It's a very basic question. If the Labour Party is not for lifting children out of poverty, then what exactly is the Labour Party for?

Now Labour was founded 124 years ago to abolish hardship. It has always had different factions and wings and

ideologies but if the whole thing was supposed to hang together then abolishing

hardship and struggle was sort of it even if there were disagreements often strong disagreements about how to get there.

Well, who can say that anymore?

Kiestammer has just suspended seven or his own MPs.

Why?

Because they voted to scrap a conservative policy devised by George Osborne, which drives

hundreds of thousands of kids in this country into poverty or further into hardship.

That's what this is all about. Now we will be told, and we are being told,

no, it's because they voted for Scottish National Party

Amendment to the King's Speech

to scrap the two-child benefit limit,

which of course was imposed by George Osborne.

Well, let me speak plainly to you. This is

bollocks. Even Tony Blair didn't come anywhere close to being this authoritarian. There is no

precedent in the Labour Party for a very, very

long time and certainly not on this scale for just removing the whip for having the

temerity to disagree with the leadership of the party.

Now this is all being spun by client journalists for example at the BBC as a sign of

strength. It is no such thing, its weakness. A leader who tries to stamp out all dissent is a leader who is

deep down with feeble. Do you look back at Boris Johnson's purge of his MPs over Brexit

...