They didn’t force the boats back
They rescued and bought in thousands of illegal migrants who scuppered their own boats.
They put illegal migrants in hotels and gave them money.
The illegal migrants kept coming because of the cushy treatment.
Hardly cruel in any way, in fact quite the opposite, and Labour are going to make it even worse.
As a clueless Yank, can you help me understand what this means?
This is a fiction promoted by the right-wing media and its readers. Nobody is spending their life savings and literally risking their lives for a subsistence stipend and slum-level housing.
You know who is getting “cushy treatment”? The wealthy guys running the accommodations.
There’s your problem right there.
They are no longer considered officially part of the Labour party. They still are the MPs for their constituency.
It’s a short-term thing, usually, unless they’ve done something really bad. Like being put in the penalty box in ice hockey.
But it does mean that anything they want to get discussed in the House won’t even make it onto the agenda.
Kicked them out of the caucus, essentially.
The King’s Speech is given by Charles, but it’s the government’s policy statement of what they are planning to do for the next four years.
Because it’s the government’s essential policies, every government MP is expected to support it in the subsequent debate on the Speech.
If the government is defeated on the debate on the Speech, that’s a vote of non-confidence. The government can’t afford to ever lose a motion to amend the Speech.
The SNP is the Scottish National Party, which wants Scotland to be independent. They’re in opposition.
The SNP apparently offered a motion to amend one aspect of the Speech, ie trying to change the government’s outline of its policy goals.
Seven Labour MPs apparently voted for the amendment.
The Chief Whip for the Labour Party, who is responsible for ensuring that Labour MPs vote for the gouvernement on key issues, has released those seven from the whip, meaning that they are no long considered part of the parliamentary caucus.
« You don’t want to support the governenment? Right, you’re no long part of the parliamentary Labour Party. »
How long will it last? That’s up to the Chief Whip. But given the size of the Labour majority, he can afford to have them not part of the parliamentary group for quite a while, I would think.
Pour encourager les autres.
And I’m guessing that Labour’s current unusually-large majority makes it a lot easier for them to do so right now. With a razor-thin majority, you might prefer to have troublemakers “inside the tent and pissing out, rather than outside the tent and pissing in”.
I do have to wonder about their motivations, because they had to know that this would happen.
Thank y’all for the quick explanation! Makes sense. Like @Chronos, though, I am curious why the rebel MPs would do this knowing the consequence. Are they likely to defect to the opposition? Is this a “Joe Manchin” move – i.e. picking fights with their own party to demonstrate their “independence” to voters back home?
They’ll still get paid as an MP, and still do their constituency work. They may be invited back into the fold later, but if not they still have cred for standing up for their “principles”
The latter rather than the former. This is a small performative rebellion from the left (of which there will be more* over the years, given the safe majority), who have been feeling bruised by the iron grip the leadership team have taken on party discipline. They’d no more join the Tories than AOC would join the Republican caucus.
AIUI, the suspension of the whip is for six months. What happens then depends on how much the leadership will expect in the way of public repentance, sackcloth and ashes, etc.
*Flashpoints could be - Gaza, the Autumn Budget statement, any of the things that there won’t be enough money for (NHS, social care, criminal justice system, etc, etc), the Strategic Defence Review (that the left will think there’s too much money for)…
Twenty days from ‘elected’ to ‘suspended’ is pretty quick for British politics.
Party discipline is strong/harsh under the Westminster System and while having the whip withdrawn removes the obligation to vote the Party line, if you don’t continue to vote for it anyway, it will be noted.
The list includes some big hitters in their day such as John McDonnell, Corbyn’s finance spokesman, and Rebecca Long-Bailey (known as Wrong-Daily)
Thank you three. I was thinking thoughts…
Hey, even Speaker Johnson, godly man that he is, has his own Whip:
Francis Urquhart was the Conservative Whip in the original British House of Cards, and Frank Underwood was the House Democratic Whip in the American remake, as it happens. Neither was a guy you’d want to cross. 
You might think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.
6 months, in this case.
