Rachel Reeves faces call from her local Labour party to abandon welfare cuts
The local party branch passed a motion opposing the cuts, seen by the PA news agency, when it met this week.
The Government's plans, set out in a Green Paper earlier this year, would tighten the eligibility criteria for the main disability benefit in England, the personal independence payment (Pip).
Restricting Pip would cut benefits for around 800,000 people, while the sickness-related element of universal credit also set to be cut.
The package of measures are aimed at reducing the number of working-age people on sickness benefits, which grew during the pandemic and has remained high since.
The Government hopes the proposals can save £5 billion a year by the end of the decade.
In its motion opposing the plans, the Leeds West and Pudsey CLP said disabled people 'are not responsible for the state of the national finances and should not be made to pay the price for Tory economic mismanagement'.
The CLP also acknowledged welfare reform is important, but urged the Government to 'focus on reducing the taper' – the rate at which benefits fall off once someone has found work.
The scale of the proposed cuts is horrific and will destroy communities, break public services through additional pressures and could well negatively impact the economy Ellen Clifford, Disabled People Against Cuts
The local Labour group resolved to write to both Chancellor Ms Reeves and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall to 'articulate our proposed cuts to disability benefits – whether by reducing rates, implementing higher thresholds, poor quality assessments or increased conditionality – as soon as possible'.
Opposition on Ms Reeves's patch comes as the Government appears at risk of a major rebellion from its backbenchers over the plans.
Some 100 Labour MPs – more than a quarter of the party's parliamentary numbers – are reported to have signed a letter urging ministers to scale back welfare cuts under consideration, according to media reports.
The private letter to Labour's chief whip is separate from a similar one last week, in which 42 MPs said the cuts were 'impossible to support'.
Speaking during a recent Westminster Hall debate, Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, said he was willing to 'swim through vomit' to vote against the cuts.
Others including Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Rachael Maskell (York Central), and Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) also confirmed they would vote against the plans when they spoke during the debate.
Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said the campaign group supports the Leeds West and Pudsey CLP's move.
She added: 'We hope that the Chancellor takes note of the contents. The scale of the proposed cuts is horrific and will destroy communities, break public services through additional pressures and could well negatively impact the economy.
'They are cruel, badly thought through and entirely performative. Voters will not forget or forgive politicians who back these cuts.'
The Chancellor's team, approached for comment, pointed to her previous messages to Labour MPs on the welfare cut proposals.
When asked last week what her message to concerned Labour backbenchers was, Ms Reeves said: 'I don't think anybody, including Labour MPs and members, think that the current welfare system created by the Conservative Party is working today.
'They know that the system needs reform. We do need to reform how the welfare system works if we're going to grow our economy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
High court asylum hotels ruling leaves Cooper scrambling for alternatives
Yvette Cooper, thanks to Tuesday's high court ruling, is facing potentially explosive decisions over where to house asylum seekers if courts rule that they must leave hotels. The Home Office, usually under Conservative ministers, has been struggling for five years to find an alternative to hotels so they can house a growing number of asylum seekers reaching these shores. Labour has said that it expects to empty the 200-odd hotels housing asylum seekers by 2029. Ministers may be forced to rip up that plan and move at a rapid pace because of the ruling's implications. If councils take to the high court to complain about the use of a hotel for housing asylum seekers – and many will be under immense political pressure from the public to do so – it could force officials to find alternative housing for thousands of people. Legal sources believe that there will be similar grounds to launch applications for interim injunctions from a number of councils. This case has centred on an alleged breach of planning laws by owners of the Bell hotel, who it was claimed did not get permission to switch use from a hotel to hostel-style accommodation. Other hotel owners are thought to be in similar positions to Somani Hotels Limited, which originally housed families in the Bell, but faced a legal challenge after the asylum seekers were switched to single men. Ominously for the government, the Reform UK deputy leader, Richard Tice, said his party would look at pursuing similar cases regarding hotels within the 10 council areas it controls, which include both North and West Northamptonshire