| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:32 - Jul 23 with 4606 views | redrickstuhaart |
You understand the whip system? |  | |  |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:35 - Jul 23 with 4579 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Was always likely. More interesting is that 42 Labour MPs refused to vote |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:35 - Jul 23 with 4574 views | Trequartista |
Seems a tad excessive. One would hope they warned of this outcome before they voted, which I think would mitigate it slightly. |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:35 - Jul 23 with 4577 views | DJR |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:32 - Jul 23 by redrickstuhaart |
You understand the whip system? |
I don't recall any Labour MP ever being suspended for voting against a Labour government. Jeremy Corbyn is perhaps the most famous example of this.
And John McDonnell voted as he did on the basis he put country before party, just as Starmer says is important. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 20:37]
|  | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:37 - Jul 23 with 4540 views | WeWereZombies |
It's a difficult one, Labour have a big job on to steady the ship and repair the fiscal mayhem left behind by the Conservatives so I can understand the cautious approach by Reeves on this one. But to suspend the MPs for six months seems harsh. If the SNP had an ulterior motive of unsettling Labour with this proposal then they appear to have succeeded. |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:38 - Jul 23 with 4532 views | DJR |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:35 - Jul 23 by Trequartista |
Seems a tad excessive. One would hope they warned of this outcome before they voted, which I think would mitigate it slightly. |
I don't think that makes any difference because do we really want a Parliament where MPs are lobby fodder and can't vote with their conscience? | | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:40 - Jul 23 with 4506 views | DJR |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:37 - Jul 23 by WeWereZombies |
It's a difficult one, Labour have a big job on to steady the ship and repair the fiscal mayhem left behind by the Conservatives so I can understand the cautious approach by Reeves on this one. But to suspend the MPs for six months seems harsh. If the SNP had an ulterior motive of unsettling Labour with this proposal then they appear to have succeeded. |
If this is the way the Labour Party behaves, it might as well introduce electronic voting in the Commons, send their MPs home, and vote on their behalf.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2024 20:43]
| | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:45 - Jul 23 with 4442 views | Trequartista |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:38 - Jul 23 by DJR |
I don't think that makes any difference because do we really want a Parliament where MPs are lobby fodder and can't vote with their conscience? |
Every government creates 3-line whip votes. What remains to be seen is how many of these there will be. Agree it seems excessive for this particular vote. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:53 - Jul 23 with 4380 views | DJR |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:45 - Jul 23 by Trequartista |
Every government creates 3-line whip votes. What remains to be seen is how many of these there will be. Agree it seems excessive for this particular vote. |
It is not normal to withdraw the whip for voting against a 3-line whip. It has happened (Johnson did it on a Brexit vote) but not to my knowledge in the Labour Party. And what Johnson did I thought equally outrageous.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2024 21:01]
| | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:07 - Jul 23 with 4280 views | DJR |
I rather doubt they would have done this had Rosie Duffield voted against it but the chance to withdraw the whip from seven on the left of the party was just too good to miss.
This from the Guardian.
"Rosie Duffield, the Canterbury MP, said she would have rebelled to vote for the SNP amendment but was prevented from doing so because she had tested positive for Covid."
And let's not forget the rape clause which forms part of the two child limit.
The SNP’s Kirsty Blackman said that the so-called “rape clause” – where women who have a third child as a result of rape must apply specifically to receive the extra benefit – was demeaning. “Even if the government are unwilling to move on the two-child cap they should be doing something about the rape clause and what people are having to prove in order to get the exemption,” she told the House. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 21:08]
| | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:16 - Jul 23 with 4238 views | thebooks |
Apart from the sheer wrongness of this – the government should just lift the two child ban – it’s a baffling move. A grand total of seven Lab MPs voted against it after Starmer did some handwaving over a pointless review that placated dozens more – just ignore! Who’s he trying to impress? He has a 180-odd working majority.
Instead, he’ll just antagonise the large number of MPs who want the cap removed and make this more of an issue. Nasty authoritarian streak there. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 21:17]
|  | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:33 - Jul 23 with 4115 views | Blueschev |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:16 - Jul 23 by thebooks |
Apart from the sheer wrongness of this – the government should just lift the two child ban – it’s a baffling move. A grand total of seven Lab MPs voted against it after Starmer did some handwaving over a pointless review that placated dozens more – just ignore! Who’s he trying to impress? He has a 180-odd working majority.
Instead, he’ll just antagonise the large number of MPs who want the cap removed and make this more of an issue. Nasty authoritarian streak there. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 21:17]
|
More bureaucratic centralism from the Stalinist new new Labour. What’s most worrying is that only 7 Labour MPs defied the whip on this, or that it wasn’t Labour policy to abolish the two child cap immediately. |  | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:36 - Jul 23 with 4099 views | Clapham_Junction |
Couldn't agree more with the OP. It's seven MPs the right-wing wanted rid of – certain client journalists of the Labour right have been briefing against them for years.
What I find most disgusting is seeing people arguing that the government should only remove the cap when public opinion has swung behind doing so.* Keeping kids in poverty because of public opinion is appalling. Governments should lead on things like this.
* Unsurprisingly the same people don't seem to support renationalisation of various things that public opinion is massively in favour of. |  | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:51 - Jul 23 with 4031 views | Trequartista |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:07 - Jul 23 by DJR |
I rather doubt they would have done this had Rosie Duffield voted against it but the chance to withdraw the whip from seven on the left of the party was just too good to miss.
