Independent and former-Labour MP Zarah Sultana has savaged Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney over their decision to boot four MPs out of the Parliamentary Labour Party – all because they dared vote against the government over its despicable attacks on chronically ill and disabled people. It was via the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)-centred Universal Credit Bill.
DWP welfare bill: fallout grows
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has withdrawn the parliamentary whip from four of his MPs—Rachael Maskell, Neil Duncan‑Jordan, Brian Leishman, and Chris Hinchcliff—following their rebellion against his plans for DWP cuts to disabled people’s benefits. Although framed as discipline against key organisers of the rebellion, critics argue this is a punitive act of political cowardice.
However, independent MP Sultana summed up the malice of Starmer and his senior-most advisor McSweeney – the man who tried to kill the Canary and destroy Corbyn:
A year ago, Starmer & McSweeney suspended 7 of us for voting to scrap the two-child benefit cap & immediately lift 350,000 kids from poverty.
Now they’re punishing MPs who opposed cuts that would push 800,000 disabled people into poverty.
Insecure men. No vision. No compassion.
— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) July 16, 2025
Meanwhile, three more Labour MPs have also been punished:
Three more MPs have been punished in a different way by having their trade envoy roles removed
– Rosena Allin Khan
– Bell Ribeiro-Addy
– Mohammed Yasin https://t.co/UsIRQsTUmF— Serena Barker-Singh (@serenabarksing) July 16, 2025
Starmer, facing what his inner circle denounced as “persistent rebels,” is accused of muzzling principled voices rather than addressing the genuine moral concerns driving the defiance. These MPs had voted to block DWP cuts chronically ill and disabled claimants of Universal Credit – and initially, Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
The herd of dissenting MPs compelled Labour to reverse its punitive DWP proposals—cutting from two sides only to end up abandoning key PIP restrictions entirely. Yet instead of praising their courage, Starmer chose to discipline them. Detractors call this “desperate and pathetic,” a move aimed at stifling dissent rather than fostering genuine policy debate.
High-stakes
It wasn’t low-stakes: disability charities, public figures, and more than a hundred Labour MPs—including Sadiq Khan—had joined forces to oppose the reforms. Tens of thousands feared the DWP cuts would push disabled families into poverty, exacerbate health crises, and even risk lives.
Yet instead of listening, Starmer’s leadership issued a straight-line whip: support the reforms—or lose your status. It’s a move that’s authoritarian, not principled. Critics within Labour warn this risks muting the very voices that once defined the party’s progressive core .
Starmer’s message appears clear: loyalty to leadership matters more than loyalty to disabled people reliant on the DWP. He’s signalling that internal pressure from MPs—even on moral issues—is unwelcome.
Meanwhile, the U-turn he was forced into feels less like political humility and more like capitulation followed by punishment for those who stood firm.
Starmer’s heavy-handed response isn’t just about disciplining MPs—it signals zero tolerance for dissent within his own ranks, even on core social justice and DWP issues. Also, if Labour voices are penalised for standing up to protect disabled people how can the public trust its welfare commitments?
Plus, Starmer’s obsession with discipline now seems to clash with Labour’s core identity—one of empathy, solidarity, and governance rooted in humanity.
Authoritarianism vs DWP claimants
So, what should have been an opportunity for Starmer to highlight a principled stand by his MPs has instead revealed a readiness to suppress dissent in favour of centralised control. By punishing those who stood with disabled people, Starmer undermines both democratic process and moral authority.
Featured image via the Canary
