UK General Election 2024: The Results & Aftermath

[Thirteen]

No surprise it's the Corbynites that lost the whip.

 

[Bald Rick]

No surprise it's the Corbynites that lost the whip.

well - they voted against the Government; they must have known what would happen. That they were ‘Corbynites’ is irrelevant.

 

[Morgsie]

It needs to be said that the Kings Speech is a confidence vote along with the Budget and a VONC Vote of No Confidence in the Government and the suspension is for 6 months and the Whips shall be keeping an eye on them.

 

[brad465]

Something worth mentioning I think is that Parliamentary Select Committees haven't been setup yet, but presumably will be in the next 6 months, so losing the whip now essentially forfeits the chance to form part of a Select Committee. It's possible these 7 rebels were never going to be selected anyway, but it warns other would-be rebels who could easily be selected not to step out of line.

 

[Yew]

well - they voted against the Government; they must have known what would happen. That they wer3 ‘Corbynites’ is irrelevant.

Surely it's time to get rid of these outdated traditions of Whips and dividing lobbies. They are Victorian anacronisims that the country can ill afford.

 

[JamesT]

Surely it's time to get rid of these outdated traditions of Whips and dividing lobbies. They are Victorian anacronisims that the country can ill afford.

Whether you call them Whips or something else, political parties will have some method of enforcing discipline on their members. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that if you’re elected under a party’s banner and presumably have benefited from them campaigning for you that you’re expected to vote with them. Especially on a matter that is a vote of confidence.

The division lobby I’ll grant is old-fashioned, but it does force the MP to actually turn up. I suspect there’s a fair amount of politicking going on where MPs and Ministers are obliged to be in the same room, not just spewing rubbish over social media.

 

[brad465]

Surely it's time to get rid of these outdated traditions of Whips and dividing lobbies. They are Victorian anacronisims that the country can ill afford.

Whether you call them Whips or something else, political parties will have some method of enforcing discipline on their members. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that if you’re elected under a party’s banner and presumably have benefited from them campaigning for you that you’re expected to vote with them. Especially on a matter that is a vote of confidence.

The division lobby I’ll grant is old-fashioned, but it does force the MP to actually turn up. I suspect there’s a fair amount of politicking going on where MPs and Ministers are obliged to be in the same room, not just spewing rubbish over social media.

You could do a compromise and have electronic voting on keypads/electronic machines in the chamber, which require MPs to be present to vote, but the voting process is much quicker, providing more time for debating (when considering each bill has many votes to cover its multiple readings and any amendments put forward).

Ideally though this would be part of a wider reform to move out of the Palace of Westminster into a more modern building laid out similar to how chambers in other countries' government buildings are laid out, especially considering the PoW is in need of costly maintenance works that will force MPs to move out anyway.

 

[jfollows]

The division lobby I’ll grant is old-fashioned, but it does force the MP to actually turn up. I suspect there’s a fair amount of politicking going on where MPs and Ministers are obliged to be in the same room, not just spewing rubbish over social media.

Yes, there would have been one more Labour MP voting for the amendment except that she was unable to be present because she has Covid.

 

[nw1]

Nusrat Ghani, Judith Cummins and Caroline Nokes have been elected Deputy Speakers with Nusrat Ghani as Chairman of Ways and Means, Judith Cummins as First Deputy Chairman and Caroline Nokes as Second Deputy Chairman.

It is interesting that Lindsay Hoyle will be the only male Speaker.

I saw Chope's name mentioned as deputy speaker the other day and thought he was new to the job as I didn't recognise him as such - but evidently not.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The seven suspended for now from the Labour Party are former shadow chancellor John McDonnell (= MP for Hayes and Harlington), ex-business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey (= MP for Salford), Apsana Begum (= MP for Poplar and Limehouse), Richard Burgon (= MP for Leeds East), Ian Byrne (= MP for Liverpool West Derby) , Imran Hussain (= MP for Bradford East) and Zarah Sultana (= MP for Coventry South).

 

[nw1]

well - they voted against the Government; they must have known what would happen. That they were ‘Corbynites’ is irrelevant.

Do rebels always lose the whip though? Only seems to happen in selected cases.

