
After the winter fuel decision, Labour is now openly at war with itself
Keir Starmer's partial U-turn on the winter fuel allowance has not resolved his problems. He was right to do it – but it has opened the door to further such demands.
It has also thrown a spotlight on a debate raging inside his party, which goes to the highest level of the government. Labour is at war with itself over tax and spending.
The relief among Labour MPs about Starmer's retreat is palpable. They tell me they will finally have something to say on the doorsteps when voters put their hand up and tell them they are wasting their breath because of 'winter fuel'. As one put it: 'We will now get past the hand and at least get a chance to make our case.' Ministers admit privately that the government was not getting a hearing.
However, there is dismay on the Labour backbenches that Starmer announced his about-turn without being able to say whether it would take effect in the coming winter. Labour MPs are demanding immediate clarification on the timing, saying any gain from the U-turn will be wiped out if the pain of uncertainty is not lifted until the Budget in October – which might be too late to implement it this winter. That would be untenable.
Rachel Reeves will now come under intense pressure to say more about winter fuel when she unveils her government-wide spending review on 11 June. The chancellor doesn't want to turn it into a 'fiscal event', after vowing to have only one each year in the Budget, but the public does not give a fig about Treasury niceties. As a bare minimum, she must confirm that more old people will definitely get the winter fuel payment this winter, and ideally reveal how many.
Another rethink is coming – on child poverty. Labour MPs insist the party cannot fight the next election with graphs showing it has risen over this five-year parliament – and, rightly, judge that a last-minute push to reduce it a year before the election would be seen as cynical by voters.
Ending the controversial two-child benefit cap introduced by George Osborne is at the top of their list, as it drags more children into poverty each year. Starmer himself is now said to be in favour of scrapping the limit – unusually, putting him at odds with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, according to Bloomberg. Insiders tell me it may be softened rather than abolished, at a cost of £2.5bn – for example, by turning it into a three-child cap or excluding the under-fives.
Far from the winter fuel move defusing the backbench revolt over disability and sickness benefit cuts as ministers had hoped, Labour MPs feel emboldened to demand concessions ahead of a vote on them next month. They are increasingly hopeful of winning some concessions to reduce the number of people pushed into poverty by the changes – 250,000, including 50,000 children, on the government's own figures.
The deal to spend £3.4bn on handing the Chagos Islands to Mauritius will only increase such pressure. 'When are we going to start acting like a Labour government?' one MP asked wearily.
There are tensions between Reeves and cabinet colleagues as the spending review negotiations reach a climax. Some ministers insist they will struggle to meet the pay rises of between 3.6 per cent and 6 per cent for two million public sector workers announced on Thursday. The Treasury will fund a 2.8 per cent increase, leaving departments to stump up about £2bn.
The tensions have been heightened by the explosive leak of Angela Rayner's proposals to raise taxes for the better-off. That they would potentially raise enough to make the £5bn of welfare cuts unnecessary is surely purely coincidental.
The battle for the succession is underway and won't stop now. Although Starmer will almost certainly lead his party into the next general election, Rayner has put down a marker as the question could be reopened if the dire poll ratings of the PM and his party have not improved in two years.
Everything the deputy prime minister does from now on will be viewed through this prism, which will not help Labour display unity. She must walk a fine line. She has made her point to establish herself as leader of Labour's soft left. My guess is that her detailed tax plans are intended to allay fears among doubters that she lacks the credibility to be prime minister. But repeated disloyalty could damage her chances in the future leadership stakes.
Starmer is desperate to talk up an improving economy so the government can take off its self-imposed spending straitjacket and point voters to some tangible benefits of Labour rule. After overdoing the doom and gloom, ministers seem to have swung to the opposite end of the spectrum. But there is no guarantee that one quarter of economic growth, at 0.7 per cent, will be repeated. Reeves still faces a difficult struggle to stick to her fiscal rules, so the scope for good news announcements will be limited.
After the winter fuel decision, Labour MPs have got the taste for sweeteners. But as a spending squeeze looms next month, followed by tax rises in the next Budget, Starmer and Reeves will have to take more unpalatable and unpopular decisions.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Children could be banned from spending more than two hours on any one phone app and blocked from social media after 10pm in new anti-doomscrolling measures
The government is considering measures to ban children from spending more than two hours on any one mobile phone app at a time. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is mulling a move to cap the amount of time per app youngsters can spend on their phone as part of a swathe of measures designed to reduce 'doomscrolling'. The package could also include preventing children from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, after 10pm and during school hours. 'My approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online,' Mr Kyle told the Mirror. 'That's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline.' He is focused on exploring how curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps as a starting point and is aware such measures may not solve the problem entirely. The MP for Hove and Portslade has reportedly held discussions with former and current employees of social media sites, who are open to the idea of preventing access to apps at night or during school. They are also said to be willing to restrict how long children can use an app for, by blocking access once they have reached a certain time limit. There have been suggestions this could be up to two hours. However, Mr Kyle has not yet made a decision on what age bracket these changes could apply to, according to The Mirror. He is also reportedly exploring raising the age at which children consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. This currently applies to youngsters aged 13 and above, although ministers could raise this to 16. Mr Kyle has previously said that he has taken a keen interest in TikTok's recent introduction of various tools to limit screen time. These include a 10pm curfew for under-16s, which features the device screen being taken over and calming music played, although the tool can be dismissed to continue using the app. Another tool, Time Away, allows parents to set specific times that TikTok is available on their teen's devices. Children can request extra time to remain on the app, but their parents must approve it. Mr Kyle said he wanted to see evidence of how these tools are helping young people before implementing anything, but said he was especially interested in anything that will 'empower parents' to control how long their children are spending on social media platforms. Experts have long cited social media as a factor that can disrupt young people's sleep, relationships and socialisation skills. Data from the Millennium Cohort study, published last January, revealed 48 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds felt they had lost control over how much time they spent online. A team at the University of Cambridge examined data from the study which tracks the lives of 19,000 Britons born in 2000-2002. When those in the cohort were aged between 16 and 18, they were asked about their social media use. The survey revealed 48 per cent of the 7,000 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'I think I am addicted to social media.' Girls were most affected with 57 per cent agreeing, compared with 37 per cent of boys, according to the data reported by the Guardian.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
NHS set for boost of up to £30bn as other budgets feel squeeze
The NHS is expected to receive a funding boost of up to £30 billion in the spending review next week at the expense of other public services. The Department of Health is set to be handed a 2.8% annual increase in its day-to-day budget over a three-year period. The cash injection, which amounts to a rise of about £30 billion by 2028, or £17 billion in real terms, will see other areas including police and councils squeezed, The Times newspaper reported. Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to ensure that by the next election 92% of patients in England waiting for planned treatment are seen within 18 weeks of being referred. Latest NHS data suggests around 60% of people are currently seen in this time and figures released last month showed the overall number of patients on waiting lists had risen slightly from 6.24 million to 6.25 million. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has acknowledged that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. She insisted the blame for the tight economic situation lay with the Conservatives rather than her rigid rules on borrowing and spending. The Chancellor said despite a £190 billion increase in funding over the spending review period 'not every department will get everything that they want next week and I have had to say no to things that I want to do too'. On top of the increase in day-to-day spending, funded in part by the tax hikes Ms Reeves set out in her budget, looser borrowing rules will help support a £113 billion investment package. Economists have warned the Chancellor faces 'unavoidably' tough choices when she sets out departmental spending plans on June 11. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank said defence and the NHS will dominate the review, raising the prospect of cuts to other unprotected departments.