Labour MPs signal rebellion over welfare cuts
A number of Labour MPs have said they will vote against the government's proposed cuts to disability benefits.
Nine Labour MPs voiced concern over the government's plans to make it harder for people with less severe conditions to claim disability payments during a debate on Wednesday.
Calls to rethink the benefits cuts, as well as other policies, have been growing after Labour lost 187 council seats during the local election last week.
Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms told the MPs the goal of the reforms was to make sure the welfare system was "financially sustainable in the long term".
In March, the government announced a major welfare shake-up aimed at saving money and supporting people who can work to find jobs.
Ministers said changes to a key disability benefit called personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit (UC) would save around £5bn a year by the end of 2030 and get more people into work.
Overall, the government spends £65bn a year on health and disability-related benefits. Before the government announced the Pip and UC changes, this was projected to increase to £100bn by 2029.
The government estimated that 3.2 million families could be worse off as a result of the reforms, while 3.8 million families will be better off by 2030.
The government is expected to pass a new law to make the welfare changes, giving MPs a chance to vote on the plans.
Backbench discontent
Speaking during the debate in Westminster Hall, Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, said the government was "making a conscious choice to balance its books on the backs of people on welfare".
Ian Byrne, who represents Liverpool West Derby, said he would "swim through vomit to vote against" proposed welfare changes.
Labour MPs Richard Burgon, Rachael Maskell, Andy McDonald, Cat Eccles, Nadia Whittome, Imran Hussain, Steve Witherden and Ian Lavery also said they would vote against the government's proposals.
They were joined by John McDonnell, an independent MP for Hayes and Harlington who had the whip removed by Labour for rebelling against the government over the two-child benefit cap.
A number of other Labour MPs have also indicated they are minded to oppose the benefits cuts in comments at events, in articles for local papers, as well as on social media.
Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms defended the proposals, saying it was not sustainable for welfare spending to rise at the current rate.
"The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards, high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change," he said.
"We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well."
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has come under increasing pressure to change course on some policy decisions.
At Prime Minister Questions on Wednesday, Sir Keir defended the decision to axe winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.
It came after a group of about 45 Labour MPs representing seats in northern England and the Midlands joined those urging the government to rethink the move.
The planned changes to disability benefits could become the next big political flashpoint, with legislation likely to be brought to the House of Commons in June.
The BBC has been told some potential rebels are being assured they won't lose the party whip if they abstain – or make themselves scarce – when the vote comes.
The government is not at risk of defeat, given Labour has a large majority, but a sizable rebellion could show the extent of the discontent within the party.
Senior minister Pat McFadden said "we have to win the fight for Britain's future" while speaking at the Parliamentary Labour Party's first gathering since the local elections, party sources said.
The Cabinet Office minister criticised Reform UK, including the new mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, Dame Andrea Jenkyns, who said her party would "reset Britain to its glorious past" in her victory speech.
McFadden said: "Labour is always at its best when we look to the future. This is the fight of our lives, this is the generational fight in this new political era.