I'm not actually opposed to the two-child benefit cap to be honest but even still I'd like to see a bit more democracy in parliament and allowing MPs (especially backbench ones) to vote with their conscience.

I guess the government is wanting to appear strong at this early stage to stave off possible Tory accusations of internal quarrelling.

 

[Magdalia]

I saw Chope's name mentioned as deputy speaker the other day and thought he was new to the job as I didn't recognise him as such - but evidently not.

Chope was "in the chair" at the time of the Atkins episode.

Victoria Atkins: MP criticised for behaving 'abominably'

Ms Atkins has been criticised after attempting to interrupt another MP during a Commons debate.

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MP Victoria Atkins has been reprimanded by the deputy speaker over her behaviour during a parliamentary debate when she attempted to loudly interrupt another MP.

Footage from the House of Commons on Friday showed the shadow health and social care secretary standing at the despatch box and speaking over Environment Secretary Steve Reed.

Deputy Speaker Christopher Chope called for order and said Ms Atkins "behaved abominably".

So was Chope being a Deputy Speaker just a temporary thing? He has a long record of being a "stickler" for parliamentary procedure.

 

[JamesT]

So was Chope being a Deputy Speaker just a temporary thing? He has a long record of being a "stickler" for parliamentary procedure.

Yes, he was one of three temporarily appointed after the general election before they sorted out the actual election of the deputy speakers.

Dorset MP hits out at colleague during new speaker role

SIR Chris Chope has been appointed temporarily as a deputy speaker of the House of Commons.

uk.news.yahoo.com

Elections for Sir Lindsay's deputies will take place later on Tuesday, July 23.

Three temporary deputy speakers have been appointed in the meantime, including Sir Chris, Sir Edward Leigh and Dame Siobhain McDonagh.

 

[nw1]

Chope was "in the chair" at the time of the Atkins episode.

Yes - that was it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==

Assuming the following wish to stand:
Kemi Badenoch
James Cleverly
Priti Patel
Mel Stride
Robert Jenrick
Tom Tugenhadt
Victoria Atkins
Suella Braverman
and each need to receive ten nominations, then there's three I foresee not reaching that threshold (Stride, Atkins and Braverman.) I wouldn't imagine either Sunak or Hunt would agree to nominate anyone, though they'll vote. If I'm right, then five candidates go into battle tomorrow.

P.s. I think Braverman will elope to Reform very soon, especially after her performance in the Commons yesterday.

Hmmm.. of that lot the only ones that are remotely suitable for the role IMO are Stride and Tugendhat.

The rest are distinctly right-wing, or (in the case of Atkins) have behaved rather poorly in parliament, apparently showing that the Tories have not learnt from the election in which they were roundly rejected by centrists in a large swathe stretching from Oxford to Brighton.

 

[jfollows]

Do rebels always lose the whip though? Only seems to happen in selected cases.

That’s up to the party, ultimately the party leader. If he/she isn’t in a strong position, sometimes those voting against the whip are left alone. In the longer past it was pretty much an automatic sanction, but since Theresa May at least it’s often been tolerated.

The signal from Starmer is that he won’t tolerate it, clearly. Vote against the whip (3-line for sure) and you’re out for at least six months.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think they just wanted to send a message to the back benchers to behave. Personally i think its a mistake but hey ho!

 

[Yew]

Do rebels always lose the whip though? Only seems to happen in selected cases.

Only when they hold the leader accountable to pledges made in their leadership campaign?

In the words of Kier Starmer (https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225465424092987393):

We must scrap the inhuman Work Capability Assessments and private provision of disability assessments (e.g. ATOS), scrap punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.

 

[takno]

Do rebels always lose the whip though? Only seems to happen in selected case

The vote on the Kings Speech is considered a confidence vote. I suspect that whether it's normal to lose the whip on an amendment comes down to whether the amendment is regarded as a wrecking amendment or not. Short answer is that it isn't particularly surprising, and doesn't mean that the party ate evil control freaks.

 

[DarloRich]

well - they voted against the Government; they must have known what would happen. That they were ‘Corbynites’ is irrelevant.

it is indicative of thier political ( or in some cases actual) intelligence! The Government have annouced a child poverty review. I am sure that will recommend the removal of the 2 child cap. Why try to force the issue on day 1?

