Labour benefits cuts latest: Starmer battles to quell 50-strong MP rebellion with just hours left until vote
Sir Keir Starmer is launching a last-minute attempt to win over dozens of Labour MPs rebelling against his welfare reforms.
Around 50 Labour MPs are still thought to be planning to vote against the bill in a crunch vote on Tuesday, despite the prime minister offering concessions on the legislation last week.
The original welfare bill proposed to introduce a higher bar for eligibility for the Personal Independence Payment (Pip), and cut the health-related element of universal credit.
But after more than 100 Labour MPs called for these changes to be scrapped, the government said its proposed rules will now only apply to new claims from November 2026.
Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been rowed back, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms.
The Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place ahead of the second reading on Tuesday.
However, it is estimated around 50 to 60 Labour MPs are still planning to rebel against the bill, with some saying the concessions are not enough.
A minister did not answer when asked whether any Labour MPs that rebel over welfare this week will have the whip removed.
Baronesss Jacqui Smith was asked by Times Radio whether rebels would have the whip removed, she told the station: 'I think what's important and from – as you say – from my experience as a former chief whip, is to keep talking, keep explaining the moves that the Government has already made to recognise some of the concerns.'
Pushed again on whether the whip would be removed, she later said that people would hear more from ministers on Monday.
Athena Stavrou30 June 2025 09:35
Starmer's disability benefit U-turn not enough, says rebel Labour whip
Sir Keir Starmer 's £3bn U-turn on his planned welfare cuts does not go far enough, a leading rebel who quit her frontbench job over the changes has warned.
The prime minister is still facing the prospect of around 50 Labour MPs voting against his welfare reforms, with former government whip Vicky Foxcroft among those calling for fresh concessions.
Ms Foxcroft dramatically quit this month in protest at the plans, saying she could not back cuts that will harm disabled people.
And, in an interview with The Guardian after Sir Keir's U-turn, she said it was 'good to hear that people won't be losing their benefits who are currently on them' but said there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement'.
Athena Stavrou30 June 2025 09:33
Starmer battles to quell 50-strong MP rebellion with just hours left until vote
Sir Keir Starmer is launching a last-minute attempt to win over dozens of Labour MPs rebelling against his welfare reforms.
Around 50 Labour MPs are still thought to be planning to vote against the bill in a crunch vote on Tuesday, despite the prime minister offering concessions on the legislation last week.
The original welfare bill proposed to introduce a higher bar for eligibility for the Personal Independence Payment (Pip), and cut the health-related element of universal credit.
But after more than 100 Labour MPs called for these changes to be scrapped, the government said its proposed rules will now only apply to new claims from November 2026.
Athena Stavrou30 June 2025 09:31
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fury at 'unacceptable' waste as Parliament brings in new £150k-a-year 'commercial' boss after Lords shambles over £10m gates that don't work
Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. The role of 'chief commercial officer' - based at the Palace of Westminster - has been advertised with a salary of around £150,000. But it has been claimed the total cost of the hire will be nearer £1million over the next four years, at a time when other budgets are being squeezed. This is once pension contributions and other costs, such as a headhunting fee, are factored in. Lord Hayward, the Tory peer, also used a letter to Parliament's management to hit out at 'obfuscation' as to whether it is an 'additional role'. The appointment comes amid plans to establish a joint commercial department between the House of Commons and House of Lords. 'In the private sector merging departments normally results in a reduction of staff but it would appear not in Parliamentary management terms,' Lord Hayward wrote. The former MP also highlighted other examples of eye-watering spending, including £9.6million on a new front door that doesn't open properly. Fresh fury has been aimed at Parliament's 'unacceptable and unnecessary' spending following the hiring of a new top boss on a bumper salary. Lord Hayward added: 'At a time when all aspects of government and individuals are having to cut expenditure severely... management of the parliamentary estate seem willing to spend money on costs which any ordinary person would find unacceptable and unnecessary.' There is a new front door at the main entrance to the House of Lords, known as the Peers' Entrance, following the approval of an upgrade in March 2022. It has since sparked anger after its £9.6million cost was revealed - a nearly 60 per cent increase from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Peers said earlier this month it is still not fully accessible for disabled peers and requires a permanent member of staff on site 'to press the button to open the door'. In his letter, Lord Hayward said the 'ongoing cost of security at Peers' Entrance appears to be... more than £2,500 per week'. 'Why is the taxpayer even covering for this?,' he added. Lord Hayward also criticised the ongoing cost of employing 'traffic marshals' on the parliamentary estate, when he claimed there were 'much cheaper alternatives'. 'The most public example of this ongoing cost which management appears willing to accept is the marshal at carriage gates,' he wrote. 'They have no role. The police and security control the vehicles and public going in and out of the estate. 'This individual position doing nothing costs at minimum £66,000 per annum. 'Can I please ask when parliamentary management is intending to acknowledge that it is spending unwarranted sums while individuals, the nation and government are short of money?' A House of Lords spokesperson said: 'Providing services that are value for public money is a key priority for the House of Lords Administration, as is ensuring effective systems of governance and financial management are in place to support this. 'Our approach is subject to rigorous oversight by the House Finance and Audit and Risk Assurance Committees and is set out transparently in our annual report and accounts.'
