PM ‘incapable of sticking to a decision' after welfare U-turn
The reforms would only have made 'modest reductions to the ballooning welfare bill', but Sir Keir Starmer was 'too weak to hold the line', the Conservative Party leader is expected to say.
In a speech to the Local Government Association Annual Conference in Liverpool on Wednesday, Ms Badenoch will criticise Sir Keir for creating a 'punishing welfare trap that shuts people out of going back to work'.
'This week, the Prime Minister backed down on limited reforms that would have made modest reductions to the ballooning welfare bill,' she will say.
'He was too weak to hold the line.
'The result? A punishing welfare trap that shuts people out of going back to work.
'Right now, Labour are making everything worse. And Keir Starmer sums up exactly what's wrong with politics today.
'Now that his backbenchers smell blood, there's almost certainly another climb down on the two-child benefit cap in the offing.
'Labour told us 'the adults were back in charge', but this is actually amateur hour. The Prime Minister is incapable of sticking to a decision.
'If he can't make relatively small savings to a benefits bill that is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, how can we expect him to meet his promised 5% defence spending, or ever take the tough decisions necessary to bring down the national debt?'
On Saturday, the Prime Minister told the Welsh Labour conference the 'broken' welfare system must be fixed 'in a Labour way'.
In a speech to the Welsh Labour conference, he said: 'We cannot take away the safety net that vulnerable people rely on, and we won't, but we also can't let it become a snare for those who can and want to work,' the Prime Minister said.
'Everyone agrees that our welfare system is broken: failing people every day, a generation of young people written off for good and the cost spiralling out of control.
'Fixing it is a moral imperative, but we need to do it in a Labour way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Judge me on my record, 18-year-old Warwickshire council leader says
An 18-year-old acting leader of a county council has urged people to judge him on his actions rather than his age. George Finch took temporary charge of Warwickshire County Council after the Reform UK leader stood down on Wednesday. He now oversees a local authority with £1.5bn of assets and a revenue budget of about £500m. The unusual situation has sparked debate, with his party calling it a proud moment and Labour and the Conservatives questioning his experience. Finch, a councillor for Bedworth and the local Reform UK chairman, has not ruled out running for the top job on a permanent basis. He said his track record was pretty good. Reform made unprecedented gains in Warwickshire in May's local elections, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives. They became the largest party and formed a minority Howard, who had been leader for 41 days, said he was quitting as council leader with "much regret" due to health reasons. Finch had been his deputy and will serve as interim until a new leader has been chosen, as per the council's constitution. Finch, who also serves as portfolio holder for children and families, said he hoped people would be able to see past his age. "The people of Bedworth Central elected me with a thumping majority of 1,100," he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service. "Don't judge me on my age, judge me on what I do. At the moment, my track record is pretty good."As party chairman I got 13 out of 13 candidates elected. "All of the things we needed to do to prepare for the elections, they speak volumes." Jaymey McIvor, an Essex county councillor and Reform UK local government spokesperson, praised Finch for taking over and getting on with the job. He said Warwickshire councillors were focused on issues such as fixing potholes and improving access to skills in deprived areas. "I was able to see councillor Finch in action," he told the BBC's Politics Midlands programme. "He was very professional."I think we should actually be quite proud that a young British man, who has been elected to office to represent his community, has found himself in a very senior position."Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston Preet Gill said the people of Warwickshire "frankly deserve better". "This is not work experience," she said. "This is not about learning on the job. "With all due respect, at 18 you will not know how to deliver adult social care, children social care [and] SEND services." Mike Wood, the Conservative MP for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, was more apprehensive. He said he had previously been a local councillor, and it was a tough job."It really would take a quite remarkable 18-year-old to go straight from sixth form to running a large local authority with a half a billion pound budget with no previous experience," he said. Watch Politics Midlands on BBC One in the West Midlands at 10:00 BST on Sunday. The show will be available on iPlayer BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Crawley Labour MP Peter Lamb says welfare bill could be defeated
The Welfare Reform Bill could still be defeated at its second reading despite concessions from the government, a Labour MP has to BBC Politics South East, Peter Lamb, MP for Crawley in West Sussex, said: "I don't think it's inconceivable that we'll get back up to the numbers which potentially result in the bill being killed."Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced new stricter criteria would only apply to new claimants and reversed plans to freeze the health-related component of universal credit, with it rising in line with inflation for existing government said it had listened to the rebels but "what we all agree on is that we have to reform the broken system". Lamb said: "I'm part of a reasonably-sized group of people who are very clear that the conditions are still not acceptable."Responding to the changes the government has promised, he said: "This is ultimately still a cost-cutting measure and that means however they try and co-produce the system for these new people moving forwards, we're going to be taking billions of pounds out of the pockets of people with high levels of vulnerability when there are better alternatives on the table."Asked whether that meant the government could not rest easy, he replied: "They shouldn't rest easy because the proposals are not acceptable." Lamb said he would vote against the bill, regardless of a three-line whip."I will be a Labour MP when I vote down these proposals," he it was put to him that he might not be a Labour MP after the vote, he replied: "I'll be living up to the spirit of the party".He said he believed the government should invest instead in a preventative approach to mental health, which he said takes up 50% of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) he said he had not been listened to."I have made this argument for three months, three and a half months, at every possible level, and you can see the eyes glaze over," he told the BBC. On Friday, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: "Sometimes there is strength in listening. You end up in the right position when you talk to all of those with knowledge and experience."We've more to do to talk to the people over the coming days, but this plan is rooted in Labour values: work for those who can, security for those that can't."I am very hopeful that we'll get this bill through the House." Politics South East is on BBC1 at 10:00 BST on Sunday, then on the iPlayer.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