I'm not actually opposed to the two-child benefit cap to be honest but even still I'd like to see a bit more democracy in parliament and allowing MPs (especially backbench ones) to vote with their conscience.

Want to vote with you conscience? Leave your party.

I guess the government is wanting to appear strong at this early stage to stave off possible Tory accusations of internal quarrelling.

Exactly - mess about, find out.

 

[ainsworth74]

Only when they hold the leader accountable to pledges made in their leadership campaign?

In the words of Kier Starmer (https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225465424092987393):

I guess it's a good job nothing has happened in the intervening four years that mean that those particular goals now might be that little bit harder to achieve...

Reality is that they were never going to abolish the two-child cap on UC/Tax Credits in the King's Speech. And getting everyone's knickers in a twist over it isn't going to help anyone. It is clear that the country is financially hosed after the last fourteen years (and the last four in particular) and whilst the two-child limit should absolute be scrapped just ditching one random policy will give everyone warm and fuzzies but will just be a random piece of the puzzle without a slightly more coherent strategy on what we're going to do about child poverty and poverty in general. Particularly considering the scale of the issues facing public finances become clearer (see the massive drop of National Audit Office documents yesterday for example). Just having a random spending priority in that context would be barmy.

It also ignores that the cap will only help larger families (i.e. those with more than two children born after April 2017) when many smaller one or two child families are also struggling, it also ignores that those self same larger families are more likely to run into the Benefit Cap meaning that even if you lifted the two-child cap you may well find that they're no better off anyway due to the Benefit Cap. If you then want to start unpicking the Benefit Cap (another policy I'm not particularly opposed to scrapping or at least raising the level of the cap itself) that opens up a whole other can of spending and policy worms. By which point you're basically doing an entire program of welfare reform which will cost £££ at a time when we need to be very certain how we're going to spend those same £££ to achieve best effect and what we're not going to spend them on instead.

Should the two-child cap be abolished? Yes, absolutely. Is it some sign that Starmer is actually a android controlled by George Osborne and really Labour are, in fact, Red Tories and are just licking their lips at the opportunity to punish the poors for being poor? No, only in the fevered imaginations of disaffected leftists who are upset that the public rejected Jeremy Corbyn twice. The second time, comprehensively.

So if we could all please try and keep our heads rather than descending into vacuous infighting just over two weeks after the election that would be great.

 

[Yew]

Should the two-child cap be abolished? Yes, absolutely. Is it some sign that Starmer is actually a android controlled by George Osborne and really Labour are, in fact, Red Tories and are just licking their lips at the opportunity to punish the poors for being poor?

Fundementally, Starmer seems to be following the fundemental principles of Osbournomics, and is skirting very close to the infantile 'public finances are like a household budget' fallacy that has granted us one of the slowest recoveries of any developed economy since 2008.

No, only in the fevered imaginations of disaffected leftists who are upset that the public rejected Jeremy Corbyn twice. The second time, comprehensively.

Didn't more people vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, than for Kier Starmer in 2024?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2024 ==

I guess it's a good job nothing has happened in the intervening four years that mean that those particular goals now might be that little bit harder to achieve...

How exactly is that the fault of the children?

 

[Crithylum]

Didn't more people vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, than for Kier Starmer in 2024?

2019 as well

 

[DarloRich]

@ainsworth74 is spot on.

Didn't more people vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, than for Kier Starmer in 2024?

Meaningless. He lost. Twice. Won the argument though.............

 

[takno]

Didn't more people vote for Jeremy Corbyn in 2017, than for Kier Starmer in 2024?

I suspect an awful lot of the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 were like me, doing it only because they felt the alternative was worse. Plenty of other people thought that Corbyn was so awful that it was better to vote for liar.

The thing Corbyn didn't do was build consensus, or reach out beyond his base. He was completely incapable of winning an election, and going on and on about your own special interpretation of how his losses were somehow victories doesn't help anyone.

 

[Yew]

I suspect an awful lot of the people who voted for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 were like me, doing it only because they felt the alternative was worse. Plenty of other people thought that Corbyn was so awful that it was better to vote for liar.

