The extent of dissent against Sir Keir Starmer became evident today, as MPs who refrained from voting last night criticized him as “weak and guilty.”

Government officials attempted to downplay the rebellion, suggesting that the Labour MPs who supported an inquiry into the Prime Minister’s alleged misconduct were merely the “usual suspects.”

However, the Prime Minister faced a setback when 14 of his own MPs aligned with the Conservatives, while many others abstained from the vote concerning whether he misled Parliament.

Labour’s leadership hesitated to decide whether to penalize the dissenting MPs, worried that the Prime Minister’s current standing might not allow for their expulsion from the party.

Among those who abstained was MP Graham Stringer, who expressed his inability to endorse the Government’s stance, yet also found himself unable to support the Conservative motion.

He was accompanied by three other MPs who stated their intention to vote for the motion if they had been present in Parliament.

Mr Stringer told the Daily Mail: ‘The Government response was pathetic – the real issue is there is a disagreement between the PM and other people about whether or not he’s misled Parliament. 

He added: ‘There is a Privileges Committee set up precisely to look at that…The PM was not prepared to put himself before the committee. Weak and guilty. I couldn’t support the Government line – but I also couldn’t walk through [the voting lobbies] with the Tories.’ 

Having survived sleaze vote, ‘weak and guilty’ Starmer looks too feeble to sack rebels 

The official division list showed 14 Labour MPs defied Sir Keir to back the motion. Cat Smith voted both for and against the motion, which is often called an ‘active abstention’ 

Labour’s huge majority means that the probe was comfortably blocked despite the revolt

 He was joined by his fellow MP Jonathan Brash, who last week called for the PM to stand down, who said he would have voted for the motion had he been in Parliament.

He wrote on Facebook: ‘To whip colleagues on a matter of this nature is, in my view, a serious misjudgement and deeply unfair on them.

‘Regardless of the motives of opposition parties, the sensible course would have been for the Prime Minister to refer himself to the Privileges Committee.’

He said that he stood with his colleagues who had voted against, adding: ‘I would have voted for the motion today.’

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, an MP from the left of the party, said on Twitter: ‘I am not in Parliament for today’s vote on referring Keir Starmer.

‘If I was, I would be voting for the motion. Transparency is a cornerstone of our democracy.

‘The best thing for the PM to do would be to simply refer himself on this matter and save us all the drama.’

Her fellow Labour MP Navendu Mishra wrote on Facebook that he thought the PM should face the Privileges Committee, but said he couldn’t vote with opposition parties.

‘After careful consideration, I have made the difficult decision to abstain in this vote,’ he said.

‘The Prime Minister maintains that he did not mislead Parliament; as such, a more appropriate response would have been for the Prime Minister to refer himself to the Privileges Committee.’

On Tuesday night, Sir Keir ordered his MPs to vote against an investigation into whether he had lied to Parliament. 

The motion brought by opposition parties would have referred the PM to the privileges committee for misleading the Commons over the appointment of Lord Mandelson as US ambassador.

MPs had been on a three-line whip – which means they risk being booted out of the party and having to sit as independents if they rebel – unless they have an excuse.

During a five-hour Commons debate, Labour MPs questioned why the PM feared the committee if he was telling the truth.

Comparisons were also drawn with Boris Johnson’s fateful decision to allow the committee to investigate him over Partygate. 

One Labour MP, Emma Lewell – who voted for the motion – said the order to vote against the motion could tarnish MPs with the charge of being ‘complicit in a cover-up’.

The resulting rebellion was larger than expected, saddling the whips with the dilemma of how to impose discipline.

Of the 53 abstentions, four were ministers who were away on business or had family matters and four were members of the privileges committee, so were told not to take part.

One MP – Cat Smith – voted both for and against the motion, while another – Cat Eccles – said she would have voted against it had she been in Parliament.

Others said they were ‘slipped’ – so had permission of the whips to not be present – for family matters or for constituency events.

Ian Lavery – an MP on the left of the party – said he was attending a funeral but also tweeted praise for a speech by Emma Lewell, who voted for the motion.

Many others did not respond to requests for comments.

Earlier yesterday, Housing Secretary Steve Reed dismissed the rebels as the ‘usual suspects’ and played down the prospect of them being booted out of the party.

Asked if they should lose the whip, he told Times Radio: ‘There was a handful of usual suspects who did what they tend to do. 

‘I’m not in charge of discipline, I’m not too bothered about them to be honest.’

MPs who voted against the motion included Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Mary Kelly Foy, Imran Hussain, Brian Leishman, Emma Lewell, Rebecca Long Bailey, Andy McDonald, John McDonnell, Grahame Morris, Luke Myer, Kate Osborne and Nadia Whittome.