Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine learns of sacking on live radio
The Lib Dems said a vote against "was effectively a vote to implement this shambolic bill in full" and abstaining was a vote to "oppose the welfare bill altogether".
But Jardine has now revealed the matter was personal "in a way which meant I could not abstain".
Read more
In a letter sent to Mr Davey, and posted by her on X, she said her late husband Calum was bipolar. "Several people around me have mental health conditions the amendment dismissed as 'minor'," Jardine wrote, "and not worthy of support.
"I could not in good conscience do anything other than vote against another Conservative attempt to remove help from those who need it the most.
"Regardless of my personal circumstances, as equalities spokesperson, this is an equalities issue and I could not let down those who are relying on people in power to speak on their behalf.
"The expressions of support I have had from members of the public, the membership and members across the House, have reassured me the choice I made was right, and I am content with that."
Elected to Westminster in 2017, Jardine said in her letter she had been "unhappy" about how Lib Dem MPs had been whipped to vote in some instanced in recent months "but my loyalty to the party meant I would not, and did not break the whip".
She added: "I have always understood we are asked to do things we don't agree with, but this vote was personal to me".
A Lib Dem spokesperson said: "Christine decided to take a different view and therefore is no longer on the frontbench."
Breaking news of Jardine's removal from the frontbench on X on Wednesday evening, a Times journalist quoted a Lib Dem source as saying: 'We are not in the business of dancing to the tune of the Conservatives through symbolic votes and virtue signalling.'
But when Jardine appeared on Times Radio shortly after - introduced as the "Lib Dem MP and now former frontbencher" - she said: "To be honest, you're better informed than I am, all I know is that I voted tonight - and I voted against the whip knowing there would be consequences.
"But I haven't heard anything yet from the leadership, so I really would think it's probably best if I don't comment on that."
She added: "I spoke to the party about it beforehand and wasn't the only one who voted against it.
Read more
"But I do accept if I've been sacked, and as I say, I don't know yet because I haven't spoken to anyone from the leadership yet.
"It may have gone to my private email and I've just not seen it yet. I've checked my general MP again but I just may not have seen it yet.
"These things happen in politics and I'm not going to get in an argument with the party about it. I did what I felt was the right thing to do, and I don't regret that.
"That's politics, and it's something I felt strongly about."
Jardine said she "wanted to be able to look myself in the face in the mirror tomorrow and know that I had done what I believed in".
She added: "If the cost of that is a spokespersonship then that's fine and hopefully there will be an email waiting for me.
"I don't have any problem with it if I have been sacked, but I don't actually know yet I've not had any official notification."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's radio blunder: President appears to admit his name is in Epstein files
The US President, who has been at the centre of controversy surrounding the Epstein files, appeared to admit his name is mentioned in the contentious documents but insisted it was 'faked' by the Democrats Donald Trump appears to have acknowledged his presence in the Epstein Files, as the furore over their handling continues to rage. During a phone-in with "Just the News" on Real America's Voice, the US President alleged that Democrats had concocted information and slipped his name into papers linked to the disgraced Jeffrey Epstein whilst they were in office, reports ABC. Trump's comments came after being quizzed about whether he wanted prosecutors to probe claims of political witch-hunts. This comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on what was described as a "creepy" birthday card allegedly sent from Trump to Epstein. He declared: "Well, I think it's in the case of Epstein, they've already looked at it, and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible." Trump went on to voice his doubts: "But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years. I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others. I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake, right? It took two years to figure that out for the people, and all of the things that you mentioned were fake.", reports the Mirror US, reports the Express. He continued: "So I would imagine if they were run by Chris Wray and they were run by Comey, and because it was actually even before that administration, they've been running these files, and so much of the things that we found were fake with me." Trump appears to acknowledge his name was in the Epstein files, but he maintained Democrats fabricated it. Despite his claims that they "put" things in the files, numerous documents referencing Trump have long been publicly available. Bowing to pressure from certain wings within his Republican Party, his team on Friday petitioned a federal court to unveil sealed records concerning Jeffrey Epstein's case, hoping to calm a political firestorm. Nevertheless, even with the potential disclosure of these records, it remains questionable whether this will appease those furious over apparent lack of openness regarding the evidence against the wealthy financier. The administration continues to face criticism for not releasing additional records it possesses. House Republicans are set to vote next week on a resolution crafted to address GOP demands for greater transparency on the Epstein affair. The resolution calls upon the Justice Department to make records public, though it carries no legal force. "The House Republicans are for transparency, and they're looking for a way to say that they agree with the White House," announced House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday. "We agree with the president. Everything he said about that, all the credible evidence should come out." The Democrats, supported by nine Republicans, have advanced their own bill that would compel the Justice Department to reveal more details about the case.
