Markus Andrews

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 disciplineIf 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.SteveHillDo 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 bunchStarmer 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.Tanaquil2Have a backboneBeing 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.LongsandsNo easy fixEach 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!GreymPrimary dutyI 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.WellActuallyHe 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!PaleHorseA 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.LeftyandproudOne step towards a dictatorshipThis 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.BigDogSmallBrainHeavy-handedLooks 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. More

Calls to tax the super-rich are no longer confined to fringe rallies or left-wing think tanks – they’re now firmly in the political mainstream.According to YouGov, two-thirds of the British public, including a majority of Conservative voters, support a wealth tax on individuals with more than £10 million in assets. It’s not hard to see why: the country faces a funding crisis, services are under strain, and the public is being asked to swallow yet more fiscal pain. The question many are asking is simple: why shouldn’t the very wealthiest shoulder more of the burden?But as I explained in The Independent’s latest Ask Me Anything, this isn’t a straightforward issue. There are real risks: capital flight, investor nerves, and a government already struggling to convince the world that Britain is open for business. There are also deep flaws in our existing tax system, and a shocking lack of data on who actually holds wealth in this country.During the Q&A, I answered your questions on everything from Labour’s silence and HMRC’s blind spots to non-doms, offshore trusts and the fear that we’ll end up punishing wealth creators rather than closing genuine loopholes. The answers may not please everyone, but this is a debate we need to have.Q: Isn’t socialism the problem here? Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. We are now well past that point. Since Blair was first elected, the political establishment has increased the overall tax burden to its highest ever level in history, and created an ever larger class of people living off welfare who do not want to do many of the jobs that need doing. The economy is now in chronic stagflation, the National Debt is escalating, and just like Stalin and the Kulaks, our political establishment is scapegoating the very people who are the wealth creators and major taxpayers.MarkA: It’s hard not to agree with you. We built a welfare state and the NHS when our population was smaller. Now, they remain elephants in a crowded room that no politician dares touch. Their models are no longer suitable for their intended purpose. I’m not a fan of Thatcher, but she was right here, though I’d say Tory governments are also guilty of the same populism.Q: Wouldn’t the wealthy just shield their money from a wealth tax? A wealth tax in the UK would likely trigger a wave of asset restructuring among the wealthy. Those who hadn’t already done so would move quickly to shield their wealth. This could include shifting ownership of property, art, shares, and other taxable assets into foreign foundations, trusts, or offshore holding companies beyond HMRC’s reach.EmiliaPortanteA: I agree with your sentiment, but we should do far more to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion. The UK turns a blind eye to offshore havens it’s responsible for – the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Cayman Islands, etc. There’s a whole industry dedicated to avoiding, and sometimes evading, taxes. It makes a mockery of the government’s claims to be collecting fairly.Q: Why complain about a 1 per cent tax rise if you’re worth £500m? What the super-wealthy are doing is essentially making sure they have enough money to guarantee their children’s and grandchildren’s futures…why aggressively campaign against a 1 per cent tax rise when you have £500m in wealth or even £100m? You will live comfortably forever – the reason is they want their children to do the same.ChrisMatthewsA: It’s true the rich sit atop a mountain of wealth, but they can’t be forced to distribute it — if we try, they’ll leave. If we make them believe in the UK, they’ll choose to spend, donate, and invest here. That may sound naive, but the alternative is worse.Q: Would you personally pay a wealth tax or leave the UK? CharlesMartelA: It’s unlikely I’d qualify, but if I did, I’d stay – I love this country. But the concern isn’t people like me. It’s the globally mobile few that nations compete for. Other countries are falling over themselves to attract them. So should we.Q: What about the millionaires who want to be taxed more? IllearthstonerA: I’m all for millionaires paying more tax – if they want to. The trouble is, far more don’t. Some are already abroad, deciding where to go next. And Britain slips down the list when they do.Q: How do you ensure redistribution if you’re against a wealth tax? IllearthstonerA: We should aim to turn the trickle into something stronger – not a flood, but a solid flow. A previous Labour government said: “We love the filthy rich, provided they pay the taxes they owe.” They recognised their worth and wanted more of them.Q: Which European countries still have a wealth tax? Do they work?CharlesMartelA: We should examine why so few countries have wealth taxes when, on paper, they’re an easy win. Most democracies are similarly strapped for cash, but don’t go there. Some, like Italy, are even offering incentives to attract the rich. Why?Q: Why doesn’t HMRC know how many billionaires are in the UK? forumA: Yes, it’s shocking HMRC knows so little. How can they apply serious analysis with such gaps? In the US, the IRS studies the Forbes rich list and works with its compilers. We have the Sunday Times Rich List, but HMRC pays it scant regard. That’s an obvious place to start.Q: Who’s going to value all the houses, the repositories of most people’s wealth?GrymSdijkA: Property experts are predicting a crash, certainly in London, should there be a wealth tax. Values at the top end will fall, and that will cascade downwards. As to who will assess the worth of a property, should there be a mansion tax, say, those estimates are already made by councils for council taxQ: Is Labour’s silence on wealth tax a sign they are considering it? BBenBA: Almost certainly, yes. If they weren’t, they’d say so and end the speculation, which is already sending the wealthy abroad and discouraging investment. Their silence suggests they’re weighing it carefully.Q: Why no action, despite the public’s support? JimmyA: Because they know it would damage business and wealth creation. The richest tend to be those who own businesses and invest. A wealth tax sends a negative message to potential investors about how Britain views them.Q: How can a democratic government reasonably resist a popular policy? JaseA: They can justify it because, while popular, it comes at a cost. It’s a case of the head ruling the heart. Yes, taxing the rich sounds better than cutting services, but it’s not that simple – the tax system could be made more efficient, something successive governments have failed to do.These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by Chris Blackhurst at 6pm BST on Wednesday, 16 July. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.For more insight into UK politics, check out John’Rentoul’s weekly Commons Confidential newsletter. The email, exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, takes you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more. More

