Are suspended Labour MPs undisciplined? Readers have their say – UK Times

Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to suspend four Labour MPs for defying the party whip has triggered a strong reaction, both inside and outside Westminster.

The punishment meted out to Rachael Maskell, Chris Hinchliff, Brian Leishman, and Neil Duncan-Jordan comes after the government was forced into two major U-turns on planned welfare cuts amid its largest backbench rebellion to date.

Some see the suspensions as a reassertion of control before MPs leave for summer recess, especially given rumours that disaffected Labour figures are in talks with Jeremy Corbyn about forming a new party.

Starmer’s supporters, including Labour minister Jess Phillips, argue the rebel MPs were right to be punished for “slagging off their own government”.

Meanwhile, the prime minister’s critics say the move exposes his weakness, not his authority. Union leaders have condemned the actions as “authoritarian” and warned of a deepening rift between Labour and the labour movement.

The rebel MPs have defended their stance as a matter of principle, insisting they were elected to stand up for struggling constituents, not to rubber-stamp legislation they believe will cause harm.

Independent readers also weighed in with strong, but divided, views. Some backed the need for unity and discipline in government, but others questioned Starmer’s leadership style.

Here’s what you had to say:

You sign up to follow party discipline

If you get elected using the party’s funding, logistics and “brand”, you have signed up to follow party discipline and – on a three-line whip –to back the government.

That’s pretty much written in stone from the moment you put yourself forward as a candidate. In all parties.

You might feel obliged to rebel on some matter of conscience, perhaps. But you do so knowing full well what the consequences are.

SteveHill

Do you think Keir Starmer was right to suspend the rebel MPs – or is Labour silencing dissent? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Behaving like an undisciplined bunch

Starmer is right to do so. A group of Labour backbenchers are behaving like an undisciplined bunch of student protestors, not members of the governing party. Maybe it’s because Labour holds power so rarely, but it invariably has a troublesome internal opposition who don’t seem able to grasp that once a party is in government, the primary duty of MPs is to govern in the national interest and adopt collective responsibility – and then to represent the views of their constituents.

Their own political and ideological preferences come some way down the list of priorities, and undermining their own government by throwing their toys out of the pram when they don’t get their own way is stupid. The voters don’t like divided parties which fight internal wars – that was a large part of the reason they chucked the Tories out.

If the impression that the left has run amok and is creating anarchy takes root, then Labour will be toast and we will get the Tories back (or even worse, Reform). If that happens, the ‘rebels’ will have enabled the destruction of the welfare system and a rollback on what Labour has achieved on NHS improvements, net zero, green policies, and much else.

Being in power and achieving something, even if not everything that all MPs want, should be far preferable to being back in opposition and achieving nothing.

Tanaquil2

Have a backbone

Being in government is not easy, and difficult compromises sometimes have to be made for the longer term. It’s called not cherry-picking your favourite policies (remember the Brexit negotiations?) without being responsible for not being able to do other things. They will be someone else’s favourites, and that way lies chaos.

Support the government or don’t, but have the backbone to call a vote of no confidence. The government is responsible to the people—not Labour Party members or other parties, for that matter.

Longsands

No easy fix

Each MP should also have a duty to consider how to ensure the best for their constituents in the long term. This government is struggling to put right long-term abuses which have been levied on the ordinary British public for decades, many since Margaret Thatcher. Lies about giving ordinary people bigger stakes have been sold ever since, while the few accumulate more and more wealth and power. It will take a decade to rebalance some of this, and many of us will suffer in the short term for the greater good and for true democracy.

Alas, there is no easy fix, even though many (most?) MPs would like to be able to offer one to their constituents. Reeves and Starmer seem to be doing the best they can with a lousy hand of cards and a rigged deck!

Greym

Primary duty

I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s comments about the duties of an MP:

“The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke’s famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organisation or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.”

So an MP’s primary duty is to the good of the country, then to his constituents as a whole, and only then to his party.

Starmer has suspended MPs for doing their duty by putting the good of their constituents higher than party obligation.

WellActually

He can’t sack them all!

His vindictiveness is a sign of his weakness, as noted above. Leisham is the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth (Scotland); his suspension will likely set off alarms in the Scottish Labour Party, where Starmer is becoming increasingly unpopular.

26.6 per cent of children in Alloa and Grangemouth live in poverty. Brian Leisham, as a Labour MP for the area, has consistently opposed Starmer’s policies, particularly those intended to worsen the lives of poorer people in Great Britain.

He stuck to his principled approach in the welfare cuts debacle. I suspect that many other Scottish Labour MPs will continue their opposition to Starmer. In the end, he can’t sack them all!

PaleHorse

A group of ‘martyrs’

If he thinks he can assert his authority this way, then it will backfire, and he has created a group of “martyrs” who will feel free to be highly critical of his policies with no fear of retribution.

It might even set an example. Other than that, he should have a word with himself over the summer, and ask why Labour MPs could possibly object to cutting PIP support dressed up as reform – a reform that wasn’t even in the manifesto.

He doesn’t seem to understand how it looks on the ground when they take freebies whilst cutting from the poorest. And if he still doesn’t understand why the rebels did what they did, he should resign.

His top-down leadership style of commanding over 400 Labour MPs was always going to have its limitations. These people have opinions and are voicing them, but Starmer seems incapable of taking anything on board. It’s a very old-fashioned, top-down leadership style. More modern styles engage with people and take them with them. Having kicked out any dissenting voices during his time in opposition, he has surrounded himself with yes-people, and now he is reaping the rewards. Organisations with those kinds of structures are always destined to fail.

Leftyandproud

One step towards a dictatorship

This should not happen in a representative democracy.

Each MP has an obligation to their constituents and their conscience, and should be free to vote in line with them.

A cabinet should convince its MPs to vote for party policy, but forcing them to vote a certain way – which these bans effectively do, is one step towards a dictatorship.

BigDogSmallBrain

Heavy-handed

Looks a bit heavy-handed to me, an outsider. These MPs gave an honest opinion and tried to persuade the government that it was making a wrong move.

Once again, the government has handled an obviously sensitive issue clumsily, and the presentation came over badly.

Advice to the government – if anyone should get the boot, it is your current PR advisers. There have been a series of bad calls over the past year that looked bad from WFA onwards. Learn or suffer the consequences.

49niner

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.