Patrick Maguire, the Times lead political commentator, has reported tonight that Christine Jardine has been fired from her positions as spokesperson on Women and Equalities and on Scotland for defying the Lib Dem whip and voting against rather than abstaining on a Tory amendment to the Universal Credit and PIP Bill.
He said:
Christine Jardine has been sacked from the Lib Dem frontbench for voting against Tory amendment to the welfare bill – Ed Davey whipped MPs to abstain
LD source: “We are not in the business of dancing to the tune of the Conservatives through symbolic votes and virtue signalling.”
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) July 9, 2025
The quote from the Lib Dem source was quite something:
Christine Jardine has been sacked from the Lib Dem frontbench for voting against Tory amendment to the welfare bill – Ed Davey whipped MPs to abstain LD source: “We are not in the business of dancing to the tune of the Conservatives through symbolic votes and virtue signalling.”
But Kait Borsay of Times Radio says that Christine had not been informed of this:
We’ve just spoken to Christine Jardine @TimesRadio who says she’d not been told she’d been sacked.. (or not read the email).. but was warned it was likely. Seemed to accept the punishment as expected.. https://t.co/1vGPWTtDkl
— Kait Borsay (@kaitborsay) July 9, 2025
We’ve just spoken to Christine Jardine
who says she’d not been told she’d been sacked.. (or not read the email).. but was warned it was likely. Seemed to accept the punishment as expected..
It would be very strange indeed for the party to act so unprofessionally as to fire someone on Twitter, so maybe there is another explanation.
We’ll update if we hear more.
UPDATE: It now seems to be confirmed
A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said:
We abstained on this amendment because a vote against was effectively a vote to implement this shambolic bill in full.
Instead Liberal Democrats voted to oppose the welfare bill altogether.
Christine decided to take a different view and therefore is no longer on the frontbench.
The logic of that position is open to challenge. After all, it is possible to vote against something that would make a bad bill worse and still vote against the Bill. And it would be extremely difficult for Labour to imply she supported the Bill when she voted against the whole thing at Third Reading in a later vote along with all other present Lib Dem MPs.
The amendment Christine voted against was an extremely mean spirited Tory amendment which would have:
a) reduced support for people with “less severe mental health conditions”
b) restricting benefit to those who have British citizenship.
Christine’s sacking comes less than 4 months after Ed Davey told an LDCRE fringe at Conference that she was the “best equalities spokesperson we have ever had.”
It appears she has paid the price for standing up for vulnerable, marginalised people.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We have no idea what history will say about Keir Starmer and it may not be right anyway
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Jana
Matt (Bristol)
FS People
Chris Cory
Paul Reynolds
34 Comments
without seeing exactly what the text of the amendment was, I have to go on vibes. the vibes for “equalities spokesperson votes against tory amendment to welfare bill” is that the amendment would’ve hurt the most vulnerable people in our society and she voted the only way her conscience would allow.
if a women and equalities spokesperson isn’t supposed to work in the interest of vulnerable or underrepresented groups (including via the use of their vote), what are they for?
beyond that, unless the amendment was wildly off brand for the tories, why were our MPs whipped to abstain at all?
if she has been sacked for this, the party has questions to answer.
Christine is an outstanding spokesperson for equalities, and one of the most effective Liberals in the House. Losing her from the front bench over this trivial difference – and it sure reads like we should be voting against that Tory amendment, and then voting against the bill as a whole – would be absolutely shameful.
Ed, think again.
I have reason to believe, very sadly, that this may be true. Both the Women & Equalities, & Scotland briefs are now missing from the Liberal Democrat website ‘Our People’ page, although this evidence is tentative.
If it is true, however, I am devastated. Christine is a fantastic MP & a brilliant spokesperson & advocate, & to lose her over something like this, in my opinion, is ridiculously shortsighted. I know that the Whipping system exists for a reason, but to have Jardine be the first LibDem victim of this in this Parliament I think is quite frankly a terrible & ridiculous measure
I fail to see 1) how voting against a Conservative amendment could possibly be dancing to their tune 2) why it precludes also opposing Labour’s bill in its entirety at every opportunity.
Abstaining on a Tory amendment is pretty much never the correct option.
Taking this in conjunction with Ed’s dog whistle question at PMQs today, which could easily have been asked by a Tory (whinging on about small boats and demanding a deal with France), it’s getting pretty clear where the party leadership strategy is ending up.
If this is true, then it seems both a ludicrous over reaction and an indication of how unimportant women and equalities are seen to be. One would hope that not only an equalities spokesperson but any MP worth their salt would vote against an amendment designed to hurt vulnerable people. I’m left wondering what exactly the point of the party is, if not to protect the vulnerable.
Big hugs for CJ
And a hearty two fingers to those sacking her and their flimsy crappy reasons for doing so
I can’t think of any good reason why a liberal party worth its salt would make abstaining on a kick-the-marginalised amendment from the Tories a three line whip. This is a mistake by the leadership, born of cowardice in not wanting to have to defend voting in support of migrants. I don’t see any other logical reading of the situation.
