Thread 27 Starmer: He's a very clever cat

[DuncinToffee]

A nod to the Chief Mouser

Previous thread
www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5361166-thread-26-starmer-cats-rebels-and-orange-chaos?page=40&reply=145615445

Deform doing what they do...

Josiah Mortimer‬ ‪@josiah.writes.news‬

Reform's Richard Tice has written to energy firms to inform them of the 'political risk' of Reform to renewables

Labour official: “Reform are now actively trying to discourage businesses from investing in clean energy in the UK...

"They are disgracefully... undermining the UK's national interest."

Durham County Council (Darren Grimes and co) have already scrapped the climate emergency declaration

According to Harriet Harman Blair and his rainmakers spent a lot of time bringing their backbenchers onside when contentious issues were proposed. Party management was far better in those days.

The thing is, they voted the way they did because the yes vote went against everything they believe their party stands for. At least 2 of the suspended MPs have been serial rebels.

When you apply to stand for the Labour Party in either local or as an MP, you have to say that you will go with the three line whip. In the case of the Welfare bill, a whip resigned. And concessions were given.

If you can't stay within the party that promoted you to Parliament, then expect the consequences.

This obsession about always toeing the line is very new, it wasn't a thing until Johnson really.

We have always had rebels, rebellions are vital for democracy. If we don't have rebellions, what is the point of a constituency MP? They are constituency representatives, that is the whole basis of our democratic system.

This overreaction from the leadership is embarrassing, now they must overreact every time in future!

If you can't persuade your MPs into the lobby, maybe you've fucked up the policy drafting process!

There have already been statements from some of them that they have no intention of joining the new party.

Yet.
They'll want to go through the process and see where it goes. If they don't get readmitted, they might rethink.

@Alexandra2001 No point trying to get the media on board, Labour leadership are saving their energy for governing.
Corbyn is not Labour any more, he is an independent MP.
I could never have imagined him as our leader on the world stage.
How could he have acted with the necessary skill and diplomacy required in these awful times?

If they all go to the Corbyn party, what are they going to do when they don't agree with Corbyn?

Frankly, I can imagine Corbyn being far more draconian than Starmer...

Or perhaps you didn’t bother even trying to persuade them.

Lots of their constituents were worried. They represent their constituents. And whatever, sacking them when it’s all sorted and tidied away reopens the opportunities to call him weak and the party divided. He could have dealt with it quietly.

The Afghan debacle, the migrant deal to be signed today with Germany's Mertz... but instead of this, its Starmers troubles on the back benches.

I think, yet again, it's poor comms and lack debate of the issues within the 'party and considering how unfair some of the changes in the now dropped bill were, i'm glad they did vote against.

This. Lots of people in the disability community were lobbying their MPs to vote down the bill.

I don't agree that MPs should always obey the whip, come what may.

One of those MPs has a majority of just 18.

You'd think Richard Burgon would have one of the safest Labour seats in the country. Electoral Calculus forecasts it to be lost to Reform at the next election.

And everything is a gift to Reform.

That phrase is becoming the new 'but Corbyn'

I don’t know this all seems quite deliberate. It isn’t poor comms, it’s done very clearly actually to show that there are consequences.

Why choose these four? Presumably because they were organizers, and therefore you remove the whip because you don’t want them to do the same again. If they organize against their own party, then the risk is you lose the whip.

Presumably after the vote the whips decided there was no traction over those four, in particular Maskell who then continued with her amendment, and they decided the risk of keeping them in was worse than keeping them out.

Interesting that there was a lesser tier of MPs who did not lose the whip but did lose trade envoy posts (prized). These MPs must have been either daft to think they could rebel and keep those, or they accepted it was the price.

Incidentally this has gone done well in certain elements of the press. And it’s been done after things have cooled off. Strong message. There are no free hits or rebellions, clearly.

Agree. It seems to me that a large majority means that MPs might think they can rebel without consequences. But the flip side to that is the Government might chose to lose them without losing overall control.
There will be future rebellions and I suppose this is to give organisers pause for thought.

That said I do hope that there is more work put in collaborating with backbenchers to deal head on with concerns and minimise rifts.

I do note that there are a section of labour MPs that appear to be briefing against the Government and have been for a long time. And their commentary hasnt been limited to benefits dicussions. If you dont have a good word to say about your government then maybe its not the place for you. IMO it was exactly that problem that contributed to the Conservatives demise - see ERG. The same will apply to Reform as further divisions will be inevitable later in the term and are already prevalent on social media - see Yusuf's role. A broad tent is difficult to manage for long periods of time.

Yes there was a sewer of commentary about Starmer and Reeves during the vote itself in the Guardian and even now there is still this briefing chatter. I do think that MPs can diverge from their party and vote otherwise but…

The galloping juvenile commentary in the Guardian from Labour MPs who were opposed but got excited about taking a lump out of their own government was very bad. This is a government which has huge challenges, perhaps the biggest in generations. These people need to realise they are either in or out. That’s what this is - and what the rebellion did was to say to Reeves, put up tax. Now there’s not many governments of any kind that can live or survive that long term. There are going to be other challenges which involve very difficult decisions about spending money.

I note this morning there is still another breathless gossip brief in the Guardian on this from Labour MPs. They may actually be their own worst enemy. Drama llamas

Given the polls, many MP's will take the view that losing the whip is the least of their worries and will vote according to their post bag or conscience.

I think the real question is "Why has Starmer produced such poor & v unpopular legislation?"

WFA? Farm IHT? and now this Welfare bill, dropped before it was even introduced?

I think the reasons aren’t complicated. The UK is broke after COVID. Public spending is nearly close to 100 percent of GDP, and the debt payments the government must make are very expensive, over 109 billion a year.

Reeves must handle that. She has no money to spend. Public services require investment. She has three money sources; tax now, growth (increase tax receipts) or cuts. Borrowing is now not possible.

Number one on tax she committed not to do. Growth is not happening, and so you are left with cuts.

Reeves has lost her headroom on every cut she has asked for. She has got none of it. I do think she is not very good, but the fundamentals are awful. Labour MPs need to wake up. This isn’t a question of borrowing a few billion. This is a question of making cuts so the UK can afford what it has now.

Let’s say this government goes wrong, the economy continues to contract and we fall into recession. That is a real possibility. You will then be left with tax as a solution. Okay but who - the figures are dire. The tax system is a screwed now that you have to be paying high rates to actually contribute. Where does this money come from that is needed?

Just out: The Government's electoral reform strategy

"Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern and secure elections"

Votes at 16/17, expanding the list of voter IDs, and (finally) some action to close foreign-donation loopholes

Take a look: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restoring-trust-in-our-democracy-our-strategy-for-modern-and-secure-elections/restoring-trust-in-our-democracy-our-strategy-for-modern-and-secure-elections

The Government will also "work towards a system of automated voter registration" and make it easy for people to register when they engage with Govt departments/services

It’s quite funny seeing this land in the Telegraph where they are apoplectic saying that only those who are 35 years old plus and property owners should be able to vote.

It will probably boost Labour and Reform. Given the average age of a Conservative Party member is current a thousand years old and their voter is only marginally less, not so good for Tories