Rayner stands ground against Labour rebels over welfare cuts
Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, publicly backed Keir Starmer 's controversial welfare reform bill during PMQs, despite a growing rebellion among Labour MPs.
Ms Rayner insisted the planned vote on the bill would proceed next Tuesday, stating it would help millions of people trapped in a failing welfare system.
A significant number of Labour MPs, 122, have signed an amendment to oppose the legislation, leading to concerns about a potential confidence issue within the party.
Opposition parties, including Tories and Liberal Democrats, challenged Ms Rayner on the bill and the internal Labour dissent, with some suggesting she could replace the prime minister.
Ms Rayner defended the bill as a means to get people off benefits and back into work, accusing the opposition of creating the current failed system that Labour aims to reform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
13 minutes ago
- BBC News
Why Keir Starmer faces a political storm over welfare reforms
Angela Rayner has declared that the government will go ahead with its controversial legislation, aimed at reforming the welfare system, next a well-placed source told us it could still be pulled: "It's a live discussion."Conversations are continuing at the heart of government on the least worst course of action in the face of a significant backbench than 120 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped, making an embarrassing defeat for the government are exploring whether some potential rebels can be won over with concessions or whether it's better to avoid next week's vote entirely, and postpone until the suggest the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is "digging in". They fear concessions, if any, would only be offered from the dispatch box on Tuesday if defeat some in government believe this is seen as too much of a high-wire act, and don't want to risk defeat. Even if the reforms stumble through, one leading rebel predicted dire consequences. The subsequent bitterness in Labour's ranks, they suggested, would making it all but impossible for the leadership to handle their own parliamentary landslide election victory was just a year ago, so how could it now be even at the remotest risk of defeat on a flagship policy?Here are a few factors. Ignoring the signals This rebellion has been a long time in ignited the flame of rebellion was the government's own assessment in March that its welfare changes could force 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into relative poverty. This did not take in to account new measures to get more people in to work, because these have yet to be implemented, but that headline figure made many MPs the government had a problem with party management should have become obvious when backbenchers were called in to meet officials in Downing Street to be briefed on the welfare changes early in March. Some of these usually loyal MPs emerged unhappy. One of them told us: "People won't wear it. The costs of being disabled aren't going down. They can't just force this through like the winter fuel cut."Another said they had made a "heartfelt" plea for a change of bells should possibly have rung when welfare ministers - including Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall - held a series of sessions with concerned backbenchers, and some of the testy exchanges were next milestone on the road to rebellion was in May when 42 Labour MPs wrote to the Guardian pushing for postponement of cuts and a the sirens should have wailed when more than 100 Labour MPs wrote to the government whips last only very small concessions – or "olive branches" as Department of Work and Pensions sources preferred to call them – emerged, discussions began behind the scenes among MPs on drawing up a 'reasoned' (at Westminster, this is a euphemism for 'wrecking') amendment - when dissenters would display their discontent in cabinet minister told the BBC: "Some of those who signed the amendment did so thinking that the Speaker wouldn't select it, but that it would make the strength of feeling clear and bring the government to the negotiating table."But the government hasn't sat down at that table and the cabinet minister believes that if next week's welfare vote goes ahead, "the Speaker would be mad not to select it" - placing the government in danger of defeat. Wrong way round A chunk of blame is being apportioned to the chancellor's fiscal rules – and to the chancellor all Labour MPs believe a 'broken' welfare system needs to be like the £1bn of extra support that Kendall secured for measures such as one-to-one coaching to help unemployed people into work, and a 'right to try a job' without a subsequent loss of benefits if it doesn't work the dissenting MPs wanted this approach to be used first, before most cuts to benefits took place, and they complain that too much of this funding is scheduled for later in the parliament, while the process of restricting Personal Independence Payments will begin in around 18 months. As one rebel put it: "The welfare changes are the wrong way round."Rachel Reeves had promised to stick by her "iron clad" fiscal rules, which mean that debt has to be on a trajectory to fall as a share of national income on a five year help meet these, she pencilled in £5bn of welfare Kendall told the BBC that the welfare reforms didn't