This from the Guardian.
"Rosie Duffield, the Canterbury MP, said she would have rebelled to vote for the SNP amendment but was prevented from doing so because she had tested positive for Covid."
And let's not forget the rape clause which forms part of the two child limit.
The SNP’s Kirsty Blackman said that the so-called “rape clause” – where women who have a third child as a result of rape must apply specifically to receive the extra benefit – was demeaning. “Even if the government are unwilling to move on the two-child cap they should be doing something about the rape clause and what people are having to prove in order to get the exemption,” she told the House. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 21:08]
|
Duffield is not exactly flavour of the month with Starmer either over her gender critical views, so i think it would have been eight. | |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:04 - Jul 23 with 3980 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 21:33 - Jul 23 by Blueschev |
More bureaucratic centralism from the Stalinist new new Labour. What’s most worrying is that only 7 Labour MPs defied the whip on this, or that it wasn’t Labour policy to abolish the two child cap immediately. |
Richard Burgon and John McDonnell suspended for six months. Thank you Sir Keir. Good to see my vote for your government wasn't wasted. |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:24 - Jul 23 with 3924 views | Hiphopopotamus |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:04 - Jul 23 by GlasgowBlue |
Richard Burgon and John McDonnell suspended for six months. Thank you Sir Keir. Good to see my vote for your government wasn't wasted. |
CHILD POVERTY IS A-OKAY WITH THIS GUY!!!!! |  | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:24 - Jul 23 with 3923 views | lowhouseblue |
very good of the seven of them to detach themselves from the government so soon. avoids any confusion about what they really are. sad for their constituents who thought they were electing labour mps though. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:33 - Jul 23 with 3864 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 20:35 - Jul 23 by DJR |
I don't recall any Labour MP ever being suspended for voting against a Labour government. Jeremy Corbyn is perhaps the most famous example of this.
And John McDonnell voted as he did on the basis he put country before party, just as Starmer says is important. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 20:37]
|
That’s a killer line from McDonnell. Starmer can’t counter that, so that looks like McDonnel won’t be back in the fold too quickly.
I’m surprised if Labour MPs haven’t been suspended previously for defying the whip. It seemed common place with the Tories. 6 months seems a bit harsh too. |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:44 - Jul 23 with 3809 views | lowhouseblue |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:33 - Jul 23 by Swansea_Blue |
That’s a killer line from McDonnell. Starmer can’t counter that, so that looks like McDonnel won’t be back in the fold too quickly.
I’m surprised if Labour MPs haven’t been suspended previously for defying the whip. It seemed common place with the Tories. 6 months seems a bit harsh too. |
of course the reality is that they put support for corbyn before party. just a fortnight and they show their real intent. starmer is completely right not to tolerate a group who are loyal to their leader over the benches. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:45 - Jul 23 with 3801 views | Blueschev |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:24 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
very good of the seven of them to detach themselves from the government so soon. avoids any confusion about what they really are. sad for their constituents who thought they were electing labour mps though. |
I’d imagine that anybody who voted Labour would be disgusted that a so called Labour MP wouldn’t vote to abolish this abhorrent legislation that increases child poverty. How on earth could anybody not want to abolish it? What is the point of the Labour Party if this is how they behave? | | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:50 - Jul 23 with 3761 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:44 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
of course the reality is that they put support for corbyn before party. just a fortnight and they show their real intent. starmer is completely right not to tolerate a group who are loyal to their leader over the benches. |
I’d have thought they’d be genuine in wanting to help bring more children out of poverty. Do you just think it’s a gimmick then to undermine Starmer’s authority? (I’ve no idea - I’ve not been following what’s been going on in the HoC). | |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:52 - Jul 23 with 3758 views | Hiphopopotamus |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:44 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
of course the reality is that they put support for corbyn before party. just a fortnight and they show their real intent. starmer is completely right not to tolerate a group who are loyal to their leader over the benches. |
AGREE!!! VERY GOOD OF STARMER TO TOLERATE CHILD POVERTY INSTEAD!!! | | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:52 - Jul 23 with 3752 views | Blueschev |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:44 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
of course the reality is that they put support for corbyn before party. just a fortnight and they show their real intent. starmer is completely right not to tolerate a group who are loyal to their leader over the benches. |
Jesus Christ what a take. This isn’t about Corbyn, this is about right and wrong. The two child cap places more children in to poverty. Anybody remotely progressive should want it scrapped. What world do we live in where holding this view makes you too left for the Labour Party. It’s insanity. [Post edited 23 Jul 2024 23:00]
| | | |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 23:01 - Jul 23 with 3711 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:44 - Jul 23 by lowhouseblue |
of course the reality is that they put support for corbyn before party. just a fortnight and they show their real intent. starmer is completely right not to tolerate a group who are loyal to their leader over the benches. |
The absolute state of this...Keir Stalin what a w⚓️. Thank f@ck I didn't vote for these! |  |
| |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 23:11 - Jul 23 with 3679 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Control-freakery gone mad on 22:45 - Jul 23 by Blueschev |
I’d imagine that anybody who voted Labour would be disgusted that a so called Labour MP wouldn’t vote to abolish this abhorrent legislation that increases child poverty. How on earth could anybody not want to abolish it? What is the point of the Labour Party if this is how they behave? |
It's almost like they're red Tories. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
