Starmer faces backlash in the Commons over potential welfare cuts
Richard Burgon told the Commons disabled people are 'frightened' as he urged Sir Keir to introduce a wealth tax instead of 'making the poor and vulnerable pay'.
At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir pledged to 'protect those who need protecting', but later added there isn't a 'bottomless pit'.
Labour MP John Slinger also pressed the Government to 'provide compassion to those who can't work', as he called for the 'broken' welfare system to be fixed.
On Wednesday, Mr Burgon, Leeds East MP, said: 'Disabled people in my constituency are frightened and they're frightened because they're again hearing politicians use the language of tough choices, and they know, from bitter experience, when politicians talk about tough choices it means the easy option of making the poor and vulnerable pay.
'So instead of cutting benefits for disabled people, wouldn't the moral thing to do, the courageous thing to do, be to make a real tough choice and introduce a wealth tax on the very wealthiest people in our society?'
Sir Keir replied: 'The party opposite left a broken welfare system, which locks millions out of work, that is indefensible, in my view, economically and morally. Of course, we need to support people who need support, we need to help those who want to work to get back into work, and I think there's a moral imperative in that.
'He talks about a wealth tax, we have raised money – the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms, and air passenger duty on private jets. But this isn't a bottomless pit, and we must kick-start growth to get the economic stability that we need.'
In July last year, Mr Burgon lost the Labour whip after he rebelled against the Government in a vote on the two-child benefit cap. He has since had the whip restored.
Earlier in the session, Mr Slinger, Rugby MP, said: 'Will the Prime Minister set out how this Government will give everyone who is able to work the support they need, provide compassion to those who can't work, and fix the broken welfare system left behind by, you guessed it, the Conservatives?'
Sir Keir replied: 'I come from a family that dealt with a disability through my mother and brother over many years, so I do understand the concerns that have been raised by him, but we inherited a system which is broken, it is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and we will reform it.
'We will have clear principles, we will protect those who need protecting. We will also support those who can work, back to work, but Labour is the party of work, we're also the party of equality and fairness.'
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey asked Sir Keir to calm the fears of disabled people who are unable to work ahead of possible changes to their support.
He said: 'The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the need to get more people into work, and he repeated that now, so people have more dignity, we can get the economy going, and we can cut the benefits bill after the disgraceful legacy left by the Conservatives.
'But does the Prime Minister recognise that for many disabled people the best way to help them into work is to support them properly, with more special equipment, with training, with better healthcare and so on. And will he also today calm anxieties that he himself has raised for many of us that the disability benefits for people who simply cannot work will not be cut?'
Sir Keir, referring to the opposition benches during his response, said: 'We will of course support those who need support, but help those who can work into work. They'll be the guiding principles. But what we've inherited is shocking, and they ought to be silent.
'One in eight young people not in education, work or training. That is a lost generation. That is their inheritance. They've got plenty to say now, they did nothing for 14 years and that is a terrible inheritance.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
15 minutes ago
- WIRED
How DOGE Set Up a Shadow X Account for a Government Agency
Aug 20, 2025 6:30 AM In February, DOGE affiliates at the SBA set up an X account and solicited whistleblower complaints. 'It's like having a crazy uncle who decides to be the cops,' a government auditor tells WIRED. Less than two weeks after Donald Park and Edward Coristine, two members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), entered the Small Business Administration (SBA), a new account appeared on X: @DOGE_SBA. The SBA has had an official X account since 2010. It frequently posts updates and reshares posts from the agency's administrator, former Republican senator Kelly Loeffler. But according to documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and shared exclusively with WIRED, it was a member of DOGE itself that started and ran the new X account. Not only did DOGE seemingly do so without involving the government workers who normally manage an agency's external communications, but in at least one case, they appeared to accept a complaint from a potential