Britain will lower the voting age from 18 to 16 by the next national election as part of measures to increase democratic participation, the government announced Thursday.The center-left Labour Party pledged before it was elected in July 2024 to lower the voting age for elections to Britain’s Parliament. Scotland and Wales already let 16- and 17-year-olds vote in local and regional elections.Britain will join the short list of countries where the voting age is 16, alongside the likes of Austria, Brazil and Ecuador. A handful of European Union countries, including Belgium, Germany and Malta, allow 16-year-olds to vote in elections to the European Parliament.The move comes alongside wider reforms that include tightening campaign financing rules to stop shell companies with murky ownership from donating to political parties. Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali said the change would strengthen safeguards against foreign interference in British politics.There will also be tougher sentences for people convicted of intimidating candidates.Additionally, the government said it will introduce automatic voter registration and allow voters to use bank cards as a form of identification at polling stations.The previous Conservative government introduced a requirement for voters to show photo identification in 2022, a measure it said would combat fraud. Critics argued it could disenfranchise millions of voters, particularly the young, the poor and members of ethnic minorities.Elections watchdog the Electoral Commission estimates that about 750,000 people did not vote in last year’s election because they lacked ID.Turnout in the 2024 election was 59.7%, the lowest level in more than two decades.Harry Quilter-Pinner, head of left-leaning think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, said the changes were “the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969,” when the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21.The changes must be approved by Parliament. The next national election must be held by 2029.“For too long, public trust in our democracy has been damaged and faith in our institutions has been allowed to decline,” Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said. “We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in U.K. democracy.”Stuart Fox, a politics lecturer at the University of Exeter who has studied youth voting, said it’s “far from clear” whether lowering the voting age actually increases youth engagement.“It is right to help young people be heard,” he said. “But there are other measures which are more effective at getting young people to vote — particularly those from the poorest backgrounds who are by far the least likely to vote — such as beefing up the citizenship curriculum or expanding the provision of volunteering programs in schools.” More

A government minister has told Labour MPs punished for voting against welfare reforms that they have only themselves to blame in the escalating rebels row.Keir Starmer suspended Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff on Wednesday after the four rebels voted against the government’s flagship benefits bill earlier this month.Responding to controversy over the prime minister’s decision, home office minister Jess Phillips said on Thursday: “I disagree often with directions that are going on and I spend time working with colleagues on the back and front benches ensuring that we discuss these things.“Constantly taking to the airwaves and slagging off your own government – I have to say: what did you think was going to happen?”There had to be a level of party discipline for the government to function, Ms Phillips, who is the minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.Government minister Jess Phillips has told Labour MPs punished for voting against welfare reforms that they have only themselves to blame in the escalating rebels row More

Labour voters support junior doctors’ plans to stage a five-day walkout next week, even as public support for the strike collapses, according to a new poll. Overall people oppose the industrial action due to start next Friday by a margin of 44 per cent to 34 per cent, pollsters More in Common found. However, Labour voters support the strikes, with 47 per cent in favour and 35 per cent against, in a major challenge to the stance taken by the health secretary Wes Streeting who has vociferously pressed doctors’ leaders to ditch their plans.Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the Government ‘can’t go further on pay’ for resident doctors (Lucy North/PA) More

Sir Keir Starmer has vented his fury over the cover-up of the catastrophic data breach that risked the lives of up to 100,000 Afghans, as it emerged no one had faced action over the huge blunder.The prime minister said the leak should never have happened and that Tory ministers have “serious questions to answer”, a day after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted.Sir Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary at the time the initial legal order was sought, earlier said he took full responsibility for the leak, which happened when an MoD official released a spreadsheet containing the names of 18,000 Afghans “in error”.But questions have been raised over why no one has been fired over the breach, which risked putting the lives of those with links to UK forces in danger of reprisals from the Taliban, amid calls for further investigation.It comes as the chair of a powerful Commons committee has written to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), applying pressure for a rethink on its decision not to investigate the breach, which cost the taxpayer billions in relocating thousands of affected Afghans to the UK. At the start of a tense Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir expressed his anger, telling MPs: “We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy and yesterday, the defence secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a superinjunction, a secret route that has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds.“Ministers who served under the party opposite have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen.”Starmer speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions More