Reeves and Starmer are defunding the police. Even loyal Labour ministers are telling DAN HODGES that the Chancellor's spending decisions are 'bonkers' and Britain's thin blue line will be stretched to breaking point...
A couple of months after he was elected Labour leader, and with the Black Lives Matter movement sweeping the globe, was asked what he thought about the radical Left's latest rallying cry – 'Defund the police!'
It was, Starmer replied, 'nonsense'. 'Nobody should be saying anything about defunding the police, and I would have no truck with that,' he insisted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer accused of U-turn after ordering inquiry into grooming gangs
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of a U-turn after committing to a statutory inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. After resisting pressure for months to implement a full probe, the Prime Minister said he had read 'every single word' of an independent report into child sexual exploitation by Baroness Louise Casey and would accept her recommendation for the investigation. Earlier this year, the Government dismissed calls for a public inquiry, saying its focus was on putting in place the outstanding recommendations already made in a seven-year national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage described the move as a 'welcome U-turn', while Kemi Badenoch called on him to apologise for 'six wasted months'. 'Just like he dismissed concerns about the winter fuel payment and then had to U-turn, just like he needed the Supreme Court to tell him what a woman is, he had to be led by the nose to make the correct decision here,' she said. 'I've been repeatedly calling for a full national inquiry since January. It's about time he recognised he made a mistake and apologised for six wasted months.' Speaking to reporters travelling with him on his visit to Canada, the Prime Minister said: 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit. 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. 'She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit.' The Times newspaper reported that the findings of Baroness Casey's review will be set out in Parliament on Monday. The inquiry will be able to compel witnesses to give evidence, and it is understood that it will be national in scope, co-ordinating a series of targeted local investigations. Prof Jay's 2022 report concluded there had been institutional failings across the country and tens of thousands of victims in England and Wales. A national row over grooming gangs was ignited in January after tech billionaire Elon Musk used his X social media platform to launch a barrage of attacks on Sir Keir and safeguarding minister Jess Phillips. It followed the Government's decision to decline a request from Oldham Council for a Whitehall-led inquiry into child sexual abuse in the town. The Government later commissioned a 'rapid' audit by Lady Casey into the nature and scale of group-based child sexual abuse, which had been due to take three months but was delayed.
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer in another U-turn with PM set to launch full national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of pressure - as Labour leader admits 'it's the right thing to do'
Sir Keir Starmer has revealed he will launch a full national inquiry into grooming gangs after resisting pressure for months. In a major U-turn, the Prime Minister said setting up a statutory investigation into the scandal was the 'right thing to do' despite previously insisting it would take too long and that local reviews were sufficient. He dramatically changed his mind after reading 'every single word' of the report he commissioned into the exploitation of thousands of girls across the country, due to be published next week, which is said to explicitly link it to men of Pakistani origin. The audit by Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey is understood to have recommended that a new national inquiry be established in order to look at the race of perpetrators. It is also expected to warn that white British girls who were exploited in towns across the country were 'institutionally ignored for fear of racism'. Speaking to reporters about Lady Casey's review, Sir Keir said: 'Her position when she started the audit was that there was not a real need for a national inquiry over and above what was going on. She has looked at the material she has looked at and she has come to the view that there should be a national inquiry on the basis of what she has seen. 'I have read every single word of her report and I am going to accept her recommendation. That is the right thing to do on the basis of what she has put in her audit. 'I asked her to do that job to double-check on this; she has done that job for me and having read her report, I respect her in any event. I shall now implement her recommendations.' Asked when it would start work, the PM replied: 'It will be statutory under the Inquiries Act. That will take a bit of time to sort out exactly how that works and we will set that out in an orderly way.' He insisted that he had never ruled out a national inquiry although he previously wanted to focus on implementing recommendations made in earlier reports. 'From the start I have always said that we should implement the recommendations we have got because we have got many other recommendations. I think there are 200 when you take all of the reviews that have gone on at every level and we have got to get on with implementing them. 'I have never said we should not look again at any issue. I have wanted to be assured that on the question of any inquiry. That's why I asked Louise Casey who I hugely respect to do an audit.' But Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who has repeatedly demanded the PM launch a full inquiry, said: 'Keir Starmer doesn't know what he thinks unless an official report has told him so. Just like he dismissed concerns about the winter fuel payment and then had to u-turn, just like he needed the Supreme Court to tell him what a woman is, he had to be led by the nose to make this correct decision here. 'I've been repeatedly calling for a full national inquiry since January. It's about time he recognised he made a mistake and apologise for six wasted months.' She went on: 'But this must not be the end of the matter. There are many, many more questions that need answering to ensure this inquiry is done properly and quickly. Many survivors of the grooming gangs will be relieved that this is finally happening, but they need a resolution soon not in 10 years' time. Justice delayed is justice denied.' Since 2010 there have been a string of trials of grooming gang members for sexually exploiting young girls while landmark official inquiries into Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale have revealed the huge numbers of those abused. However demands for a new national inquiry began growing at the start of this year, fuelled by tech tycoon Elon Musk's attacks on the Government. Initially ministers said they wanted to focus on implementing recommendations from the wider Jay report into child sexual exploitation but under mounting pressure Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced a series of new local probes in January as well as the audit by Lady Casey. The calls kept coming for a full national inquiry with former Reform MP Rupert Lowe vowing to set up his own investigation. Opposition leader Mrs Badenoch has raised the issue at Prime Minister's Questions, even suggesting the PM was 'dragging his heels' because he did not want 'Labour cover-ups exposed'. In January he told the Commons: 'There have been a number of inquiries, both national and local, including one covering Oldham. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary. 'This morning, I met some of the victims and survivors of this scandal. They were clear with me that they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry. The Jay inquiry, the last national inquiry, was seven years. A further inquiry would take us to 2031. Action is what is required.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