whistleblower over direct message. It is yet another example of how DOGE has operated as a seemingly separate and unaccountable body within government agencies. According to sources familiar with government operations, social media accounts, as well as other public-facing channels, have typically been managed by an agency's communications staff. An SBA social media manager, though, appeared to be completely unaware of the account. In an email on March 6, he emailed his colleagues with a link to the @DOGE_SBA X account, writing, 'How did I not see this before?' According to an email dated February 16, Park, one of the two DOGE operatives at SBA, appears to have set up the @DOGE_SBA account, receiving an email confirmation from X for adding a phone number, which was redacted, to their account. (After Musk purchased the company, he changed its policies to allow only premium subscribers to use two-factor identification via SMS.) On that same day, the account pinned a repost of one shared by the DOGE X account, asking the public for help identifying instances of waste, fraud, abuse. 'Please DM insight for reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, along with any helpful insights or awesome ideas, to the relevant DOGE affiliates,' the post read. A tab labeled 'Affiliates' on the DOGE X page lists 32 X accounts for the DOGE missions at various agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the SBA, among others. 'Help us fight fraud, waste, and abuse to benefit US taxpayers and small businesses across America. DMs are open!' the DOGE_SBA account wrote in its first and only post, echoing DOGE's X account, which still regularly posts about how the so-called agency has been saving the government money by canceling contracts and services. Park, Coristine, the SBA, and its communications team did not respond to requests for comment. A former US government public affairs official, who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity to protect their identity, says that it would be highly unusual for a government employee to be running any kind of front-facing social media account without the knowledge of the public affairs staff. 'Social media has always been sort of highly contested territory in government agencies. As it was becoming a bigger and bigger thing, more and more people wanted to use it, other people within a department would see it as a means of control,' they say. 'In terms of DOGE, we all saw DOGE come in and do things that they had no right to do.' There is also already an established way to report federal waste, fraud, and abuse within the SBA. Like nearly every government agency, the SBA has an Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which has the authority to investigate and audit SBA programs. But X direct messages contained in the documents obtained through the FOIA request show that at least one person did report possible instances of waste, fraud, and abuse to the @DOGE_SBA X account. In one message, a user reached out asking how they could report a former employer, claiming they had 'misused a PPP loan,' referring to the Paycheck Protection Program, which was offered to businesses at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead of referring the user to the OIG, the @DOGE_SBA account told the user to 'report it here.' 'Imagine you have a crazy uncle and he says, 'I'm going to be the cops, send me your tips,'' says a government auditor who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press.' That's essentially what's going on here. The fact that they're getting these OIG complaints, there's no long-term accountability, there's no long- term vested interest in the success of whatever agency they're at.' Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the nonprofit that submitted the FOIA request for the documents, claims that this behavior shows that 'DOGE is a freestanding entity within the government. It is completely unchecked. It's not subject to any oversight, including from within the agencies that reportedly are employing them or that they are detailed to.' CREW has submitted FOIA requests for correspondence on the X accounts created by DOGE for the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, Housing and Urban Development, the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of Personnel Management, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Administration, the State Department, and the Department of Agriculture. Only the SBA has responded with documents, and the SEC responded saying that there were no documents associated with the accounts to produce. 'Communications to and from the DOGE Team X accounts, the DOGE agency accounts, are federal records,' says Sus. 'They have to be preserved under the Federal Records Act, and they have to be made available to the public on FOIA.'
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Explores 10% Stake in Intel to Boost Domestic Chip Manufacturing
The White House has confirmed that the Trump administration is in talks to acquire a 10% stake in chipmaker Intel.