Despite the claim by leadership, the whole affair seems to be an exercise in virtue signalling, insofar as it signals the lack thereof.
Any self-respecting Liberal party should have the courage to oppose reactionary legislation and stand firm against the right-wing press.
Cowardice is never the path to political power, and we should all take inspiration from Christine’s example.
It’s clearly right to vote against a bad amendment to a bad bill so the whipping on this vote seemed to be odd, but more importably spokespeople should only be sacked for disagreement with the rest of the parliamentary party on a matter of some significance. Voting for this amendment would have been a matter of significance but whether to abstain or vote against is merely a matter of parliamentary tactics.
While I appreciate that Alistair and Layla are highly influential in their select committee roles, this is now the third big beast missing from the Lib Dem front bench. There are some excellent MPs and genuinely compassionate, dedicated people among the new intake – James MacCleary and Clive Jones are two examples off the top of my head – but the party can’t afford to lose those years of experience.
Might it be that both Conservative and Labour governments have significantly contributed to making themselves less beneficially effective for the regular majority of the citizenry, and their children, by excluding those who disagree, usually in parts only, with the leadership?
Might the L. D leadership be in the process of making the same mistake?
P.S. For those who don’t understand “leadership speak”, what does the reason for the (alleged) sacking mean in a form of everyday English?
To clear up now – she has been sacked from
The frontbench. POLITICO’s London Playbook has said it has happened, & not allegedly either. Website still hasn’t been updated with replacement(s)
:((
Christine is a genuine and talented MP. A shining example to the whole Party. I am dismayed at the LD leadership over these 2 very essential amendments. Christine, I am proud of what you have done and demand that the leadership reinstate Christie with a full apology. If politics is about anything, it’s about principles and values.
Ex-member, not Christine Jardine’s biggest fan, some things on which I profundly disagree with some things she has said in a way that will doubtless alarm some people here. But this move makes little sense apart from seeming to confirm my qualms about the terms in which some Lib Dems attacked the Labour leadership’s hasty compromises on the earlier part of the Bill – ie that Starmer had failed to be sufficiently Blairite to manage his voting-drones enough. How much Davey wants the Liberal Democrats to be Democrats is an interesting point.
Interesting to watch the leadership try to create a bit of distance to Labour, having been quietly lying off their bow and not being too extravagant in their criticism up to now.
@ Sophie Layton – “I know that the whipping system exists for a reason”. And what might that reason be, apart from reducing MPs to the status of unthinking lobby fodder?
Christine’s conscientious decision to vote against a squalid little amendment that would have made a thoroughly bad bill worse, before voting against the bill itself, seems entirely reasonable. If MPs in Tory-facing constituencies wanted to avoid any possibility of unprincipled attacks along the lines of “SQUAWK! MP votes to give more of YOUR money to the undeserving!” an abstention on the amendment may have been a pragmatic strategy.
But to make this a sacking matter is ludicrous.
Christine has been pretty fantastic in the Equalities brief, and as others have said, this seems like a very flimsy justification for sacking her. She leaves big shoes to fill – I do hope the leadership picks someone capable of continuing her good work rather than softening up, particularly in the current climate.
There is no love lost between Jardine and the current leadership. This sacking is a shame as she was very strong on equalities and trans rights.
Does anyone have any intel on why six MPs “positively abstained” (voted each way) on the Palestine Action proscription bill? They are a disparate bunch including – social liberals like Tessa, right wingers like Tom Gordon.
This is a bizarre case of self harm by the Leadership in sacking one of our most effective front-benchers over a tactical matter. As a councillor there were many times I voted against a Tory amendment and against the substantive Labour motion.
This is the latest example of ain increasingly controlling tendency amongst the party leadership and their senior advisers. I’d argue that we have the brightest and best MPs of any political party, but we’re starting to behave just like Labour and the Tories and treat them as mere lobby fodder, to be dictated to.
The pressure to conform and not to say or do anything that Ed doesn’t like is very disturbing and is reaching into all areas of the party. This is corrosive and has to stop.
Oh dear. So the Lib Dems leader has apparently decided to sack one of his best cabinet members over an extremely minor matter. A real test for a party that claims that it exists “to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.” A choice between authoritarian discipline based on ‘My way or the highway’ like Starmer’s Labour or consensual diversity based on a common set of values and an understanding that there are many ways to oppose authoritarianism but succumbing to it is not one of them.
Will Ed realise this will only damage himself and quickly retract to protect his authority, or try to ride out the storm?
This has to be the stupidest reason to sack someone from the front bench that there’s ever been. Why would the leadership think it matters in the slightest if we were to vote against a terrible amendment to a bill we were also voting against. This should never have been whipped in the first place.
The only reason I can think for it is that Ed Davey is just pathologically determined to make the party as boring as possible.
It’s bad enough that we haven’t opposed what the government and EHRC have been doing on trans rights, and have been massively less visible on Palestine than we were on either Iraq or Bosnia.
Having read Christine’s letter to Ed Davey regards the sacking, I am proud to live in Edinburgh west and have her as an MP.
