-
he also said repeatedly that they wouldn't.
A vote for child poverty is a vote against child poverty. Sure.
Absolutely no need for the whip to be removed for 6 months, and it wasn't something that they were aware would happen according to Zarah Sultana (or at least she wasn't).
chickenbones-
Absolutely no need for the whip to be removed for 6 months, and it wasn't something that they were aware would happen according to Zarah Sultana (or at least she wasn't).
As someone who hasn't really followed it in that much detail I would assume (but no idea if it is true) that voting against the king's speech would result in some kind of disciplinary action but I don't know whether it is commonly voted against or what happens if it is.
-
'Starmer has a dangerously authoritarian streak' vs 'there was absolutely no way for rebels to know they'd have the whip suspended'
Pick one.
aggi
ReekBlefs
No, you're exactly right - that's the Poverty Review, and Starmer has indicated that one of its first actions is likely to be to recommend nixing the two child limit cap. So really, if these MPs were interested in actually helping kids, they'd have voted in line with the government and volunteered to work with the Poverty Review to help ensure the long term outcome of lifting children out of poverty - they're better placed than anyone else in the country to do so. They are in the party of government. They have actual power.
But they'd prefer the sugar rush of protest to actually working on the solution. Plus ca change.