Has Labour's moral compass gone missing in Runcorn and Helsby?
It was reported by LabourList last week that, to try to stop a haemorrhaging of voters to Reform UK, 'Labour's candidate in the Runcorn and Helsby byelection has launched a petition to close a local hotel used for asylum seekers, just days after the Telegraph highlighted her past comments on her council 'warmly welcoming' asylum seekers'. I really wonder how low the party will sink. Where is Gordon Brown's famous moral compass now?
I joined the party on polling day 1966 and have stayed loyal, through thick and thin, ever since. In part, I joined because Harold Wilson had said that the Labour party 'is a moral crusade or it is nothing'. After reading about this petition in Runcorn, I wonder what is left.
During the 1970 election campaign, Labour's Joan Lestor, standing for re-election in Slough, told a racist Labour supporter that he could 'stuff his vote'. A lesson in morality for the party? Or will I be thrown out for pointing it out?John BurnellFormer councillor, London borough of Hackney; campaign manager for Diane Abbott in 1987 general election
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill. Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt. Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter. She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.' Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.' Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs. The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place. The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit. "I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare — 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025 The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms. Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published. The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in. 'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency. Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote. Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures. 'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said. 'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill. Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt. Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter. She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.' Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.' Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs. The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place. The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit. "I draw on the substantial evidence, the voices of those impacted and my conscience which determines that I cannot cross by on the other side and have no choice but to vote against the UC & PIP Bill."My full statement in comments👇#York #PIP #Welfare — 💙Rachael Maskell MP (@RachaelMaskell) June 29, 2025 The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms. Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published. The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in. 'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency. Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote. Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures. 'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said. 'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
Scotland's hefty benefits bill is no badge of honour – it's a mark of shame for SNP
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HAVING a massive benefits bill is not something to be proud of – it is a sign of a failing society. But for some reason, Scotland's increasing dependence on social security has become the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Government. 2 Scotland's benefits bill is not something to be proud of, writes Chris Musson Credit: Alamy 2 Scotland's dependence on social security is the subject of bragging rights for the SNP Credit: PA It is a policy based on optics, on PR, on quick wins, and on narrow, nationalistic posturing. Pretty much anything apart from society's long-term health. It can be largely summed up by this: SNP chiefs want to show everyone how much more generous and compassionate they are than those dastardly scoundrels at Westminster. Presently, Nats ministers are in their element, due to Labour's civil war over UK Government welfare reforms, which aim to cut £5billion a year from the benefits bill and get more people back into work. Last week, when the SNP weren't claiming the Westminster move would push families into poverty, they were boasting about how much cash is dished out by the Scottish Government on devolved payments. So, a press release trumpeted £6billion handed out by their fledgling agency, Social Security Scotland, in its first years of existence following the devolution of a string of benefits. 'More than £6billion has been paid to help people with cost of living', the announcement said. This cynical wording aimed to make people think these were cost of living payments in the same vein as the cash which came for fuel bills from the UK Government a couple of years ago. It's not, though, this is money paid for standard benefits — now 14 of them — delivered by Scottish Government's Social Security Scotland since 2018. If you think that sounds like a lot, look away now. Because given the amount of benefits now kicking in at the devolved agency, with its 4,200 staff and £321million running costs, it is set to spend £7.7billion next year alone — and £9.5billion a year by 2030. Find out what's really going on Register now for our free weekly politics newsletter for an insightful and irreverent look at the (sometimes excruciating) world of Scottish Politics. Every Thursday our hotshot politics team goes behind the headlines to bring you a rundown of key events - plus insights and gossip from the corridors of power, including a 'Plonker' and 'Star' of the Week. Sign up now and make sure you don't miss a beat. The politicians would hate that. SIGN UP FOR FREE NOW Most of this is for Scottish versions of Westminster payments, but extra benefits paid out by Scotland under devolution total £1.3billion a year, rising to a future £2.1billion. At Westminster, those reforms by Labour aim to cut reliance on Personal Independence Payments and get people — who can — back into work. At Holyrood, the Scottish version of PIP — Adult Disability Payment — is costing £3.6billion a year, and forecast to hit £5.4billion by 2030. This includes the thousands of adults now getting ADP for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder — many claimants having been farmed by money-making websites who take a slice after helping people with applications. So, while Westminster tried to scale back on welfare, Holyrood is scaling up. In the words of Social Security Scotland, this is all in the name of 'a human rights based approach' to 'demonstrate dignity, fairness and respect in all our actions'. Well, there's a fine line between compassion and being a walkover, and SNP ministers may well have crossed that threshold already. The Scottish Government seems to be ideologically opposed to paying less in benefits, because in their eyes, benefits are inherently a great thing. And they are especially great when it makes them look more generous than Westminster. But what is the endgame here? Before SNP ministers got powers over welfare, Scotland's disproportionate reliance on social security compared to the rest of Britain was universally regarded as a bad thing. In the early 2010s, levels of disability benefits claimed per person in Scotland were 22 per cent higher than Great Britain as a whole, figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show. This was fuelled by higher rates of people with health problems limiting their daily activities. Scotland had long been dubbed the 'sick man of Europe'. On some measures, we still are. Yet now, maintaining and increasing payments is the overwhelming focus of the devolved government, not actually getting people better and getting them to work. Where is the long-term plan to better the health and wealth of the nation, rather than fostering an increasingly unaffordable reliance on welfare? Sometimes, I'm not sure they're particularly interested. Last year, the SNP defaulted to its usual scornfulness when ex-Labour MSP Des McNulty pointed out in a study for a think-tank that the Scottish Government's new Scottish Child Payment benefit might not be the bees knees after all. His report pointed out — sensibly — that perhaps throwing money at a broad group of people may not work in the long term. That money could be better targeted on the very poorest, he said, and moreover we needed to invest in the 'complex roots of poverty' by helping people back into work, for example. McNulty hit the nail on the head with the mention of 'complex'. Because sorting this out is complicated. It requires serious thought and time. SCOTTISH Tory MSP Alexander Stewart missed his first shadow cabinet meeting after being named social justice spokesman — as he was singing for the Holyrood choir. Stewart was busy doing a solo performance of 'Where I Want To Be' from the musical Chess. And it turned out that where he wanted to be was anywhere but in a meeting with leader Russell Findlay. Elsewhere in parly's final week before its ten-week summer break (yes, really), angry MSPs spent an hour debating the 'menace 'of seagulls. It was left to SNP's Christine Grahame to urge calm, saying the issue must not be styled as 'people versus gulls'. A bit late, given the ferocity of the debate. Throwing £27.15 per child per week at low-income families is simple and comes with bonus political points. Some people will always need help if they are genuinely unable to work due to disability, for example. But a society which becomes increasingly reliant on welfare is failing. Failing to get people into work, failing to get them better if they're ill. Failing to get them motivated, if they can't be bothered to work. Failing to educate and inspire kids for their prospects, and failing to get the economy going and create decent jobs. A big benefits bill is not a badge of honour to be press released. It's a mark of shame. Ministers must show more ambition because at the moment, the ambition seems to be a nation of layabouts.
