Govt gives rebel Labour MPs major concession to welfare bill 90 minutes before vote
In a further attempt to allay dozens of Labour MPs' fears that the bill will be detrimental to disabled people, disabilities minister Stephen Timms told the Commons any changes to eligibility for personal independence payment (PIP) will only be made after the review he is carrying out is completed.
The Timms review is looking into PIP, the main disability benefit to help adults with the extra costs of living with a health condition or disability.
Mr Timms made the announcement just 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote on the bill.
Dozens of Labour MPs had raised concerns the review will be published in autumn 2026 - the same time changes to PIP eligibility were to be made - so the findings could not be taken into account.
On Monday, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced the government was watering down its original proposal as it faced a rebellion by 127 Labour MPs.
However, the Timms review timing remained a major concern.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
You can receive Breaking News alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News App. You can also follow @SkyNews on X or subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
The dam is breaking on Britain's illegal immigration crisis — and the results could be ugly
Britain's Labour government is in trouble: Its program of massive third-world immigration from places like Pakistan and Somalia is wildly, overwhelmingly unpopular. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that despite the best efforts of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his leftist captive media, Britons themselves have discovered just how unpopular it is. Advertisement You might think that's absurd — if mass immigration is unpopular, how can everyone not know it? Everyone doesn't know it because the government has been policing speech about immigration. Any criticism of open borders, lax enforcement or — worst of all — immigrant crime has been punished as 'racist' and 'hate speech' by the Starmer regime. Advertisement The point of this isn't to reduce racism or hate (heck, the censorship likely make that worse), but to make it harder for people to realize just how many of their fellow citizens feel the same way they do. For years, Britain has stifled reports of immigrant rape gangs in places like Rotherham and has persecuted those who have called attention to them, even jailing some. And as the government gives light sentences to child rapists, it's imprisoning moms for tweets on grounds of 'inciting race hatred.' It's all to construct and maintain something known as 'preference falsification,' a move usually practiced by authoritarian regimes. Advertisement The trick is, you make citizens pretend that they believe what the government says, and fake their approval of what it does. You promote marches and demonstrations and speech in favor of the government's preferred positions, and you severely punish marches and demonstrations and speech that oppose the government's favored positions. You give excuses, like 'stopping counterrevolutionary activity' or 'fighting hate speech,' for shutting down any opposition. You may even have informers to ferret out wrongthink and report it to the authorities, or to employers, or to third parties who will engage in extralegal (but government-supported) harassment. Advertisement If you do it right, you can have upward of 90% of your population hating you and your policies, but doing and saying nothing about them — because everyone in that 90% thinks they're part of a tiny minority. Resistance will seem to be futile. This works. Until it doesn't. The problem with preference falsification is that sooner or later some event or development can make people realize that what they've been told is popular is, in fact, very unpopular. When this happens, as Duke University scholar Timur Kuran writes in his book 'Private Truths, Public Lies,' the result is a 'preference cascade.' When large swaths of the population realize their dissident views are in fact widely held, they become less afraid of the government — and less hesitant about sharing their true sentiments. Advertisement And that's what's happening now in Britain, after a string of cases in which migrants sexually assaulted local girls and women. Across the United Kingdom, people — including large numbers of middle-aged and middle-class women, not the 'far-right' skinheads that Starmer and his ilk claim stoke all anti-immigrant sentiment — are protesting outside the hotels where the government is housing illegal migrants, shouting 'Send them home!' and 'Protect our girls!' The demonstrations in the last two weeks — featuring thousands of people carrying St. George flags, the traditional symbol of England — are too big to hide, and they're cropping up in every corner of the nation, organized largely on Facebook and other social media. Starmer has gotten the government-controlled media to present its spin and to black out or soft-pedal most bad news. Advertisement But news gets out in other ways. In particular, Elon Musk's maintenance of X as a free-speech zone has made it much harder for the ruling elites to keep people in the dark. Now the government is scared, alternating between overweening demands and ignominious retreats. After London police tried to ban protests outside migrant hotels, authorities walked it back with a 'clarification' that the ban applied only to specific protesters. Advertisement Questionable groups of masked, thuggish 'counterprotesters' have been allegedly delivered to marches in police buses — only to find themselves outnumbered and pushed back by the throng. Sometimes preference cascades presage major political changes; other times, as in the famous case of Nicolas Ceausescu's communist Romania, they produce violent revolution. (One thing about preference falsification is that it often keeps the government in the dark, too — Ceausescu genuinely believed his people loved him, until shortly before he was hauled out and shot.) Advertisement The British establishment would have been better served to let its citizens debate the immigration question openly and fairly. It didn't do so because it knew it would lose such a debate. Instead, it foisted open borders on a nation that didn't want them, then tried to silence opposition. Now we're watching as the regime's strategy collapses. Will it end in Starmer's ouster — or worse, in violence? Either way, the aftermath will be ugly. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Reeves Has a £51 Billion Fiscal Hole to Fill, UK Think Tank Says