start with a spreadsheet, many of her colleagues believe Reeves couldn't make the same MPs felt gave the game away was this: the chancellor found extra cuts at her Spring Statement in March, when the budget watchdog, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, didn't think the numbers added some supporters of the reforms believe that the emotional case for them – getting people off the unemployment 'scrapheap', ending stressful re-assessments for the most vulnerable – were not made soon enough or forcefully minister – who predicts the welfare vote will be postponed – suggested that the jobs of Kendall and the chief whip Sir Alan Campbell were on the line. Asked if Reeves's position could be at risk, the minister said: "Keir will do that in this parliament but it's the last lever he will reach for. He'll sack his advisers at least one more time before it comes to that." Rebel Alliance Opposition to the welfare cuts is genuine and heartfelt among many of the Labour there is an underlying environment that might make conditions ripe for the names of those calling for a include people with front bench experience in opposition who hoped or expected to become ministers – and were overlooked. The names also include people who have direct experience of being on benefits, or of forming welfare policy, but who feel they weren't given their due or properly consulted by the party of them told me: "Party management has been appalling right from the start. Holding meetings isn't the same as listening - they have not listened to us. There has been a lot of frustration."This group of MPs would not have responded well to the prime minister's description of the potential rebels as "noises off" at a press conference on Wednesday. He can expect more noise as a half of those calling for changes are MPs elected for the first time in was supposed to have weeded out troublesome candidates, such as those close to the Jeremy Corbyn leadership, those with rebellious tendencies and dodgy social media histories. Yet the prime minister is facing the biggest rebellion of his what wasn't factored in by those around Sir Keir is that many of the new intake were brought into politics by protests about Conservative welfare policies. As one person involved in drawing up these reforms said, the welfare state is to Labour MPs what Europe was to Conservative according to one veteran MP – who has signalled her own willingness to rebel – some of her fresher colleagues are acting not just on behalf of disabled constituents but themselves. They have been inundated with constituents' complaints, they have small majorities and they want to distance themselves from unpopular policies. Big majority, big problem? Some of the difficulties the government faces may not have come despite the majority - but because of are only so many government jobs to go round. So MPs who believe they are never likely to become ministers are more open to acting independently. When whips or cabinet ministers warn colleagues that they may be killing off hope of a ministerial career if they rebel, the calculation may be that they are unlikely to receive preferment in any while big majorities look impregnable, many MPs aren't feeling very secure. Labour secured lots of seats on a small share of the vote in 2024 - and the more Labour lags behind Reform UK in the polls, the more discipline diminishes. As one minister put it: "This is the new reality of our volatile politics. Welcome to Italy."Some MPs also don't seem to feel personal loyalty to Keir Starmer - they feel that it was the electorate's desire for change rather than their party leadership that was responsible for their elevation to Westminster. Some of them tell me they now feel embarrassed by promising during the election campaign that disabled benefits wouldn't be cut – or accusing the Conservatives of considering withdrawing winter fuel payments when in fact it was their own party that subsequently did so. Resentments have been simmering but now the political temperature is being turned new MP told us: "In the first month, it's very difficult to stand up to your government and feel like you've got a voice, but I think in those intervening months that a lot of us have found that voice."We have found support amongst others. And we do feel confident in saying what we think is right and what is wrong."With a large majority, some backbenchers feel under-used. One MP observed that many welfare rebels had also thrown themselves actively into one side or the other of the assisted dying debate: "They got a taste for anger and organising" - including against fellow Labour MPs. One U-turn deserves another The U-turn on winter fuel – which many backbenchers welcomed – may also have convinced some potential rebels that if enough pressure is applied, the government will far from buying off welfare rebels by that U-turn, they seem to have been consequences of this are making some of their more loyal colleagues shudder. Bad blood is flowing between some of the favoured sons and daughters (in some cases quite literally) of the party hierarchy were ushered in to winnable seats close to the general election by the party didn't have to engage in the jeopardy of a local selection battle. The leadership expected loyalty in return but even a small number of them have baulked at the welfare reforms. One critic bemoaned that they were "parachuted into their safe seats and have already forgotten how they got here". Another MP said: "I'm afraid it shows many in the party just aren't fit for government."And one of the new intake doesn't have much time for indiscipline, either. He told us that he had learned his some of his colleagues were "spineless" and "treacherous".Warming to his theme, he feared the party was retreating to the comfort of its traditional vote-losing ways: "Classic Labour. A year into government and we're already screwing it up." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's pointless globetrotting proves how irrelevant he is
