The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 289 contributions

Speeches by McDonnell.

Every Hansard contribution by John McDonnell this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 201220 of 289 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 11 of 15Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

“Labour or innocent”, or something like that. No, I am being silly. When I wrote to the Speaker, just to clarify things, I said “Labour suspended”, and that is what we are. I just wanted to reflect the reality of it because it has caused confusion, and it does undermine your position within the constituency itself. Thi

157
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes. I think the examples in the past have been usually simultaneous. If it is so serious, you will have the Whip withdrawn and you will be expelled as well. With us it was suspension, but you continue on as normal as a party member.

45
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

I think the withdrawal is on a permanent basis. The suspension is a temporary one. When we were suspended, we were given six-month sentences—simple as that.

26
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

I was referring to Ian, actually. With us what happens is that the Whip is suspended, the party membership continues, and, as I say, you are obliged to follow the Whip, which we do, and you are entitled to operate as a party. I went to the Labour party conference; I am allowed to go as a party member, not ex officio, t

274
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes, exactly that. In our procedures, again, the suspension of the Whip is very rare. It has happened in the past, Aneurin Bevan and people like that, Harold Wilson. There are real prospects for people who have been suspended, but in our—

42
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

People rightfully said, “I did not vote for you as an independent”. “No, you didn’t. That is why I follow the Labour Whip. As far as I am concerned, I am a Labour MP. I am suspended from the Whip, but I am still a Labour MP.” What has happened now is, because you have an independent group—the technical group—people thi

91
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Whoever is to blame, let me know and I will write to them.

13
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

I have a regular conversation with the Chief Whip on a number of topics, as you can imagine. However, on this, I don’t think it was the party processes that got involved. It was the House procedures. I think the parties largely followed the descriptors that the House lays down. That is why I wrote to the Speaker and no

66
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Usually, when there is a disciplinary matter that is based upon crime or something like that, it is more of a permanent exclusion, permanent withdrawal. The Whip down is a political suspension. That is the usual practice of the House. But, as I say, I don’t think this is a huge issue. I think it is just a matter of cla

63
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

It does not read well, does it? Any form of words that basically incorporates the two. It just depicts that I am Labour. I am following the Labour Whip. I am a Labour party member. I was elected as a Labour MP, but I am suspended at the moment. There has to be some form of words that enables that to be depicted when we

144
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

That is a good point. When it is a suspension, it should be honestly depicted as that. That is my view. Otherwise, it draws absolute confusion. If someone is resigning the Whip, resigning from the party and all the rest, but they were elected on a party basis, I have always argued they should go back to the people who

137
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

I understand. I think you have covered most of the issues with the two real independents that were here earlier, the Select Committees and Bill Committees considerations. I think there is a lesson to be learned for the House overall about flexibility, because you want to draw upon the expertise of individual MPs, parti

409
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Ageism is creeping in here, but go on, yes.

9
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes, it is hypothetical.

4
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes; that is why I only want one word inserted.

10
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

I get the impression that anything you say now will be used in evidence against you at a future date. It is a hypothetical question and, to be honest, that is not anywhere near the ballgame we are at. There were seven people suspended, none of them wanted to form a political group, none of them have any intention to fo

85
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes, it is hypothetical.

4
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Not a group; I have no intention of forming a group. I have made that extremely explicit all the way through. That would be contrary to the Labour party rules—a party within a party—and we would never seek to do that.

41
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

The parties themselves have to have the ability to depict who they are, and that should relate to the depiction that the candidate had as part of that party when they stood, but as actions of the party take place they should also be allowed, therefore, to ensure that that depiction is updated.

53
26 Feb 2025Procedure Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 534)

Yes.

1
← PreviousPage 11 of 15 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.