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is facing a £51 billion ($68 billion) shortfall to fill at the autumn budget, according to a prominent economic think tank that warned she will likely need to break Labour's pledge not to raise major taxes. Slow growth, higher-than-expected borrowing and U-turns on plans to cut welfare spending mean Reeves is on track to miss her rule to match day-to-day spending with tax revenue in 2029-30 by £41 billion, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said on Wednesday.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
AI version of Parkland massacre victim isn't the answer to any of our problems
On Monday night, former CNN blowhard Jim Acosta interviewed a slain victim of the 2018 Parkland, Florida, massacre. You read that correctly. Acosta, who now has his own Substack and accompanying YouTube channel, spoke with an artificial intelligence avatar of Joaquin Oliver — one of 17 victims senselessly gunned down by a deranged former classmate at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Advertisement 5 Former CNN reporter Jim Acosta interviewed an AI avatar of Joaquin Oliver (above) who was murdered in the 2018 Parkland massacre. The Jim Acosta Show Joaquin was only 17 when he died. Monday would have been his 25th birthday, surely a difficult day for his loved ones and a moment to lament his stolen future. 'Remembering Joaquin: AI Brings Voice to gun Victims' was the title of the episode. A rather strange summation from Acosta, who has made himself into a warrior against so-called disinformation. Advertisement In reality, it was more of a bizarre AI demonstration than an interview. Acosta asked the computer-generated stand-in about his own 'solution for gun violence.' 'Great question,' said the avatar. 'I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think about that?' Despite the likeness sounding robotic, Acosta acted like he was having a thoughtful human interaction. He went on to ask 'Joaquin' about his favorite movies and sports. Advertisement 5 Jim Acosta (left) also interviewed Manny Oliver about plans for his late son's AI avatar. The Jim Acosta Show ''Star Wars' is such an epic saga. The adventures, the characters and that iconic music are unforgettable,' the avatar responded, adding that he also likes the Miami Heat and LeBron James. 'Joaquin' ended each answer by tossing an automated-sounding question back to Acosta — bringing to mind the computer in the 1983 Matthew Broderick movie 'War Games.' And yet Acosta continued with the unsettling charade. He noted that we've heard politicians' takes on the shooting, but 'now we're hearing from one of the kids. That's important.' Advertisement It's also false. And grotesque. Like a dystopian plot come to life. We were hearing not from a victim but an uncanny-valley likeness uploaded with activist talking points and, according to his father, Manny Oliver, some of Joaquin's own writings and social media posts. 5 Joaquin Oliver, who was killed in the Parkland shooting, is seen on the right with his parents Manny and Patricia. The Jim Acosta Show Acosta was rightly and roundly criticized for 'interviewing' an AI avatar. In response to the backlash, the victim's father said, 'If the problem you have is with the AI, then you have the wrong problem. The real problem is my son was shot.' No one is arguing that last part. The massacre in Parkland was the result of many systemic failures, and a bloody stain on our history. I understand that the Oliver family's grief must be so immense that they'll do anything to keep their son's legacy alive. However, it's not about how Joaquin died, but the decision to resurrect their son as an activist with Acosta aiding and abetting this dangerous delusion. The whole endeavor raises ethical questions and further muddies our already twisted reality. 5 The massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School left 17 innocent people dead. AFP/Getty Images Advertisement Are we really hurtling toward transhumanism this quickly? Do the dead have any say in how they are used after they leave this Earth? Joaquin's father emphasized that he understood this is indeed AI and that he cannot bring back his son. But, he said, hearing his child's voice brings comfort to him and his wife. No one should deny them that private pursuit of comfort. But he is also hoping his son's AI becomes an influencer. In 2024, Manny Oliver and his gun-control group 'Change the Ref' also used his son's voice to send a message to members of Congress, urging them to vote for more gun control measures. Advertisement 5 Manuel Oliver, seen with his wife Patricia Oliver and a photo of their son Joaquin, also formed the gun-control activist group Change the Ref. Larry Marano 'Now Joaquin is gonna start having followers … He's going to start uploading videos. This is just the beginning,' said Manny, adding that 'moving forward, we will have Joaquin on stage in the middle of a debate. And knowledge is solid. His knowledge is unlimited.' But can a computer really know the thoughts and soul of a human being? Advertisement Using AI as a vessel isn't going to save the world or stop gun violence. From what I've seen thus far, it will just add more well-meaning but ultimately nonsubstantive sentiments to this contentious subject. Let's not be like Acosta and pretend otherwise.