Sir Keir Starmer clearly finds burnishing his credentials as a statesman on the world stage far more to his liking than dealing with pesky domestic concerns, such as cutting disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance. British prime ministers usually seek solace in endless overseas jamborees once they have first served a lengthy apprenticeship in Downing Street. Tony Blair was well into his third term before taking refuge in foreign junkets as his domestic popularity waned. By contrast, Starmer, who now has the unenviable honour of the lowest net favourability rating on record, has developed the taste for travelling abroad remarkably early in his premiership. Rather than investing effort in rallying support for policies, 'Never-Here Keir' prefers to spend his time hobnobbing with other world leaders. Last week our Prime Minister was missing in action, attending the increasingly irrelevant meeting of G7 leaders in Canada. It was memorable solely for Donald Trump's sensible decision to head for the exit early to attend to the deepening Iran-Israel conflict. Starmer was in The Hague attending the annual get-together of Nato leaders, where he desperately sought to persuade an increasingly sceptical Trump administration that his Government really was committed to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035. By that date, Starmer's undistinguished term in office will be a distant memory. And the defence of the realm will not have been improved a jot by the investment in rural broadband and national roadworks that Starmer now claims is a vital part of his plan to increase overall defence spending. A more detailed examination of the Government's defence plans – one that our allies in the Pentagon will be studying closely – is that there will be no new money to increase the number of troops available to fight the wars of the future. Starmer's boast at the Nato summit that the UK would meet the alliance's new spending target of 5 per cent of GDP 'to deepen our commitment to Nato' is nothing more than an elaborate Treasury 'smoke and mirrors' exercise. Even the highly publicised decision to buy 12 F-35A stealth fighters, which can carry tactical nuclear weapons, has been taken at the expense of buying more of the F-35B variant used by the Royal Navy's two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers, thereby severely diminishing their war-fighting capabilities. Nor does Starmer's endless globetrotting appear to have had any noticeable bearing on his ability to influence key events, as was evident during the Trump administration's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. While Starmer has an unerring habit of making sure he is photographed next to Trump whenever there is a summit photo op, his ability to bring any influence to bear on the Trump administration's decision-making process is negligible. The first Starmer knew that Trump had given the go-ahead for the bombing raid was when he received a telephone call from the US leader at Chequers, after the B-2 stealth bombers were already in the air. It was merely a courtesy call from Trump, not a consultation with a key ally. The fact that Starmer was completely blindsided by Trump's decision to attack Iran is hardly surprising given that David Lammy, his hapless Foreign Secretary, had returned from meeting Trump administration officials earlier that week insisting there was still a 'window of opportunity' to de-escalate the conflict. The bitter truth is that, for all Starmer attempts to ingratiate himself with world leaders, no one is taking him seriously as a statesman. And this is no wonder given his default response when faced with an international crisis is to indulge in legalistic sophistry and equivocation. Starmer's inability to formulate a clear and coherent response when faced with a global crisis was clearly evident from his handling of the Gaza conflict, when he supported Israel's right to defend itself while at the same time backing the imposition of punitive measures against key members of the Israeli government. The prime minister's leadership failings were again in evidence in the aftermath of the US raid on Iran's infrastructure. While insisting that the UK remained opposed to the ayatollahs acquiring nuclear weapons, Starmer could not bring himself to issue a public declaration of support for Trump's decisive action, which has destroyed any hope the Iranians may have entertained of developing nuclear warheads in the near future. The result is that, for all Starmer's grandstanding at global summits, no one is going to take a politician seriously who is quite content to deceive the outside world about the UK's defence commitments, while at the same time being temperamentally incapable of making his mind up on international issues. Starmer may like to project the image of a global statesman, but the brutal truth is that few world leaders, least of all in Washington, have much interest in hearing the views – or lack of them – of Starmer and his Government.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Iran-linked' group backs Palestine Action