Western Telegraph
10 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Human rights group loses challenge over jet part exports amid Gaza conflict
Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme High Court ruling But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. Defence Secretary John Healey had said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' (PA) They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Demonstrators outside the Royal Courts of Justice, central London during an earlier hearing (PA) Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard
The government has set out what the UK needs to protect itself from direct attacks in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In short, the assessment is we need to be ready to go to war – and fast. State powers – Russia today, maybe China tomorrow – have the capability to cause major damage to the UK, its economy and way of life, and we currently have no viable plans or forces to protect the country. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) recognised the threats, but did not address crucial facts, like that if faced with drone attacks of the type that Ukraine suffers almost nightly, the UK has absolutely no means of stopping them. The National Security Strategy that followed the review last week also talked about the need to bolster what it calls home defence. 'The UK is directly threatened by hostile activities including assassination, intimidation, espionage, sabotage, cyber attacks and other forms of democratic interference,' it noted. 'Meanwhile, critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs – will continue to be a target.' But neither of the reviews addressed, directly, the fact that the army cannot be deploying divisions into Europe while also defending the UK homeland – the two missions are contradictory. And neither acknowledged that the country is naked against any missile attack, so needs to actually buy something quickly. The police in the UK are not large enough or trained to undertake home defence outside of a very small range of missions. Protecting critical national infrastructure requires troops on the ground, patrolling, to provide physical protection as well as deterrence. In the Cold War, there were more than 35,000 Territorial Army troops tasked with home defence, backed up by regular army units, as well as Royal Navy and RAF units. In 1982, to increase numbers in the face of a growing Soviet threat, the Home Service Force was established, recruiting former Service personnel 'too old' to be in the TA, but still with decades of experience. I know of one HSF company in East Anglia that had a corporal who had served as a captain in the Korean War, where he had won the Military Cross – this was not uncommon. Priceless experience and knowledge, despite possibly creaky joints. Overall, in the 1980s, more than 60,000 Service personnel were tasked with defending the UK, and the US Air Force added thousands more to this mix. To put this into some perspective, the total strength, today, of the UK police forces is 170,000. So, military home defence forces would need to be at least a third of the size of the police to begin to be effective. And one has to recall that compared to the days of the Cold War, the number of vital infrastructure sites that need to be defended has grown – the internet and 5G didn't exist in the 1980s. Although the National Security Strategy suggests that the Army Reserve (the old TA) could be the centre of home defence, it is worth noting that in the late-1980s, the TA was 73,000 – today it is just over 20,000, a shadow of its former self. Elsewhere in Europe, home defence is better provisioned. In France and Italy, the Gendarmerie is over 100,000-strong, and the Carabinieri is around 110,000. Both have a range of automatic weapons, as well as some light armoured vehicles and many helicopters. Home defence in the Nordic and Baltic States is not just an adjunct to the 'real' military – it is the core of their defence policies. Finland has tested plans to mobilise up to 1 million troops, most for home defence, in time of war, and the aim is that this would be achieved in a week. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these Sweden doubled its home defence/resilience budget this year to £6bn by 2028 (aspects of military home defence are in the core defence budget, which has been rising as well) – the equivalent spend in the UK would be £15bn this financial year, and £30bn in 2028. What has hampered adult discussion of UK home defence is that as soon as anyone raises the idea, the first response is 'Dads' Army', with accompanying sniggering. But the Home Service Force was actually a success in the 1980s, getting thousands to come back into uniform, bringing their skills to the mix, in a very short number of months. The HSF didn't have to be as fit as Regulars and didn't have to have the full range of skills – this should be a model for the future, much as it is in the Nordic/Baltic States. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure, bridges and internet, are accepted as real – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these. An anti-missile system to defend just part of the UK would be £10-15bn up-front. To get an Israeli-style anti-missile system would cost over £30bn. A Home Defence Force of, say, 30,000, would cost close to £3bn in equipment, pay, infrastructure, and training every year – a fraction of what the Nordics spend on this. The heavyweight boxer, Mike Tyson, famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'. The 'punch in the mouth' for the UK, in the case of an attack on the homeland, would be the blacking out of lights, bringing down the internet, and food not getting to the supermarkets. It could also be a ballistic missile attack, causing levels of casualties not seen since the Second World War. Unthinkable? Look to Kyiv, Kherson – this is what 'normal life' is like there. Home Defence is not Dad's Army, it is about enhancing the protection of the UK's infrastructure and the lives of the inhabitants. But it comes with a cost, and a need for a portion of the UK's population to think very differently. Tough choices needed? Yes. Leadership required? Yes. Money essential? Yes. Getting these three through in the current climate will be very hard – but failure to do so leaves us all vulnerable.