Labour has MPs to spare and then some, so no biggy really.
That totally misses the point. The problem is that under the current combination of laws, treaties, and conventions, most asylum requests are granted. According to UK government statistics, 62% of initial decisions on asylum applications were to grant asylum. That’s the overall figure, not the figure of migrants arriving by crossing the channel via small boats. For small boat migrants, the asylum grant rate is around three-fourths.
The current level of migrants entering the UK by small boat cross-channel crossings is not actually a problem, at least in terms of the economy and government spending. That level is due to the deterrent that entering the UK by a small boat is expensive, uncomfortable, and sometimes fatally dangerous. Change the dynamic to asylum seekers just needing to get to Calais, have their application processed, and then cross by ferry would be much cheaper and easier. Furthermore, asylum seekers are entitled to legal assistance with their asylum applications. Although this legal assistance could be provided remotely by electronic means, it’s likely to be argued that the asylum seekers have a right to meet with their lawyers in person. So just applying for asylum in France could confer an automatic right to travel to the UK.
Setting up sites to apply for UK asylum in France would unquestionably result in a huge increase in the number of UK asylum seekers and migrant arrivals. Whether that increase would cause problems in terms of the economy and government spending is questionable. But it’s certainly a risk. Don’t expect Keir Starmer’s government to be willing to take that risk any more than Rishi Sunak’s government was.
Also, if you read the cites above, the Tories over the last couple of years were actually doing a pretty good job of dealing with the issue of small boat cross channel migration. Expect Yvette Cooper and Labour publicists to make a lot of noise about Tory performance, and then other than ending the Rwanda transfers, expect Labour policy to be essentially the status quo.
Definitely agree with you. That policy seems to be Labour/Reeves promising a guarantee they won’t be able to propose a Truss/Kwarteng budget. Politically, that’s a shot at the Tories for the September 2022 budget.
The questions that the proposed bill raises in my mind are 1) why do we need that guarantee? Are you saying that you’re enacting a policy for an outside party to stop you from being stupid? Shouldn’t we trust you not to be stupid in the first place? And 2) what are you going to do when the OBR says your figures for the bill your submitting don’t add up? I mentioned the railway nationalisation before. That’s going to cost a lot of money. I haven’t seen any estimates for that yet, from Labour or anywhere else. But if Labour/Reeves provides a cost estimation that the OBS says is low, will they have to either revise their budget or cancel the legislation for the railway nationalisation?
On the other hand, they can save billions just by undoing a lot of the Tory policies instituted solely for the purpose of funnelling taxpayer money to wealthy people, like quite a lot of the various privatised services currently in place.
The King’s Speech is a mission statement of what the UK Government (aka executive branch) hopes to accomplish over the next year. In a parliamentary system, that also includes the legislative acts they wish to pass. After the King’s speech, the Government submits a motion to approve the speech. (I’m having trouble finding the motion text via Google.) The motion has to be approved by Parliament. It’s considered a “confidence vote” meaning that Parliament has confidence in the Government running the country.
It’s a very big deal if a member of the Government’s party votes against the King’s Speech. It’s essentially the rejection of your own party. However, as part of the debate over the King’s Speech, other parties are entitled to submit amendments to the King’s Speech motion, indicating what issues the other parties want the Government to pursue. The Scottish Nationalist Party submitted an amendment that a child welfare provision should not be capped for families having more than two children. There’s a lot of division on whether the cap is a good idea or not. Labour put it in their manifesto (their pre-election proposal of how they would govern) that they agreed with the cap, although they would be willing to rethink it if money was available.
The seven Labour MP’s who’ve had the whip withdrawn voted for the motion amendment, indicating that they want the cap removed. That could be viewed as purely a vote on the child welfare cap, which the Government could ignore. Or it could be viewed as a vote against the government. Starmer chose to view it as a vote against the government. He therefore said that they are no longer members of the Labour Party, at least for the next six months. It’s really just a slap on the wrist, but indicates that Starmer won’t tolerate dissent from Labour MP’s.