PMQs review: Will Labour's winter fuel U-turn work?
Well, you heard it here it first. The decision to cut winter fuel payments for most pensioners has proved toxic, as Labour MPs have increasingly been realising on the doorsteps and in their constituencies. This morning, George Eaton reported that the government too was coming round to the view, with whispers of a potential U-turn in the works.
That U-turn (if we can call it that – which we'll come on to in a second) was the centrepiece of today's PMQs. Answering a friendly planted question from Labour MP Sarah Owen before the main head-to-head with Kemi Badenoch, Keir Starmer delivered the news of the day.
'As the economy improves, we want to make sure people feel those improvements in their days as their lives go forward,' the Prime Minister told the House. 'That is why we want to ensure that, as we go forward, more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments.' He continued that the decision would only be announced as part of a fiscal event. So mark your diaries for 11 June, when Rachel Reeves will deliver the government's first multi-year spending review (though No 10 has hinted we might not get changes on this until the Autumn Budget.)
Quite what this means remains to be seen. No details were forthcoming in this session, despite attempts to get further answers out of the PM. Badenoch, clunkily pivoting from her pre-planned script, pressed Starmer for a yes or no answer on whether he was planning a U-turn. Ed Davey said the Prime Minister had 'teased the House', using one of his questions to ask if he would commit to reversing the winter fuel cuts in full. Unsurprisingly, Starmer simply repeated what he'd already said in both instances.
Nor did we get any clues from the Chancellor's expression. In slightly awkward timing given the major announcement concerning her brief, Reeves is now en route to a meeting of G7 finance ministers in Canada. The Treasury is understood to be looking at changing the threshold at which winter fuel payments are withdrawn, ensuring it reaches more of the most vulnerable pensioners, rather than considering restoring it as a universal benefit. Whether that will be enough to undo the damage done to Labour's popularity because of the policy isn't clear, but expect the government to sell the announcement (whatever it is) as both proof that ministers are listening to voter concerns, and as something they are only able to do thanks to good economic management since the election, which has seen the country's fortunes improve.
Starmer made a good start at this argument today, despite a barrage of questions from Badenoch – hooked off today's less than ideal inflation figures – suggesting the exact opposite. It was a belligerent session, full of accusations of who had damaged the economy more. The Prime Minister got in his usual dig about the 'disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget' and seemed to be composing a new Labour version of the Twelve Days of Christmas with talk of four Bank of England interest rate cuts, three trade deals and a growing economy (catchy). He gleefully seized on the shock poll putting the Tories in third place (more on that from me here), saying Badenoch had 'lost control of her party' and accusing the Conservatives of 'sliding into oblivion'.
Badenoch was also feeling belligerent (the poll clearly hasn't put her in a good mood). She leaned into reports of Angela Rayner petitioning the Chancellor for further tax rises, suggesting the Deputy Prime Minister was 'on manoeuvres' and demanding eight new tax rises. (Rayner's face at this moment was a picture.) Sharp observers will note the Tory leader's trap of pressing Starmer to rule out any further tax rises in this parliament, and the PM's evident failure to do so. There was some very scrappy back and forth, with Badenoch saying Labour backbenchers looked 'sick' at the government's decisions and asking for a show of hands of who had supported the winter fuel cuts, only for Starmer to quip back that his MPs 'look in pretty good form, and there's lots of them!'
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
But as is becoming increasingly commonplace at PMQs, the most dramatic moment was nothing to do with Badenoch. With Nigel Farage off on his holidays, it fell to Lee Anderson to lead the attack from Reform. The Tory MP-turned-Reform whip suggested Starmer had misled 'gullible backbenchers' about the number and nature of migrant deportations and asked how many of these had been failed asylum seekers. Again, Starmer looked like he had prepared far more for this question than for anything Badenoch had asked. He pointed out that, for all that this is an obsession for Reform, the party had voted against the borders bill the government has brought forward to tackle this illegal migration.
'They don't want to fix this problem because it benefits them,' Starmer declared, accusing Reform of putting 'party before country'. Patriotism (or lack thereof) is one of Labour's key attack lines against Nigel Farage and Reform – both in terms of Farage's closeness to Donald Trump and past admiration for Vladimir Putin, and now with a domestic slant too. Starmer was ready for a jibe against Farage and his holiday too, saying he was 'the first through the e-gates' (a reference to the EU reset deal the Reform leader had been absent for). 'Nice work if you can get it,' he added, with a pun (Nice as in the French town – get it?) that really doesn't work written down and, to be honest, did not sound brilliant in the chamber either, though it got a roar of predictable laughter anyway. No prizes for guessing who Starmer sees as Labour's main opposition today.
