Diane Abbott of the Labour Party, Zara Sultana of Your Party, Lee Anderson of Reform UK
In a rare moment of convergence in the House of Commons, criticism of Keir Starmer emerged simultaneously from both ends of the political spectrum, strong enough that MPs were willing to risk formal disciplinary action to express it.
At the centre of the incident was the use of language deemed “unparliamentary.” Zarah Sultana described the Prime Minister as a “barefaced liar,” while Lee Anderson made similar accusations, including the remark that Starmer “couldn’t lie straight in bed.” Both refused to withdraw their statements when instructed by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle, and were ordered to leave. ¹
In UK parliamentary procedure, directly accusing another MP of lying is prohibited. Members are expected to challenge statements indirectly and maintain a level of formality in language. When an MP refuses to comply with the Speaker’s order to withdraw such remarks, the situation can escalate to “naming.” This is a formal disciplinary step in which the Speaker identifies the MP explicitly for defying the rules, triggering a motion that can lead to their suspension from the House.
Both Sultana and Anderson brought themselves to the brink of this outcome. The moment was particularly notable due to the breach of etiquette, as well as its symmetry. MPs from both the left and right not only voiced the same core accusation, but did so in a way that knowingly risked suspension. In a chamber where language is tightly controlled, this kind of directness paired with refusal to retract, signals a deliberate prioritisation of message over procedure.
The controversy itself sits within a broader discussion surrounding Peter Mandelson and questions of political judgment and association. Carrying link to convicted peadophile Jeffrey Epstein, carries significant reputational consequences.
Mandelson has come under renewed scrutiny over past associations, but the criticism isn’t really about proven wrongdoing. It’s more about whether those links should have been taken into account in the first place. The issue became more heated after his appointment by Keir Starmer as U.S ambassador in 2025. Critics questioning Starmer’s judgment, specifically what he knew, or should have known, at the time.
Criticism during this Prime Minister’s Question’s session yesterday was not limited to opposition voices. Diane Abbott also raised concerns from within Labour ranks, focusing on the adequacy of internal vetting and decision-making processes. While more restrained in tone, her comments reinforced the sense that scrutiny was not confined to political opponents, but extended into the Prime Minister’s own party. ²
Taken together, this event highlights a moment where ideological divisions temporarily gave way to a shared willingness to challenge leadership openly, even if it meant breaching the rules of Parliament.
On its own, this probably will not decide Starmer’s future. These moments rarely do. But when criticism starts to line up from across the spectrum including from within his own party, it points to a wider issue: maintaining control is becoming harder. So the story isn’t really about whether anyone was named. It’s about how willing MPs were to push the rules to make their point, and what that suggests about the pressure building around him.
² Sky News
Leave a Reply