councils, Doncaster, and Kent and Staffordshire county councils. And the high court rulings can require a rapid response. Epping's application for an interim was launched on 12 August. By 4pm on 12 September, all asylum seekers will have to be removed from The Bell hotel. There may yet be a lifeline for the government. They could convince the court of appeal to overturn the decision. The fact that the Home Office was not allowed to intervene in a case which was directly related to the home secretary's duties to house asylum seekers could well be seized upon by government lawyers. If they fail to overturn the decision, they will face the same dilemma as successive Tory home secretaries going back to Priti Patel, who promised and failed to find alternatives to hotels to house asylum seekers. The number of asylum hotels soared to 400 under successive Tory home secretaries because of a shortage of housing, a growing backlog in asylum applications, and a failure to establish large accommodation sites in buildings such as disused military barracks. Since coming to power, Labour has increased the speed at which applications are processed, by using more 'dispersal accommodation' such as flats and housing in the community. Questions will no doubt be asked inside the department as to why it took the Home Office until Monday to try to intervene in the case. If it had done so last week, when the case came to court, it would have stood a better chance of preventing the injunction. The political implications of the ruling will continue to unsettle Cooper and No 10. Yet again, the government has been caught flat-footed on an immigration-related issue, as it struggles with soaring numbers of small boats crossing the Channel. Anti-asylum seeker protesters will see this as a victory in response to their demonstrations across the country this summer. Reform UK and its leader, Nigel Farage, currently leading in most polls, will be buoyed by the prospect of further embarrassment for the government.
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
John Swinney isn't bothered 'in the slightest' by SNP legal battles... paid for by YOU
John Swinney has been accused of being cavalier with public money after claiming he is not bothered 'in the slightest' about two high-profile law suits against SNP ministers. The First Minister said being sued for apparently ignoring the UK Supreme Court and by Alex Salmond 's widow were 'part of the fabric of government life in Scotland'. Speaking to STV's Scotland Tonight, Mr Swinney refused to comment on the substance of the actions as 'live proceedings' were involved. But asked if he was 'bothered about them', he said: 'Not in the slightest. They're part of the fabric of government life in Scotland, and I've got to deal with them all.' His comments coincided with claims Scotland's public sector has 'squandered' £406million on legal services in just the last three years. Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy said: 'John Swinney might arrogantly be dismissing the prospect of this latest legal action, but he will not be the one footing the bill. 'The SNP and their army of quangos have blown over £400million in legal fees in recent years and the First Minister doesn't seem bothered about wasting yet more taxpayers' money. 'If they finally just implemented the Supreme Court verdict, then at least one of these cases would be avoided.' For Women Scotland, who beat the Scottish Government in court earlier this year, have launched fresh legal action against John Swinney's government Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3 million claim her late husband began in 2023 For Women Scotland (FWS) last week took legal action against SNP ministers for failing to enforce April's Supreme Court ruling on gender. The group, whose previous challenges led to the judgment, wants a judge to strike down policies on the housing of trans people in jail and transgender pupils using single-sex school toilets. The Supreme Court ruled biological sex, not gender choice, determines a person's rights under UK equality law. But Mr Swinney has failed to act, claiming he has to wait for updated advice from the UK Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Critics accuse him of playing for time to avoid a row within the SNP before May's Holyrood election. A motion to the SNP conference in October claims the 'reductionist' ruling 'rolls back progress for all women'. It also emerged on Sunday that Alex Salmond's widow Moira is reviving a £3million compensation claim her late husband began in 2023. The ex-First Minister took the action over the Scottish Government's botched 2018 in-house probe into sexual misconduct claims. The investigation was later ruled unlawful, unfair and 'tainted by apparent bias'. Meanwhile, figures from 168 public bodies revealed £406million was spent on legal services over three years. The Scottish Government had the largest bill, at £89million, followed by NHS Scotland at £62million. Tory MSP Stephen Kerr, who obtained the costs under freedom of information, said the total sum was 'staggering' given the state of public services. A government spokesman said: 'The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland are required to take legal advice on a range of issues.'
