this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024

49 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

4124 readers

114 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Starmer suspends seven rebel MPs including McDonnell over two-child benefit cap vote (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 1 year ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They haven't been suspended for voting for the policy, because it wasn't a vote on the policy.

They've been suspended because they voted for an opposition party's amendment to the King's Speech. If you're in the governing party but are voting against your own party's agenda, what else do they expect to happen?

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think this is key - it's early days and the new government are still figuring out the size of the mess they've been left with. What they've announced so far are the big policies that they've done their sums on in advance. Scrapping the cap will require them to find a bullion quid from somewhere and that might take time. I have to assume the SNP amendment was at least partially them messing with Labour as they knew it wouldn't get through.

[–] Jackthelad@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The whole point of these amendments is to just shit on the government and try and make a political point. "Look, this new government voted against taking kids out of poverty!" and all that disingenuous shite.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Indeed - it's political trolling. I seem to recall them doing the same a while ago under the Tories.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I guess that would explain why the Scots sent Labour to parliament instead this time

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That's true, it is quite crude of the SNP to try to trip up the party that is clearly closer aligned to its interests.

[–] julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

They want Westminster to be disfunctional. That's the path towards independence. They're actively opposed to progressive wins. This goes both ways BTW, Labour won't ally with them either. Structurally adversarial politics is crap. Only electoral reform will make it possible for natural allies to actually work together (on the issues where they align).

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe the cost of removing the cap is estimated to be 3.5 billion quid

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

Ouch

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 year ago

Very true. Also worth noting that they all won election on the policy of not repealing the limit. It's not like this came out of left field!

[+] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 11 points 1 year ago

It's telling how they never have to "do the sums" for bombs or missiles.

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

They seemed to be softening somewhat on the cap, even Starmer himself had been making more open comments on it. I’ve seen some suggestions this was laying the groundwork for a “rabbit out of the hat” at the budget, either raising or removing the cap.

However, if the Starmer camp feels they still need to project strength and stability, the shift on the cap may now be jeopardised. They could now double back down on keeping it to not be seen as caving in to rebels or flip-flopping.

Time will tell. I hope I’m wrong but we still haven’t seen what the true colours of Starmer’s Labour will pan out to be.

[–] Twig@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Hopefully they stick to actually doing things they've planned for, rather than madcap populist impulse decisions.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The policy is what exactly? Totally confused by the story within a story about Labour rebellions and former Home Secretaries.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

There was an SNP amendment to the King's Speech to commit the government to scrapping the two-child benefit cap. Seven Labour MPs rebeled and backed the motion and have now been suspended.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Rebels should have pushed for the policy change internally instead of colluding with an opposition party. Also the suspension is only 6 months so they'll be back soon enough.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Labour does have a process for policies. It is called the National Policy Forum. He ignores it. So your suggestion that you can push internally is false. Keir doesn't tolerate dissent because he's an autocrat.

Labour used to get most funding from unions, it's now less than 30%, so wealthy business folk got control of that.

It's a shame that Keir's labour doesn't have policies that aren't cruel on people.

[+] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone -26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

can we get back the tories already? they were shit but at least we expected them to be shit

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What kind of shit world view is that

[–] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Please don't be like that.

[–] inspectorst@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago

Any government of any party would consider it to be a major breakdown in party discipline for one or more of its MPs to vote against its own Kings Speech.

That's why they've been suspended. If this amendment had been tagged on to a piece of legislation then this would have just been a regular rebellion, of the sort that happens all the time in Parliament. Rebelling on your own party's Kings Speech is an altogether different matter.