RACHEL REEVES: 'Politics is about choices - and we're on the side of working people'
Rachel Reeves today promised Mirror readers the government is on their side, while admitting the change they voted for was 'never going to happen overnight'.
The Chancellor described she was 'impatient ' to deliver, but after 14 years of Conservative rule, claimed promises had not been delivered because 'politicians ducked the big decision'. Writing exclusively for this newspaper, Ms Reeves outlined how Labour had already begun righting the wrongs of the Tories, but said there was 'lots more to do'.
She wrote: 'I'm impatient for the change people voted for to be delivered, but I have always known it was never going to happen overnight. Politics is about choices. And we know whose side we are on - the side of working people who for too long have seen promises made but never delivered, because politicians ducked the big decisions.' It comes after The Mirror's Kevin Maguire wrote: 'Labour must find engaging story for the UK - or face election wipeout'.
READ MORE: Rachel Reeves opens door to gambling tax hike after Gordon Brown poverty demand
Earlier this week the Bank of England slashed interest rates to 4% - the lowest level in over two years - in a dramatic move to boost Britain's faltering economy.
Ms Reeves will hope for further good news next week, when the latest GDP figures are set to be published.
Setting out the progress delivered so far, the Leeds West and Pudsey MP referenced a series of trade deals with the United States, India and the European Union to save, protect and create thousands of jobs.
Ms Reeves insisted all the progress so far was just the 'starting point'. She added: 'We are fixing the foundations, and we are rebuilding for a better future. A better future that meets the promise of change with the renewal of Britain."
'Politics is about choices - and we're on the side of working people'
By RACHEL REEVES, The Chancellor
At the election the British people voted for change. They did so because of a sense of a country that they loved heading in the wrong direction.
A political system that had spent ten years in endless spirals of chaos, rather than focused on the national interest.
And an economy that was not broken, but stuck – with too many barriers blocking the way for people and businesses to thrive.
I'm impatient for the change people voted for to be delivered, but I have always known it was never going to happen overnight.
That's why, during our first year in power, we've focused on fixing the foundations of our economy. We've restored economic stability, allowing the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times, with homebuyers now £1,000 better off on their mortgages than they were a year ago and businesses saving money on loans.
We've unlocked tens of billions in capital investment, so we can build schools, hospitals, and the energy infrastructure of the future.
For years the NHS was overlooked. A generation watched our most prized institution slowly decline so the Tories could drive through chaotic and unfunded tax cuts – like the Truss Mini Budget.
We haven't shied away from the tough decisions needed to get the NHS back fighting fit. But that money needs to come from somewhere – and we promised in our manifesto that it wouldn't fall on working people to pick up the bill left to us.
That's why we asked those with the broadest shoulders to help us recover this country. And the results are already kicking in. Hospital waiting times have fallen, free breakfast clubs for kids, and free school meals for an extra 500,000 hungry schoolkids.
And we've strengthened Britain's reputation abroad, securing a hat trick of trade deals with the United States, India and the European Union to save, protect and create thousands of jobs.
These deals have put Britain at the heart of the global economy at a time when the global economic map is being redrawn.
Politics is about choices. And we know whose side we are on - the side of working people who for too long have seen promises made but never delivered, because politicians ducked the big decisions.
We have been fixing the foundations for a purpose: the renewal of every part of Britain.
Take the Ford factory in Dagenham, a staple of the community supporting local jobs for nearly one hundred years.
That's four generations, each building on the last. Each generation has developed new skills, supported businesses in Ford's supply chain, and spent their wages boosting the local economy.
That's what I mean by protecting working people. A skilled, secure job is more than a pay cheque; it lifts an entire community.
That's why we invest to support businesses. I know what happens when work dries up — whole towns shrink, and communities suffer.
Last week we invested £1 billion with Ford, protecting thousands of jobs, developing world-leading products, and opening new export markets.
We are doing the same in Scunthorpe, safeguarding British Steel and the 2,700 jobs there, plus up to 37,000 in the supply chain. In Port Talbot, we are protecting 5,000 jobs by investing in a new electric arc furnace.
I make no apology for stepping in to save these industries. Some in politics would walk away and let communities collapse. I will never do that.
This is just the starting point. We are fixing the foundations, and we are rebuilding for a better future. A better future that meets the promise of change with the renewal of Britain.