Is this not also true for Kier Starmer?

The thing Corbyn didn't do was build consensus, or reach out beyond his base. He was completely incapable of winning an election, and going on and on about your own special interpretation of how his losses were somehow victories doesn't help anyone.

Are you suggesting that it is resonable that our electoral system can hand an increase roughly equivelent to a third of the overall seats, to a party that decreases it's vote share?

Finally, I must ask you to apologise, where exactly have I been "going on and on"? That comment was unreasonable.

 

[DarloRich]

Are you suggesting that it is resonable that our electoral system can hand an increase roughly equivelent to a third of the overall seats, to a party that decreases it's vote share?

Yes - especially if it means getting the Conservatives out giving them a shoeing on the way

PS winning the argument, like Corbyn, is meaningless. You have to play the rules in front of you not the rules you wish were available.

 

[Yew]

Yes - especially if it means getting the Conservatives out giving them a shoeing on the way

Fair point, well made, but under a proportional system they might not have been in in the first place

 

[DarloRich]

Fair point, well made, but under a proportional system they might not have been in in the first place

also fair - and while Labour are loosing i feel moving to a PR system would be sensible ( we do need to look at our system and make improvements. What they are is beyond me!)

 

[Purple Train]

I guess it's a good job nothing has happened in the intervening four years that mean that those particular goals now might be that little bit harder to achieve...

Reality is that they were never going to abolish the two-child cap on UC/Tax Credits in the King's Speech. And getting everyone's knickers in a twist over it isn't going to help anyone. It is clear that the country is financially hosed after the last fourteen years (and the last four in particular) and whilst the two-child limit should absolute be scrapped just ditching one random policy will give everyone warm and fuzzies but will just be a random piece of the puzzle without a slightly more coherent strategy on what we're going to do about child poverty and poverty in general. Particularly considering the scale of the issues facing public finances become clearer (see the massive drop of National Audit Office documents yesterday for example). Just having a random spending priority in that context would be barmy.

It also ignores that the cap will only help larger families (i.e. those with more than two children born after April 2017) when many smaller one or two child families are also struggling, it also ignores that those self same larger families are more likely to run into the Benefit Cap meaning that even if you lifted the two-child cap you may well find that they're no better off anyway due to the Benefit Cap. If you then want to start unpicking the Benefit Cap (another policy I'm not particularly opposed to scrapping or at least raising the level of the cap itself) that opens up a whole other can of spending and policy worms. By which point you're basically doing an entire program of welfare reform which will cost £££ at a time when we need to be very certain how we're going to spend those same £££ to achieve best effect and what we're not going to spend them on instead.

Should the two-child cap be abolished? Yes, absolutely. Is it some sign that Starmer is actually a android controlled by George Osborne and really Labour are, in fact, Red Tories and are just licking their lips at the opportunity to punish the poors for being poor? No, only in the fevered imaginations of disaffected leftists who are upset that the public rejected Jeremy Corbyn twice. The second time, comprehensively.

So if we could all please try and keep our heads rather than descending into vacuous infighting just over two weeks after the election that would be great.

An excellent post, thank you very much Alas, after five years of pretending there is a magic money tree, sensible politics, as I feared, seems to be falling flat with those who just read the headlines. I suspect that, by the time my grandchildren are as old as I am now, we won't have general elections and manifestos and all that boring nonsense - we'll let people promise the earth, and do it as a popularity contest on "reality" television (OK, maybe that is scarily close to the truth, Messrs Hancock and Farage); it would be the ultimate combination of "reality" formats. As Churchill once said, the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter!

In all seriousness, I think that, while the optics are bad for Starmer, said optics are a consequence of not seeing the small print. The benefit cap vote is a matter of confidence, and anyone who, like me, fiercely opposes it, needs to remember that they have five years to get their point across.

 

[ikcdab]

Only when they hold the leader accountable to pledges made in their leadership campaign?

In the words of Kier Starmer (https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1225465424092987393):

I am sure he still agrees with what he said. But you can't do it until you have something else to put in place and you can't just do it as a knee jerk reaction. So it's not a case of "if," but "when". And when is not yet.