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht
By 1993 it was apparent that, after 39 years, Britannia was reaching the end of its life, but John Major's Conservative government had yet to decide whether to invest in a new yacht at an estimated cost of £50 million. It was widely thought Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht but the royal family could not afford to be seen to be trying to influence political decision-making. However files released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that senior courtiers privately approached No 10 to see if the prime minister would make a Commons statement stressing Britannia's 'inestimable value' to the nation. But the plan – which amounted to a thinly veiled show of support for a new yacht – was scotched by the Cabinet Office, which warned that any such comments would be highly 'prejudicial'. One senior official noted caustically that a claim by the Palace that the Queen was 'indifferent' as to the outcome of a review of the yacht's future 'hardly rings true'. The issue of a new yacht came at an extremely difficult time for the government and for the Palace, with support for the royals at a low ebb. There had been an angry public backlash the previous year when ministers announced the taxpayer would pick up the bill – which eventually ran to £36 million – for the restoration of Windsor Castle following a catastrophic fire. In the aftermath of her 'annus horribilis' – which also saw the separation of Charles and Diana – the Queen agreed that she would for the first time pay taxes. With Mr Major due to announce the historic move in a statement to parliament, the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes saw an opportunity to secure what would amount to a show of support for a new yacht. He asked the prime minister's principal private secretary Alex Allan if Mr Major would insert a passage referring to the importance of Britannia as well as the Queen's flight and the royal train. He suggested the prime minister should tell MPs that it was not just a question of cost 'but also the style in which we wish our head of state and members of the royal family to represent us' in their public duties. 'It is always difficult to put a price on prestige but I have no doubt that over the years these items have been of inestimable value to this country.' Sir Robin's proposed addition to Mr Major's statement went on: 'I would also like to make clear that there is not, and never has been, any pressure from the Queen to build a replacement for HMY Britannia. 'Should the government decide it is in the national interest for the yacht to be replaced that would be of course another matter.' However, Nicolas Bevan, the official heading the working group set up to consider the future of the yacht, warned that the proposed remarks could be 'prejudicial' to any future decisions. 'For example to say that the royal yacht has been of inestimable value to this country will not be a helpful remark if ministers in due course decide not to replace Britannia,' he said. 'Equally it hardly rings true to suggest that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Queen as to whether Britannia is replaced or not.' Despite the palace's protestations of neutrality, the files suggest courtiers were involved in what amounted to some none too subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht. On May 13 1993, senior government officials, led by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler, were invited to a 'splendid lunch' on board Britannia where they were regaled by the former lord mayor of London, Sir Hugh Bidwell, and the Earl of Limerick, a senior banker, on the value of the yacht to UK business. Expressing his thanks afterwards to the master of the Queen's household, Major General Sir Simon Cooper, Sir Robin noted that the setting had 'brought home the issues to those involved in a unique way'. However, when news of the meeting leaked out, government press officers were instructed to impress upon journalists – unattributably – that the Queen and royal family were 'not fighting any kind of rearguard action on the yacht'. Despite misgivings over the costs, the Major government finally announced in January 1997 that they would build a replacement yacht if they were returned to power in the general election later that year. The move was however widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to shore up support among wavering Tory voters, and when Labour was swept to power in a landslide they promptly reversed the decision. When Britannia was finally decommissioned – after returning the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, following the handover to China – the Queen, who rarely displayed any emotion in public, was seen to shed a tear.
