Keir Starmer’s leadership has long been defined by a promise of competence, unity, and discipline. But in recent days, those pillars have begun to crack. Not under the weight of scandal or external crisis, but through a set of deliberate decisions that have left many within and outside the Labour Party utterly bemused.
The suspension of four MPs: Rachael Maskell, Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin and the loss of their junior roles was intended to reaffirm control. Instead, it has revealed deep contradictions, alienated ideological allies, and triggered confusion about what Starmer’s Labour really stands for.
Here are 12 reasons why this moment feels much less like a show of strength and more like a leadership spiral.
1. The Suspended MPs Are Practically Unknown to the Public
If this was meant to be a high-profile purge, it failed on first impression. Three of the four MPs involved are relatively unknown to the wider public. Even Rachael Maskell, the most recognisable name among them, is hardly a household figure.
For a move that was supposedly designed to “send a message”, it sent it to a very limited audience. The political calculation simply doesn’t add up: it risks internal division without achieving any meaningful external impact.
2. It Punishes MPs for Doing What the Leadership Now Supports
The suspended MPs were instrumental in the welfare rebellion, a backbench revolt that forced the government to soften its rhetoric and policy on benefits reform.
Days later, Liz Kendall, Starmer’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said the government’s revised approach was “in the right place”.
So Starmer is punishing MPs who helped shift policy in a direction he now agrees with. It’s a bizarre contradiction: punishing success just because it wasn’t sanctioned.
3. It Undermines Starmer’s Promise to “Listen” Post-Rebellion
After the rebellion, Starmer publicly promised to listen more, suggesting future policy would better reflect the will of his MPs. That lasted less than two weeks.
Rather than consultation or reconciliation, the leadership delivered suspensions. This backpedalling further erodes trust among MPs and activists, especially those who already feel marginalised or unheard.
4. The Targeting of Rachael Maskell Shows Dangerous Paranoia
Rachael Maskell isn’t a radical ideologue. She is soft left, pragmatic, policy-focused, and ideologically close to Starmer himself.
Punishing her for organising a rebellion sends a troubling signal: even those who share the leadership’s worldview aren’t safe if they assert their independence. It’s less a crackdown on more radical views and more a sign of creeping insecurity.
5. It Reinforces the Image of an Overly Controlling Leader
Labour insiders have increasingly spoken of a centralised, hyper-managed operation around Starmer, one where dissent, even minor or constructive, is punished rather than debated.
This incident confirms those fears. Rather than managing pluralism, Starmer appears to be enforcing uniformity. That might hold temporarily, but it creates a fragile party dynamic heading into a general election.
6. It Blurs the Line Between Personal Loyalty and Political Principle
Starmer’s actions suggest that loyalty to him personally may matter more than contribution to the party’s broader mission.
These MPs were not undermining Labour’s core message; they were advocating for a more compassionate, electorally popular welfare stance. But that wasn’t enough. In Starmer’s Labour, it seems political correctness has been replaced by loyalty tests.
7. It Destroys Labour’s Claim to Be a Broad Church
Starmer has repeatedly said Labour must be a “broad church”, open to diverse views and internal debate. Yet these suspensions suggest otherwise.
Rather than drawing a line against those more radical, this move draws it against independence. A truly broad church tolerates principled rebellion. A rigid, paranoid party does not.
8. It Risks a Resurgence of Internal Divisions Just as Labour Gains Ground
Labour is currently still ahead in the polls as the public recognises the huge limitations of Reform UK and the festering corpse of the Tories. But public support remains soft, and enthusiasm among party members is mixed.
Instead of building on a moment of strength and consensus following the landslide election, Starmer has chosen to reignite internal hostilities. It’s the wrong fight at the wrong time, and it suggests poor political instincts.
9. The Trade Envoy Hypocrisy Is Impossible to Defend
Three of the suspended MPs also lost their roles as trade envoys, even though these are traditionally non-partisan positions not tied to the party whip.
Here’s the steel toe cap: Lib Dem and Tory MPs are allowed to hold the same roles without being subject to the same discipline. In fact, Conservative MP George Freeman remained a trade envoy after being suspended by his own party.
Labour’s standards, under Starmer, are now harsher than those of the government, a fact that weakens the party’s credibility and confuses the public.
10. It Shows Starmer Is Prioritising Control Over Clarity
Ultimately, this moment has exposed Starmer’s real priorities. Rather than focusing on government, refining policy, or building a cohesive team, he’s engaging in a petty and divisive clampdown that accomplishes none of those things.
He’s enforcing a kind of political discipline that undermines the very legitimacy of his leadership, one that is meant to look strong but in reality reveals anxiety and isolation at the top.
11. Critics Accuse Starmer of Yielding to External Lobby Pressure
Among grassroots Labour supporters and some critical MPs, a growing narrative is emerging: that Starmer is disproportionately influenced by external political lobbies, particularly pro-Israel groups.
This follows a series of events, including the controversial proscription of the anti-Zionist group Palestine Action, the disciplining of MPs critical of Israeli policy, and the refusal to condemn Israel’s actions in Gaza in stronger terms, that have led to allegations from the more radical elements that foreign policy under Starmer is being shaped by lobbying interests rather than Labour values.
To be clear: these are accusations, not established facts, and Starmer has consistently defended his positions as moral and pragmatic. But the perception exists among many inside and outside of parliament that criticism of Israeli state policy is no longer tolerated and that the party’s once-clear stance on Palestinian rights has been diluted.
12. Starmer Is Accused of Channelling Trumpian Discipline
In parallel, some critics have described Starmer’s leadership style as increasingly “Trumpian”, not in policy, but in tone and rigidity.
Labour MPs have pointed to a “command and control” operation in Starmer’s team, with messaging closely managed, internal debate minimised, and dissenters swiftly punished. The emphasis on loyalty, branding, and centralised narrative control has drawn comparisons to how political power is maintained under populist figures.
Again, these are not literal accusations that Starmer shares Trump’s ideology, but they reflect growing unease with his top-down approach.
Discipline Without Direction
Keir Starmer’s leadership polling is now in meltdown and beneath the surface, cracks are widening. His attempt to discipline Labour MPs over a welfare policy rebellion has not only exposed contradictions in his leadership but also reopened deep ideological tensions within the party.
With accusations of external influence, increasing control over dissent, and growing suspicion among even loyal MPs, Starmer has lost almost all of the credibility that brought him to power. If this is his version of unity, it looks less like strength and more like a slow, public spiral.