An Iran-linked group has backed Palestine Action's violent protest campaign against Israeli targets despite the group's proscription as a terrorist organisation. The Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has been described as an 'Islamist group ideologically aligned with the Iranian regime' that has a history of 'extremist links and terrorist sympathies' in a Government review of the counter-terror Prevent programme. In social media posts and at events over the past 10 months, the IHRC in north London has campaigned in support of 10 Palestine Action activists charged with criminal damage, violent disorder and aggravated burglary after a protest at a factory belonging to Israeli arms company Elbit Systems in Bristol last August. The so-called 'Filton 10' were initially arrested under the Terrorism Act, which meant they could be held for 14 days without charge. None were charged with terrorism offences but the Crown Prosecution Service said there was a 'terrorism connection'. The break-in was cited by Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, on Monday as she announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation after the group damaged two military plans at RAF Brize Norton at a potential cost of millions of pounds. However, in its response to the proscription, the IHRC said it stood by Palestine Action, saying: 'We are all part of the resistance! We are all Palestine Action!' If posted after the official designation as a terror group, the statements could be a criminal offence. The ban has meant that any members of Palestine Action or anyone who supports it could face up to 14 years in prison. The order banning the group will be laid in Parliament on Monday and is expected to become law on July 4. The IHRC, which is funded by a registered charity, said that if Ms Cooper proscribed Palestine Action, 'it will not only be the latest outcome of unchecked political and legal Islamophobia in the UK but another nail in the coffin of the British legal system'. There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by the IHRC, which has said it has consistently supported the right to protest and civil resistance, particularly by holding governments and companies accountable for 'their roles in enabling human rights abuses, such as the genocide taking place in Gaza.' It said it has 'no institutional or financial link' with the Iranian government, and that allegations suggesting otherwise were 'baseless.' However, Lord Walney, the former Government adviser on political violence, said: 'It is outrageous that a body with a registered charitable arm is proclaiming itself 'part of the resistance' in support of a group about to be proscribed under terrorism law. 'The IHRC has spoken up for Palestine Action time and again while claiming to be a legitimate charity. 'Ministers must wake up to the links between supporters of the Iranian regime and Palestine Action's long campaign of criminal damage inflicted on the UK defence industry.' Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said he condemned the IHRC for supporting Palestine Action, which has used 'violence, intimidation and criminal damage' to try to achieve its political aims. 'The IHRC and the MPs who support [Palestine Action's] violent methods are advocating mob rule and should hang their heads in shame,' he said. 'Just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to smash up their property. Mob rule has no place in a civilised country. 'The IHRC Trust is, in essence, the same organisation as the IHRC and has charitable status. I call on the Charity Commission to urgently revoke their charitable status – no close affiliate of a registered charity should be allowed to support mob violence and attacks on police officers.' The IHRC has described itself as a campaign, research and advocacy non-profit that 'struggles for justice for all peoples'. It was created in 1997 and has special consultative status with the economic and social council of the United Nations. In a letter to Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in January, the IHRC accused the police and Government of misusing anti-terror legislation against the Filton 10. In a letter to the UN, it called for charges to be dropped against Palestinian activists. 'The rights of free expression and protest are too important in a democracy to allow individuals to be investigated for potential terrorism merely because they may have been involved in protests or hold critical opinions,' the IHRC said. Senior figures in Palestine Action have spoken at Quds Day rallies organised by IHRC, a tradition which began in Iran in 1979 shortly after the Iranian revolution. Responding to The Telegraph, the IHRC said Palestine Action was 'not a terrorist organisation'. 'The move to proscribe it illustrates how politicised and malleable the term 'terrorism' has become – now so broad as to border on the meaningless,' it said in a statement. It said the assertion that the IHRC was 'ideologically aligned' with Iran was 'not evidence – it is opinion, and a deeply prejudiced one at that.'