Leader Live
2 hours ago
- Leader Live
Records reveal how Palace tried to secure show of support for a new royal yacht
By 1993 it was apparent that, after 39 years, Britannia was reaching the end of its life, but John Major's Conservative government had yet to decide whether to invest in a new yacht at an estimated cost of £50 million. It was widely thought Queen Elizabeth II strongly favoured the commissioning of a new yacht but the royal family could not afford to be seen to be trying to influence political decision-making. However files released by the National Archives at Kew, west London, show that senior courtiers privately approached No 10 to see if the prime minister would make a Commons statement stressing Britannia's 'inestimable value' to the nation. But the plan – which amounted to a thinly veiled show of support for a new yacht – was scotched by the Cabinet Office, which warned that any such comments would be highly 'prejudicial'. One senior official noted caustically that a claim by the Palace that the Queen was 'indifferent' as to the outcome of a review of the yacht's future 'hardly rings true'. The issue of a new yacht came at an extremely difficult time for the government and for the Palace, with support for the royals at a low ebb. There had been an angry public backlash the previous year when ministers announced the taxpayer would pick up the bill – which eventually ran to £36 million – for the restoration of Windsor Castle following a catastrophic fire. In the aftermath of her 'annus horribilis' – which also saw the separation of Charles and Diana – the Queen agreed that she would for the first time pay taxes. With Mr Major due to announce the historic move in a statement to parliament, the Queen's private secretary Sir Robert Fellowes saw an opportunity to secure what would amount to a show of support for a new yacht. He asked the prime minister's principal private secretary Alex Allan if Mr Major would insert a passage referring to the importance of Britannia as well as the Queen's flight and the royal train. He suggested the prime minister should tell MPs that it was not just a question of cost 'but also the style in which we wish our head of state and members of the royal family to represent us' in their public duties. 'It is always difficult to put a price on prestige but I have no doubt that over the years these items have been of inestimable value to this country.' Sir Robin's proposed addition to Mr Major's statement went on: 'I would also like to make clear that there is not, and never has been, any pressure from the Queen to build a replacement for HMY Britannia. 'Should the government decide it is in the national interest for the yacht to be replaced that would be of course another matter.' However, Nicolas Bevan, the official heading the working group set up to consider the future of the yacht, warned that the proposed remarks could be 'prejudicial' to any future decisions. 'For example to say that the royal yacht has been of inestimable value to this country will not be a helpful remark if ministers in due course decide not to replace Britannia,' he said. 'Equally it hardly rings true to suggest that it is a matter of complete indifference to the Queen as to whether Britannia is replaced or not.' Despite the palace's protestations of neutrality, the files suggest courtiers were involved in what amounted to some none too subtle lobbying on behalf of a new yacht. On May 13 1993, senior government officials, led by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler, were invited to a 'splendid lunch' on board Britannia where they were regaled by the former lord mayor of London, Sir Hugh Bidwell, and the Earl of Limerick, a senior banker, on the value of the yacht to UK business. Expressing his thanks afterwards to the master of the Queen's household, Major General Sir Simon Cooper, Sir Robin noted that the setting had 'brought home the issues to those involved in a unique way'. However, when news of the meeting leaked out, government press officers were instructed to impress upon journalists – unattributably – that the Queen and royal family were 'not fighting any kind of rearguard action on the yacht'. Despite misgivings over the costs, the Major government finally announced in January 1997 that they would build a replacement yacht if they were returned to power in the general election later that year. The move was however widely interpreted as a desperate attempt to shore up support among wavering Tory voters, and when Labour was swept to power in a landslide they promptly reversed the decision. When Britannia was finally decommissioned – after returning the last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, following the handover to China – the Queen, who rarely displayed any emotion in public, was seen to shed a tear.