We have done lots but there is more to do. That is why we are also helping work people by boosting the National Living Wage and Minimum Wage, keeping the £3 bus fare cap, and giving free school meals to more than half a million extra children.
For too long, governments avoided the big calls - from investing in our energy future to reforming skills and training - and it's why the country hasn't been working for people. We are ending that era of ducking decisions.
To end the cycle of decline, tackle the unfairness in our economy, give every community the chance to thrive and to make the lives of every working person better off.
That is my mission. That is what I am determined to deliver.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on attacking the ECHR: the real target is judicial independence and the rule of law
Most British citizens have little contact with human rights law, which is as it should be in a mature democracy. Widespread anxiety about basic freedoms is a feature of more repressive regimes. Many people will only have heard of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the context of the last Conservative government's failed attempts to dispatch asylum seekers to Rwanda, or in a handful of incidents where convicted criminals or terrorist suspects have avoided deportation to jurisdictions where they might face inhumane treatment. Such cases are amplified by politicians who are hostile to the whole apparatus of human rights law. The Strasbourg court that adjudicates on breaches of the ECHR is denounced as an enemy of British sovereignty. Those attacks will continue for as long as asylum, and small-boats traffic on the Channel in particular, are salient political issues – for the foreseeable future, in other words. Labour's new 'one-in, one-out' scheme for returning seaborne refugees is more robust in legal and humanitarian terms than the failed Tory method. France is a safe country. That won't stop critics accusing the government of failing to control the border and citing international human rights conventions as the main impediment to the restoration of law and order. Nigel Farage has said he would 'get rid of the ECHR' as a day-one priority should Reform UK ever form a government. Kemi Badenoch is drifting to the same position, albeit with circumspection. The Conservative leader acknowledges that peremptory rupture is not straightforward, especially for Northern Ireland since European convention rights are woven into the Good Friday agreement. Mrs Badenoch has commissioned a report to consider how an ECHR exit might be achieved but expressed her personal view that Britain 'will likely need to leave' because human rights are wielded as a 'sword … to attack democratic decisions and common sense.' The core argument, for both Mrs Badenoch and Mr Farage, is that voters want politicians to expel undesirable elements from society but the popular will is being thwarted by unelected judges. Human rights, in this conception, are a loophole through which criminals and foreign interlopers evade justice. Ideas codified after the second world war as foundational principles of a new democratic settlement for Europe are recast as attacks on the law-abiding majority. This rhetorical subterfuge gets a purchase on public discourse through channels previously opened by Brexit. The ECHR is not an EU institution, but the fact of it being European in name stirs suspicion that it is an alien imposition. Dispensing with human rights obligations would be a necessary step for any government seeking to emulate Donald Trump's programme of detaining and deporting migrants without regard for due process. It is not far-fetched to envisage a Reform government recreating that model, given Mr Farage's record of admiration for Mr Trump. ECHR rulings are not infallible. A 71-year-old institution can reasonably be scrutinised with a view to reform. But that is not what its noisiest UK antagonists have in mind. They target the convention not because it is a big part of public life, but because it is a minor one and poorly understood. It is a soft target in a longer campaign to undermine judicial independence, discredit liberal principle and, ultimately, degrade the rule of law to the benefit of unaccountable executive power.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'I run an overstretched food bank and this is the powerful thing I tell my kids'
The Mirror spoke to food bank volunteer Sarah Chapman and Labour MP Marsha de Cordova about record levels of poverty - as they called for food bank use to become 'history' A food bank volunteer who is witnessing record levels of poverty has pleaded with Keir Starmer to help make food banks 'history'. Sarah Chapman said usage at her south London food bank has risen by more than 400% since she helped open it in 2013 - including a 96% increase in just the last five years. Speaking to The Mirror at the foodbank in Battersea, she said her service and others across the UK are 'absolutely dreaming' of food banks no longer being needed. It comes after Gordon Brown blasted the return of 'poverty of 60 years ago' as he made a big demand. Ms Chapman continued: "I often say to my kids and to young people, did you know that food banks didn't used to exist, and we can go back to that time where everybody has enough income for essentials, even in the hardest times, if we can make social security actually secure for when people need it most. 'We can ensure that food banks become history, which is what we and food banks across the UK are absolutely dreaming of.' Ms Chapman said it is not rare for her to encounter visitors with suicidal thoughts and high levels of stress and anxiety. 