"I want to tell you we have to take on this new fight for the future - and we have to win."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves Unveils Record NHS Cash Boost As She Turns On The Spending Taps
Rachel Reeves has announced a record-breaking cash boost for the NHS as she went on a huge spending spree to secure a second term in office for Labour. The chancellor said the health service will receive an extra £29 billion a year from the Treasury – a rise of 3% after inflation. It means that health secretary Wes Streeting is the big winner from her spending review, which sets out Whitehall budgets for the next three years. She said previously-announced changes to her fiscal rules, allowing her to borrow more for major infrastructure projects, have allowed her to allocate £190 billion more to the day-to-day running of public services. On her plans for the NHS, she said: 'I am proud to announce today that this Labour government is making a record cash investment in our NHS, increasing real-terms, day to day spending by 3% per year for every year of this spending review. 'An extra £29bn per year for the day to day running of the health service. That is what the British people voted for and that is what we will deliver: more appointments, more doctors, more scanners. 'The National Health Service: created, by a Labour government, protected, by a Labour government and renewed by this Labour government.' Effectively firing the starting gun on the next general election campaign, the chancellor said her spending review would 'deliver the priorities of the British people'. Reeves said that overall, Whitehall budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms. But with the NHS and the Ministry of Defence receiving the biggest increases, it means other departments will see their budgets squeezed. The MoD will receive an extra £11bn increase, meaning military spending will hit 2.6% of gross domestic product (GDP) by April 2027 – slightly more than had been previously announced. Reeves also confirmed previously-announced plans to spend £39 billion on a 10-year affordable house building programme, £15bn improving transport links in the north and Midlands, and £14bn for the new Sizewell C nuclear plant. She said she was 'increasing police spending power by an average 2.3% per year in real terms', but that is unlikely to be enough to satisfy police chiefs who wanted substantially more. Throwing down the gauntlet to the Tories and Reform, Reeves said: 'I've made my choices. Tough decisions, yes, for stability. Changing Britain's fiscal rules, yes, for investment. 'And today, delivering that investment – for the renewal of Britain. Now it is time for the parties opposite to make their choices' Labour To Scrap Asylum Seeker Hotels By 2029, Rachel Reeves Announces Rachel Reeves Monsters Nigel Farage For Backing Liz Truss's Disastrous Mini-Budget Rachel Reeves Announces £39 Billion Housing Boost As She Vows To 'Renew' Britain
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Britain's pensions mess won't be resolved by the latest stab at reform
It's the absence of ambition that really gets me. Labour may be trailing badly in the polls, yet there are still four years to go before the Prime Minister has to call another election, and for the time being he commands the sort of majority that would normally allow him to do truly radical things. But he doesn't. Instead, ministers sit on their hands, seemingly frightened of their own shadows, and allow Reform UK, with just a handful of MPs, to make all the running. Nigel Farage is probably right to claim that without Reform snapping at its heels, the Government would not have about-turned on the winter fuel allowance. Yet it is not just on entitlement spending that the Government appears incapable of doing anything of significance. On wider pension reform too, there's little sign of the resolve needed for meaningful change. The Government's Pension Schemes Bill – published last week – is more notable for what it doesn't do than the changes it seeks to bring about. This may seem a little unfair. There are few areas of public policy where the old joke that 'you wouldn't start from here' more aptly applies than pensions. Decades of meddling has left the UK with a hopelessly confused array of different pension arrangements that collectively fail to serve the country as they should. It is also fair to say that there is no silver bullet likely to deliver optimum outcomes. Let's take gold-plated, final-salary public sector pensions, widely thought to be unfair on the great hinterland of taxpayers who don't enjoy such perks but are required to underwrite them. These are left completely unaffected by the new pensions legislation. Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, said last week that the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' defined benefit pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes common to much of the private sector. Sadly, this is much easier said than done, which is why successive governments have – beyond trimming benefits a little – steered clear of significant reform. Putting public sector workers on the same basis as those in the private sector might sound fair enough in principle, but it would be hugely challenging in practice, and not just because unions would throw their toys out of the pram at the mere whiff of it. Public sector pensions have been compared to a Ponzi scheme, in that retirees are paid from the contributions of those still in employment. But actually the two things are quite different. In a Ponzi scheme, the existing investor doesn't know that their promised return is being paid not from investment gains but from funds collected from new investors. The arrangement is therefore fraudulent. But with public sector pensions the process is completely transparent. What's more, these pay-as-you-go arrangements conform much more exactly with the founding principle of occupational pensions than the defined contribution model – namely that the employee pays for the retirement income of his predecessor rather than saving for his own pension. Go back to the origins of the modern-day pension, and in some professions the individual job would be sold by the incumbent to the new entrant as a way of funding retirement. Alternatively, the newcomer would agree to pay his predecessor a proportion of his income for a set number of years. If you were lucky, the old