sharply in government after being elected by a landslide a year ago, had said it would lower the voting age if elected. The reforms would also expand acceptable voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards and digital formats of existing IDs, such as driving licences and Veteran Cards. To tackle foreign interference, the government said it also planned to tighten rules on political donations, including checks on contributions over £500 ($670) from unincorporated associations and closing loopholes used by shell companies.
Al Jazeera
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
How did the UK leak information about thousands of Afghans?
The British government has secretly resettled thousands of Afghans in the United Kingdom for fear they might be targeted by the Taliban after their personal details were leaked, Defence Secretary John Healey revealed on Tuesday. Details about the accidental data breach by a British soldier and the secret relocation programme for Afghans were made public after a rare court order known as a 'superinjuction', which barred the media from even disclosing its existence, was lifted on Tuesday. Here is what we know about what happened and how the government responded: Whose data was leaked and how did it happen? A spreadsheet containing the personal information of about 18,700 Afghans and their relatives – a total of about 33,000 people – was accidentally forwarded to the wrong recipients by email in February 2022, Healey told lawmakers in the House of Commons. These were people who had applied for relocation to the UK between August 2021 and January 7, 2022. That was the six-month period following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan after the US and allied forces withdrew from the country. Most had worked as translators, assistants or in other capacities for the British military in Afghanistan. They had applied for the UK's Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme, which, like its predecessor, the Ex-Gratia Scheme (EGS), had been set up for Afghans who had worked for the British forces. The EGS was originally established in 2013 following a long campaign by activists and media in support of people who had assisted the British military in Afghanistan and who were considered likely to face reprisals from the Taliban. The British soldier at the centre of the leak, who had been tasked with verifying applications for relocation, is understood to have mistakenly believed the database contained the names of 150 applicants, when it actually contained personal information linked to some 18,714 people. The soldier was under the command of General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, who was director of special forces at the time and now heads the British Navy. His name had also been suppressed by the court order until this week. The UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD) became aware of the leak when someone else posted parts of the data on Facebook on August 14, 2023. The Facebook post was first spotted by an activist who was assisting Afghans who had worked with UK forces. The activist contacted the MoD, saying: 'The Taliban may now have a 33,000-long kill list – essentially provided to them by the British government. If any of these families are murdered, the government will be liable,' The Guardian newspaper reported. How did the government respond to the leak? The MoD told Facebook to take down the post with the leaked information, citing security threats from the Taliban. It also warned some 1,800 ARAP applicants who had fled to Pakistan that they or their families could be in danger. The UK government, led by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, then sought a court order barring any media disclosure of the data breach. On September 1, 2023, a High Court judge in London issued a 'superinjunction', which not only prohibits the disclosure of any details but also forbids revealing that the order exists at all. That superinjunction was lifted on Tuesday following a campaign led by The Times newspaper in London. In April 2024, the government created the Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) to support Afghans who were not eligible for ARAP but were considered at high risk of reprisals from the Taliban as a result of the data leak. This scheme, which was kept secret, has now been closed, Healey told the House of Commons. However, he added that hundreds of invitations were issued to Afghans and their families under the scheme and these invitations 'will be honoured'. The government also launched the secret Operation Rubific to evacuate those Afghans deemed to be at risk directly to the UK. How many Afghans have been relocated to the UK under the secret scheme? As a direct result of the leak, the government says 900 people and about 3,000 relatives have already been flown to the UK under the secret relocation scheme and put up in hotels or military bases. In total, about 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have either been brought to the UK already or will be in the near future, according to UK media reports. Through broader resettlement schemes, 35,245 Afghans have so far been relocated to the UK, official data suggests. Why is this information being disclosed now? The court order barring the details about the leak from being disclosed was lifted at noon (11:00 GMT) on Tuesday. Following several private hearings, a High Court judge ruled in May that the injunction should be lifted, citing, among other reasons, the inability of the public or parliament to scrutinise the government's decisions. British news outlet The Times reported it had spearheaded the two-year legal battle which resulted in the injunction being lifted. That decision was, however, overturned by the Court of Appeal in July 2024, due to concerns about the potential risks to individuals whose information had been leaked. Then came the 'Rimmer review'. Healey, a member of current Prime Minister Keir Starmer's ruling Labour party, said he was briefed about the leak when it happened as he was serving as shadow defence secretary at the time. However, he added that other cabinet members were only informed about the leak when Starmer's party was elected to power in the general election of July 2024. 'As Parliamentarians – and as Government Ministers – it has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained in reporting to this House. And I am grateful today to be able to disclose the details to Parliament,' Healey said on Tuesday. Healey said that at the beginning of this year, he commissioned former senior civil servant and former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence Paul Rimmer to conduct an independent review. Quoting the 'Rimmer review' in Parliament on Tuesday, Healey said that four years since the Taliban's takeover in Afghanistan, 'there is little evidence of intent by the Taleban [sic] to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials.' He added that the information the Taliban inherited from the former Afghan government would have already allowed them to target individuals if they had wished. Therefore, Rimmer concluded it was 'highly unlikely' that someone's information being on the leaked spreadsheet would be a key piece of information enabling or prompting the Taliban to take action. 'However, Rimmer is clear – he stresses the uncertainty in any judgements … and he does not rule out any risk,' Healey said. How safe are the people named in the leak now? The Times reported that after the superinjunction had been lifted, a new temporary court order was issued, barring the media from publishing specific sensitive details about what exactly was in the database. The Times said the government cited reasons of confidentiality and national security, arguing that the leaked list still poses a threat to the safety of the Afghans. In a webpage published on Tuesday, the MoD states: 'At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the spreadsheet has been seen or used by others who might seek to exploit the information; however, the UK Government cannot rule out that possibility.' It now advises those who applied for the ARAP or EGS programmes before January 7, 2022, to exercise caution, avoid phone calls or messages from unknown numbers, limit their social media profiles and use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) where possible. UK-based media outlets have reported that a law firm is suing the MoD on behalf of at least 1,000 Afghans affected by the data leak. How much has the leak cost the UK government? Healey said on Tuesday that it had already cost 400 million pounds ($540m) to bring an initial 900 Afghans and their 3,600 family members to the UK under the ARR. However, this does not account for the expenditures by other government schemes to relocate Afghans to the UK. Healey estimated that the total cost of relocating Afghans to the UK was between 5.5 billion and 6 billion pounds ($7.4bn to $8bn). Different figures for how much the leak cost the UK have emerged. An unnamed government official told Reuters that the leak cost the UK about 2 billion pounds ($2.7bn). Other outlets have reported that ARR is expected to cost the UK government a total of 850 million pounds ($1.1bn).