'People are often very stressed. People have told us they walk up and down a few times before coming in because they are sort of nervous. People carry a lot of shame,' she said. Ms Chapman admitted she was grateful Labour MPs rebelled against proposed cuts to disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payments (PIP), with two thirds of those who visit her foodbank having a disability or health condition. 'Sometimes I want to curl up and pretend it's not there' A man who relies on food banks to survive has said some days he just wants to 'curl up' with his curtains shut and pretend the stress of his situation is not there. David Wilson, 46, who suffers from bone disease, said he "genuinely cannot stand not being able to work' after giving up his job in pharmaceutical sales due to his mobility deteriorating over the last few years. The dad-of-one, who looks after his six-year-old son on weekends, said he turns off the heating during the week in winter and skips meals so he can provide for his child. 'It's ridiculously stressful,' David said. 'It's a case of good days and bad days on whether you can open the curtains and face it all or curl up and hope it's not there.' David, who lives in Norfolk, receives around £1,100 a month in Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) - not enough to cover the £1,260 needed for rent, bills, utilities and other costs. David said the first time he went to the food bank in his village he was 'overwhelmed and emotional'. He said a mix of people including kids and young working families use the service, adding: 'Every time I've been it's always been a real hive of activity. It's been very, very busy.' David added that he breathed a 'sigh of relief' when Labour rolled back on his disability benefits cuts, saying: 'I was absolutely petrified… Ultimately I would have been more of a burden on the state because I wouldn't have been able to afford my rent so I would have had to get emergency accommodation or what have you. The prospect was pretty grim.' He has now been relying on food banks for 18 months and will need them for the 'foreseeable' - or at least until he gets surgery including a double hip replacement so he can return to work. 'My plan is to get back to work as soon as humanly possible. That's the only way I'll be able to get out of it,' he said. 'That was something like, whoa, I don't know if we can stem the tide if PIP is cut, if the health element of Universal Credit is cut, that's going in completely the wrong direction,' she said. Ms Chapman said her message to the PM is the same as it has been since 2013: "We want the government to invest in social security, because that's an investment in people. It's an investment in children. Inequality is bad for us all in different ways." Disabled Labour MP Marsha de Cordova, who represents the foodbank, told The Mirror the government made the 'wrong choice' in targeting disability benefits earlier this year. But she said the welfare system must be 'rebuilt and reformed' as she hit out at the Tories' 'cruel and inhumane' approach to benefits. But she said: 'What I wasn't in favour of, was the desire to save £5billion on the backs of disabled people. It was the wrong decision, and it was the wrong choice. I'm a disabled woman, and so I fully understand and appreciate what that support might mean for people, and to lose that would have been devastating.' National figures combined by The Trussell Trust, a community of food banks including Wandsworth's one, found 2.9 million emergency food parcels were provided last year, with more than a million for children. This is equivalent to one parcel every 11 seconds and a 51% increase compared to five years ago. It comes as research by the Resolution Foundation last year found that working-age families have lost on average £1,500 a year due to the Tories' overhaul of the social security system. Ms de Cordova said she has constituents coming to her 'all the time' telling her horrific stories about how poverty is affecting them. 'I was at an event in my constituency and a lady came to me - I won't share what she wanted to talk about - but she was in tears,' she said. She's a mother of four children, and her husband works, and they are still facing huge challenges.' The politician has joined other Labour MPs in piling pressure on Mr Starmer to ditch the Conservative-era two-child benefit limit as a start to reversing the damage caused by the Tories. Asked what else is needed, Ms de Cordova said 'first and foremost' there needs to be a culture shift in how society thinks about the benefits system. 'I think many of the measures that were carried out by the Conservatives in government were cruel and inhumane, particularly around changes to social security support for disabled people,' she said. 'We can't get away from the 14 years of cuts and austerity. On top of that, the hostile environment that they have created has resulted in record numbers of people coming to use food banks, and the amazing generosity of people wanting to support those in need is the right thing, but I want to say, in the future, that we no longer need food banks." The MP, who is registered blind, is also passionate about ministers' plans to reform employment support. She pointed to research by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Eye Health and Visual Impairment, which she chairs, which last year(2024) found a quarter of businesses would not be willing to adapt their workplaces to employ a blind or partially sighted person. 'If an employer's attitude is they still won't want to take somebody who is disabled or has a visual impairment, then we've got to crack that nut,' she said. 'I'm really hopeful that we will take the measures that are needed to ensure that we help more disabled people get into work, but we also help to shift and change employer attitudes.'