codger would quickly pop his clogs. These days, workers can expect to live 20 years or more in retirement, making the arithmetic of pay-as-you-go pension arrangements much more challenging. The last set of 'Whole of Government Accounts' showed the total present value of public sector pension liabilities at a jaw-dropping £1.415 trillion. This was down from £2.639 trillion the year before, a fall accounted for largely by the fact that owing to higher interest rates many local authority pension schemes have swung into surplus. For unfunded public sector pensions, however, there is still a massive and rising liability. If this had to be paid all in one go, it would pretty much bankrupt the country. Yet in practice, it is spread out over decades, and ought therefore to be manageable assuming contributions are raised in line with outgoings. The more important number is perhaps therefore the difference between what employees and employers are paying into their schemes and what is being paid out in retirement benefits. This has been in negative territory for some years now – more money going out than in – making public sector pensions a net cost to the taxpayer. The shortfall is expected to be around £1.6bn for last financial year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a swing back into surplus from here on in, reaching a net positive of £3.6bn by 2030. Where it heads after that is anyone's guess. If the Government succeeds in cutting the public sector headcount, it may well turn significantly negative again. But the point is that this is hardly an emergency for the public finances. If on the other hand all public sector workers were put, as Tice suggests, on defined contribution arrangements – where contributions are invested into a personal pension pot – it would quickly become one, as there would be no money coming in to fund those already in retirement. Taxes would have to rise significantly in the short to medium term to fund the gap. Furthermore, to properly compensate public sector employees for giving up their present, very favourable pension arrangements, you would need significantly to increase their pay, further adding to the travails of the public finances. As on much else, Reform doesn't seem to have thought things through. Best, perhaps, not to poke that particular hornets' nest. Of course, the Government's Pensions Schemes Bill doesn't touch on these concerns. Rather it is about private sector pensions, and in particular it is about attempting to get them to invest more in productive UK assets, forcibly if necessary. Personally, I see nothing particularly wrong with this objective provided it is not pushed to extremes. The UK is almost unique in how little its pension funds invest in home-grown equities and infrastructure, and indeed in the lack of coercion currently applied. Given the tax breaks this form of saving enjoys, it's reasonable to expect investors to give something back. But there is also a good reason why trustees are as reluctant as they are; it is because relative to the alternatives, the returns on British assets are low. It's chicken and egg, and perfectly explains why the London Stock Market is dying on its feet. It's not lack of a big stick; it's lack of opportunity. Breaking this vicious circle of decline requires not Labour's go-to solution for all challenges of this sort – strong-arming investors into doing what they don't want to do – but making the UK an attractive place to invest. Much work to be done on that front, I fear. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
UK government hopes to regain political initiative as Treasury chief outlines spending plans
LONDON (AP) — Britain's Labour government hopes to regain the political initiative Wednesday when Treasury chief Rachel Reeves sets out her spending plans for the coming years, with big increases expected for health, defense and housing. Reeves, who has been blamed by many for Labour's decline in popularity since it returned to power after 14 years in July, will outline the government's spending and investment priorities for lawmakers. There will be no tax announcements. Reeves is expected to argue the government is on the path to 'renewing Britain' but that 'too many people in too many parts of the country are yet to feel it,' according to remarks issued by the Treasury. 'This government's task — my task — and the purpose of this spending review is to change that, to ensure that renewal is felt in people's everyday lives, their jobs, their communities," she is expected to tell lawmakers. Labour won a landslide victory last year on a slogan of 'change' and voter anger at the Conservative administration in power at the time, but its vote share was historically low for a winning party at 35%. In the months since, Labour has been overtaken in opinion polls by the anti-immigration and recently formed Reform UK. Reeves has been blamed by many for Labour's struggles, not least her decision in July to withdraw a winter fuel subsidy to all but the poorest retirees. The outcry, which contributed to Labour's poor performance in recent local elections, prompted Reeves to about-turn and raise the threshold at which retirees will get the subsidy. She and Prime Minister Keir Starmer will hope the change will stem the anger and focus voters on other issues, such as its spending priorities. Among the main announcements is expected to be a 30 billion-pound ($41 billion) increase in funding for Britain's cherished but struggling National Health Service, as well as a rise in defense spending that will account for 2.5% of national output by 2027. Billions more are expected for social housing as the government aims to meet its target of building 1.5 million new homes by the next election. However, some departments are set to lose out after accounting for inflation, including local government, the justice system and the Home Office. Reeves has insisted she won't go on a big splurge, arguing that all her spending plans will meet her self-imposed fiscal rules. After raising taxes on business in her first budget last October, Reeves will find it difficult to swell the Treasury's coffers further in coming years as Labour won the election on a promise it would not increase income or sales taxes. And with the British economy still growing at historically low levels, the tax take is not expected to get a big lift. Reeves will hope her investment plans can help change that.