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pesticides test MAHA-MAGA alliance
The 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement could be on a collision course with its Republican allies over pesticides and toxic chemicals. MAHA is strongly aligned with the Trump administration, having cheered its anti-vaccine actions and food safety reforms. In general, the movement has been deeply skeptical of Big Pharma, Big Agriculture and Big Chemical. And cracks are beginning to form. MAHA-aligned groups and influencers are particularly raising alarms about provisions in a House appropriations bill that they say will shield pesticide and chemical manufacturers from accountability — and ultimately make Americans less healthy. Meanwhile, a draft of the administration's 'MAHA report' reportedly omits any calls to prevent pesticide exposure, also disappointing advocates. 'It's obvious that there are tensions within this newfound coalition between MAHA and MAGA, and there are some big issues there,' said Mary Holland, CEO of Children's Health Defense, a group that was founded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considered the MAHA flagbearer. Conservatives have traditionally sided with big business, supporting fewer regulations on potentially toxic substances. Kennedy and his disciples, meanwhile, espouse stricter environmental protections, while also bucking mainstream science on vaccine safety. The disparities on chemicals and pesticides within their coalition put Republicans in the middle: Do they side with big business or health concerns? On many issues, business interests appear to be winning. The New York Times reported last week, based on a draft that it obtained, that a forthcoming iteration of the Trump administration's MAHA positions does not call for new restrictions on pesticides and describes existing procedures as 'robust.' MAHA-aligned activists recoiled. 'The MAHA draft report stating that the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] pesticide review process is 'robust' is the biggest joke in American history. And it's not funny. It's deadly,' wrote Zen Honeycutt, founder of the activist group Moms Across America, in a post on X. Meanwhile, a Republican-authored House Appropriations bill seeks to block pesticide labels that go beyond what the EPA uses based on its current human health risk assessment. During a markup last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations subcommittee, said that the measure says that 'states cannot require a pesticide label that is different from the EPA label.' 'The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,' Simpson said, adding that his comments were meant to be clarifying for all the 'MAHA moms that are out there that are concerned about this that have been calling.' But critics say such a move could prevent the use of updated science on pesticide labels. 'This section, section 453, would basically handcuff EPA, companies and states as well as advocates to … research that could be outdated by over 15 years,' said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. 'The language in here … says that EPA should only update labels according to the human health risk assessment. EPA, by law, is required to do those human health risk assessments every 15 years, but they often don't complete those in time,' Horsfield said. 'The way the law works currently is states have the power to do additional addendums, and that's where you see, say, a state requires an additional setback so that you can't spray within 250 feet of a school, or you're required to wear additional types of [personal protective equipment],' he continued. 'Those types of restrictions are usually included in a label addendum, and those types of changes and those types of tweaks would be essentially prohibited by this language.' MAHA opponents have particularly expressed concerns over the implications that barring such labeling could have on the ability to sue pesticide companies over inadequate labels. 'Having no access to courts is absolutely devastating and, in my view, unconstitutional,' said Holland, with Children's Health Defense. 'I'm very distressed by this idea that this administration might, for 2026, establish liability protection.' Democrats likewise pushed back on the provision. 'This rider would effectively gag our public health agencies, preventing them from updating labels or rules to reflect new evidence of cancer risks from pesticides,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during the markup. 'This bill is a big middle finger to cancer patients.' Also causing controversy is another provision related to 'forever chemicals,' toxic substances that have been linked to illnesses including cancer and have become widespread in the environment. The measure seeks to bar the EPA from enforcing a draft report that found that food from farms contaminated with these chemicals may pose cancer risks. Lexi Hamel, a spokesperson for Simpson, said in an email that the bill 'prohibits funding from implementing, administering, or enforcing the current draft risk assessment due to the major technical flaws in the assessment.' But she said it does not block the EPA from 'continuing to work on identifying ways to clean up PFAS and keep communities safe' and that an amendment changed the bill so that it no longer blocks the agency from finalizing its findings. In a follow-up statement shared through a spokesperson, Horsfield said the provision is still a problem. 'The risk assessment will still have to be implemented and enforced,' he said. 'The draft risk assessment will need teeth … Allowing EPA to finalize the draft risk assessment, but preventing them from implementing it is an exercise in futility.' MAHA activists have slammed both provisions, saying in a letter to President Trump that GOP support for the measures is 'unconscionable.' However, Tony Lyons, president of the MAHA Action PAC, said he does not blame Republicans for pesticides in the environment. 'I don't think that this is something that comes from the GOP side. I think that this is a case of the Democratic Party looking to blame Republicans for it,' Lyons said. While the pesticide issues have generated some sparks between MAHA and MAGA, the administration has taken a number of other actions to also reduce restrictions on the chemical industry more broadly. Trump himself exempted from environmental standards more than 100 polluters, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. The EPA, meanwhile, has put chemical industry alumni in leading roles and has said it wants to loosen restrictions on emissions of various cancer-linked chemicals. Asked about Trump's move to exempt polluters from Clean Air Act rules, Holland said 'there's clearly tensions' within the GOP coalition. 'Those factions, if you will, more protective of corporate and more challenging to corporate, are both striving to get the president's ear, and I don't think they've come to a complete, sort of settlement agreement,' she said.