Times
44 minutes ago
- Times
Nature is not the enemy of housebuilders
The government appears to have gone to war against nature and beauty in its attempt to get Britain building again. We should stop worrying about the environment, get rid of the bugs, spiders and bats and focus instead on what matters: creating more housing, employment and renewable energy. That means prioritising solar farms over wildflowers and faster transport links over forests. The thinking seems to be that these are elitist luxuries we can no longer afford. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, summed it up when she said last month she cared more about getting young families on to the housing ladder than 'protecting some snails'. She is evidently considering a second planning bill that would make it far harder for environmentalists to hold up infrastructure projects, limit protection for many species and curtail judicial reviews to block projects. Ed Miliband is also determined that his quest for net zero will not be dragged down by farmers being subsidised to grow food locally and create wetlands when they could be installing solar panels. And earlier this year, Angela Rayner removed the word 'beautiful' from the national planning policy framework to speed up construction. • Rachel Reeves to cut 'bats and newts' in boost to developers They have a point. You only have to mention the £100 million 'bat tunnel' for HS2 and everyone agrees it was an egregious waste of money. The green lobby has at times appeared out of control, prioritising hazel dormice over our children's future; the nimbys seem selfish for wanting to preserve their woodlands and views; and, as 40C summers in Europe become the new norm, we need more energy-efficient solutions. Yet does Labour really need to turn nature into the enemy? Why this supposition that in order to grow we have to bulldoze beauty and sacrifice wildlife, or that getting to net zero in 2050 matters more than supporting a green and pleasant, environmentally friendly countryside? Travelling in Uzbekistan last week, a central Asian country whose economy is booming, it was clear in Tashkent that they are determined to backtrack on years of pummelling nature in the Soviet era. They are focused on rebuilding the capital, creating offices and housing for the country's burgeoning population, but also ensuring that the city is covered in trees, parks and neatly tended flower gardens. The result is stunning. The city is shaded from the ferocious sun, there is barely any litter among the flower beds and people want to walk to work and socialise in the greenery in the evenings. In Samarkand, tourists are flocking back as beauty is prioritised. Yet nature and beauty in the UK are increasingly seen as obstacles. Conservation charities insist the 'builders versus blockers' narrative wrongly frames wildlife as being in conflict with economic growth. Bats and great crested newts are a factor in only 3 per cent of planning appeals, they say. The Home Builders Federation claims a lack of planning staff in councils causes worse delays. • Emma Duncan: Planning regulation is bogged down by newts This system isn't helping housebuilders, nor is it protecting the most valuable elements of our landscape. We have lost half of our biodiversity since 1970, according to the most recent State of Nature report, birds, pollinators, micro-organisms and flora bearing the brunt. Native dormice are now threatened with extinction. 'Clean energy' is this government's mantra but dirty rivers may be its heritage, destroyed by untreated sewage and factory farming. Yet ministers appear to care as little as the last lot, despite the Labour manifesto stating that Britain 'is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world'. Ironically, before this government's latest interventions, environmentalists and construction companies had been edging towards consensus. The Wildlife Trusts' chief executive, Craig Bennett, is a surprise supporter of housebuilders, businesses and investors struggling with so many changing and contradictory schemes, such as demanding that housing developments factor in biodiversity net gains (BNG), then scrapping that for small sites, which cover 70 per cent of new builds. 'Thriving ecosystems and wildlife provide multiple co-benefits, promote solutions to climate challenges such as flooding and drought, improve health and wellbeing and create new jobs,' he says. If smaller developments are exempt from BNG, an area the size of 35,000 football pitches of nature-rich planting will be lost. A new report by the think tank Policy Exchange shows that building beautiful, harmonious council estates intertwined with nature is the best way forward. They encourage community pride, discourage crime and are often more cost-effective. The world's first council estate, the Boundary Estate, built in the 1890s in east London, was made up of tree-lined avenues and is, unsurprisingly, still more sought after than grey, dense housing and tower blocks. Nimbys are far less likely to reject any characterful additions that enhance their neighbourhood and provide new green spaces, such as Camley Street Nature Park, once a coal drop between King's Cross and St Pancras but for the past 40 years a haven for birds and insects. Beauty shouldn't be the preserve of rich Cotswolds estates. Great crested newts don't need to be eliminated and ancient woodland hacked down in this government's desire for a great leap forward. Nature is not the enemy; incorporate it into a simplified planning code with high environmental standards and it may be the solution. It could encourage better mental health, boost our listless productivity, prevent nimbyism, counter climate change, promote community adhesion and nurture us all, including the dormice.