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why Starmer's punishment beating won't bring Labour MPs to heel
Join the dots and it is not hard to work out what is going on with the punishment announced on Wednesday for seven Labour MPs who voted against the welfare bill. Sir Keir Starmer's personal authority took a major hit a fortnight ago when 127 Labour MPs – one in four – put their names to an amendment blocking his welfare cuts package. A year into power, a Prime Minister who won a House of Commons majority of a similar scale to Sir Tony Blair's was struggling to pass a proposed law he dubbed morally right and fiscally essential. The episode revealed deep failings in Downing Street's political intelligence operation, hubris among the Starmer inner circle and the dangers of rushing through sensitive reforms to save money. Most of it all lit up, in bright technicolour, a newfound willingness of an otherwise pliant Parliamentary Labour Party to speak back to the boss. Something, as they say, had to be done. The 'suspended four' And so we have the first step: four Labour MPs stripped of the whip – meaning they are now forced to sit as independents until further notice – and another three losing trade envoy appointments. Why not action against all 127 Labour MPs who put their name to the rebel amendment? Or all 49 ones who, even after the welfare bill was gutted of almost all savings, still voted against it? The explanation is in the numbers. The former would have wiped out the Government's majority, the latter taken a huge chunk from it. Action on that scale was unthinkable. So a more measured approach was needed, an attempt to show that defying the Prime Minister was not without consequence while also minimising the backlash. And so the four persistent critics of the Government have been singled out and scalped. They had committed 'repeated breaches of party discipline', to use the formal explanation briefed out by the Labour Party. This was true. Rachael Maskell has become one of the most vocal critics of Sir Keir on the Labour backbenches, penning articles about how to rebel and giving interviews about her newfound role as a thorn in the side of No 10. Chris Hinchliff was dubbed 'Nimby-in-Chief' by colleagues, recently leading an amendment to the Government's planning bill – one of Sir Keir's flagship pieces of legislation – to avoid the watering down of environmental protections. He is now tipped to join the Greens. Brian Leishman has hammered ministers over the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. Neil Duncan-Jordan challenged many cuts, including pushing to postpone the Winter Fuel Payment reduction. But the argument also gave No 10 cover for why many more rebels have not been reprimanded. Only those who crossed over some unspecified extra threshold got slapped down. We have seen this play before. In fact, just a year ago, when seven Labour MPs were stripped of the whip after voting to end the two-child benefit cap, defying the Government whip. It was a divide and conquer tactic. Four eventually returned to being Labour MPs, two remain on the naughty step as independents and the seventh – Zarah Sultana – has quit the party, vowing to start her own Left-wing movement. The message being sent is not subtle. 'Shoot one to educate thousands', as a former member of Team Starmer put it on Wednesday. But will it really work? PM under threat from Reform The Starmer of July 2024 is not the Starmer of July 2025. The former was at the height of his political power, having swept into office weeks earlier on a wave of anti-Tory sentiment, ending the party's 14 years all at sea in opposition. Now, Downing Street is struggling to show it has a plan for stopping Reform's poll-topping support surge which has got scores of Labour MPs in narrowly won seats jittery. Indeed, the real bite of the welfare rebellion came not from it being the 'usual suspects' but that concerns about the cuts package were so widespread they could be found across Labour's many factions. Will Dame Meg Hillier, the widely respected chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee who led the negotiating delegation to discuss the terms of the Government's climbdown, hesitate from rebelling again after this disciplinary action? There is no evidence to suggest the answer is yes – especially given she has escaped any telling off herself. Will Vicky Foxcroft, who was so opposed to the hastily put together welfare plan that she resigned as a Government whip, bite her lip in a repeat scenario because of this whips action on Wednesday? Unlikely. Cabinet overhaul Indeed, there was an immediate backlash from the Left – vows of 'solidarity with the suspended four' and howls of 'outrage' – that suggests in the short-term things will be more, not less, turbulent. More changes to right what went wrong with the welfare package are coming. No 10 is seeking advice and mulling over a summer 'reset'. An overhaul of Downing Street personnel, reforms to the machinery of Government and a ministerial reshuffle are all now widely expected ahead of the September party conference. The breadth, speed and scale of a shake-up – and whose Government careers are left in the bin – is all to be determined. But if the Prime Minister thinks a punishment beating of just seven of the 127 Labour MPs who defied him over welfare will bring this rebellious backbench to heel, he may be in for a nasty surprise.