And I ask Sir Ed, has the party now strolled so far into fear of the Reformgraph (formerly Torygraph) that we are now punishing our MPs for voting against tory attempts to punch down upon those with mental illnesses?
As a party we clearly need to find our virtues before we can signal them. Shame on you.
As someone who first joined the Liberal Party in 1961 there was no doubt then we had an inspiring Leader in Jo Grimond who not only could make a speech, but could set up well qualified policy working parties on policy.
It might now be sensible for Sir Edward to consider his own position. Can the current leadership really be sustained on stunts and gimmicks for another four plus years , or is it time for a more serious policy based challenge to the other parties ? There’s plenty of heavy lifting on policy issues to be done.
What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. It may well be time to consider the Leadership itself.
There’s an explanation from Steve Darling who (I assume) was leading on this bill (he knows a thing or two about disability) circulating on Mark Pack’s WhatsApp groups that members can follow.
Steve says the relevant Conservative amendment (No 50) was a classic wreaking amendment postponing the implementation of Labour’s Bill until the government has published a white paper setting out Conservative policies. Voting for this amendment meant effectively supporting Conservative policy – not something Steve wanted to do as the Lib Dem lead on Welfare.
Steve also said that opposing the Tory amendment was the party “saying the bill should be implemented in full without delay” . (Presumably this might have been a consequence of the way the amendments were taken or other procedural point?) And as we know the party doesn’t support that either for well understood reasons like creation of a two tier benefits system with future claimants getting lower rates than existing ones, removal of support from people who need it and so on. Steve was not willing to support that either.
Politics is a b*gg*r sometimes. There is honour on both sides here, and questions about the leadership are just silly.
In answer to Lyell’s question, my understanding is that the order proscribing Palestine Action also proscribed two white supremacist organisations. Al Pinkerton MP has written about why this made him feel he needed to positively abstain as he felt he couldn’t vote for proscribing PA but couldn’t vote against proscribing the other two organisations
There’s nothing silly about wanting a policy based (rather than gimmick based) geographically sensitive leadership, Mr Ward.
@Tristan Ward – opposing the Tory amendment was the party “saying the bill should be implemented in full without delay”
But is that true? Wasn’t there always going to be a vote on the bill in full for its third reading? In which case our MPs could always have voted against the amendment, and then against the bill.
But instead we have sacked a popular and effective front bencher for opposing the Tories…
I am left wondering if there is a reason behind the
reason for this sacking. It could be that Davey (and
perhaps others) were just looking for an excuse,
however flimsy.
There’s a couple of points we’re all missing here.
Let’s just say that it was fair to sack CJ. Not my view, but it doesn’t matter.
The bigger issues are that the story was confirmed, with the nastiest possible quote, before CJ had either seen or been sent the email.
That leaves open an even bigger point – why on earth would she be sacked over email? Surely this has to be sone over a call?
Finally, I’ve heard CJ and Wendy C are very good mates – as chief whip, Wendy should surely be involved here. I’ve only met Wendy a couple of times, but she seems like a thoroughly decent person – surely she would have called a friend if she knew?
Why didn’t Ed’s office or someone, somewhere call CJ? Whatever the rights or wrongs, this has been handled appallingly.
@David Raw
You need to remember the job that Ed has done in helping the Lib Dems rediscover electoral relevance as a moderate, centrist party appealing to voters in tory leaning seats in south of England. And is showing great rigour in developing clear strategy, tactics and messaging to back that up.
“Whipped to abstain” – isn’t that the very definition of virtue signalling irrelevance? What an utter Westminster bubble farce.
Hywel,
Thanks for your post, which is a view I have heard put forward elsewhere, but haven’t seen any evidence for, but I really do have to ask the question of you, “What message does Ed’s sacking of Christine give except ‘I am the one in charge. You will do exactly as I tell you’, and is it really the behaviour we should accept from a leader of a party where no one shall be enslaved by conformity?
Personally I can only see a minor point being blown up to a ridiculous level of importance and the question Ed should answer is Why?
David
@Nick Baird
“Opposing the Tory amendment was the party “saying the bill should be implemented in full without delay”
But is that true? Wasn’t there always going to be a vote on the bill in full for its third reading? In which case our MPs could always have voted against the amendment, and then against the bill.
We have to trust Steve Darling on this – that’s who the words I quoted came from.
Many party leaders in the past have not tolerated criticism from within the ranks and have thought that strength demands those questioning the leader’s position on any topic should be removed from their posts. This is a mistake, as it results in leaders, both here and abroad, being surrounded by unquestioning supporters, which in the end weakens all leaders, as their stance on a range of issues will be challenged by the other parties and the media, so it is wise to ensure that criticism from within is fully debated. Biden was surrounded by people who would not say he should have stood down after one term. Trump accepts no criticism from anyone and we can see how that is unfolding. Former Lib-Dem leaders were the same when they thought they were going to be the next Prime Minister and nobody said, “what?”. Thinking that stifling criticism of the leader by their supporters, whips or anyone else is a weakness not a strength.