[See also: The EU-UK reset exposes the limits of a 'geopolitical Europe']
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's Civil Service proposals are unfair and misguided
That the Civil Service is in dire need of a shake-up is accepted, at this point, across much of Westminster. The frustrations are justified. The public sector is, as George Staunton found Imperial China, felt to be staffed by those who feel that 'everything is excellent' and 'proposals for improvement would be superfluous'. This agreement stretches only as far as the sense that something must change, however. The proposals on the table for reform are deeply contested, and potentially harmful. Labour's proposal to limit Civil Service internships to those from ' lower socio-economic backgrounds ' is a retrograde step which would impoverish the pool of talent available to ministers by restricting entry based on family circumstance, and would represent another blow to the idea that parents should work for their children's futures. The Government would be better advised to hark back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which attempted to address a Civil Service which attracted the 'unambitious', 'indolent' and 'incapable' who did not fancy 'the competition of their contemporaries', but were attracted by 'the comparative lightness of the work'. The solutions put forward included, among other things, entrance examinations open to all, merit-based promotion, and ensuring that civil servants were fully employed to the full extent of their abilities. Such an embrace of meritocracy would surely be morally and practically preferable to further clumsy attempts at social engineering.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
PM's plan to recognise Palestinian state could 'harm' hostages, families say
British families of hostages taken by Hamas have urged the prime minister to change course on the governments plans to recognise the state of Palestine, saying the policy could "even hurt" those still being held in Gaza. Earlier this week, Starmer said the UK would take the step of recognising Palestine in September ahead of the UN General Assembly unless Israel meets certain conditions. Members of four British families met with Foreign Office officials on Thursday night seeking clarification on whether conditions would also be placed on Hamas, their lawyers said in a statement. 'However, it was clear from the meeting last night that the British government's policy will not help the hostages, and could even hurt them,' they said. 'We do not say this lightly, but it was made obvious to us at the meeting that although the conditions for recognising a Palestinian state would be assessed 'in the round' in late-September, in deciding whether to go ahead with recognition, the release or otherwise of the hostages would play no part in those considerations. 'In other words, the 'vision for peace' which the UK is pursuing… may well involve our clients' family members continuing to rot in Hamas dungeons.' Starmer said the UK would only refrain from recognising Palestine if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. While he also called for Hamas to immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and 'accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza', he did not explicitly say these would factor into whether recognition would go ahead. The families have a range of views on what the future political settlement should look like but their priority is to keep the hostages 'above political games,' their lawyers said. They are now urging the prime minister to 'change course before it is too late'. 'At a minimum, the British hostage families request that the government confirm that without the hostages being released, there can be no peace, and that this will be an important part of its decision as to whether to proceed with recognition and its current plan.' The families of Ms Damari and freed hostage Eli Sharabi were among those who met with the Foreign Office. Also present were relatives of Nadav Popplewell, who died while held captive, as well as those of Oded Lifshitz, who died, and Yocheved Lifschitz, who was released. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said that the UK will not get into a 'to and fro' with Hamas over the recognition plans and that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists, Hamas are terrorists'. US President Donald Trump disagrees with Starmer plans, as well as those of France and Canada, which have also pledged their countries will recognise Palestine. 'He feels as though that's rewarding Hamas at a time where Hamas is the true impediment to a ceasefire and to the release of all of the hostages,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office has been contacted for comment.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Donald Trump's latest Liberation Day means another dark day for America
Precisely what poor, benighted Syria and prosperous, neutral Switzerland have done to deserve US tariffs of 41 per cent and 39 per cent respectively is hard to discern. Neither is the kind of industrial superpower that represents a threat to America's economic hegemony, and both would, in their different ways, prefer to stay on reasonably good terms with the Trump White House. It is, sadly, easier to see why Canada got whacked with a 35 per cent levy on some of its exports – and Donald Trump's tariff tactics do have a hint of the mob about them. Mr Trump suggested that Canada's decision to recognise the state of Palestine as a sovereign nation would make it harder to achieve a trade deal, and he also mentioned the scourge of fentanyl. But then again, Mexico, which has also recognised Palestine and is by far the more important source of the drug, has been granted a 90-day tariff reprieve. Ever since the opening salvo in the Trump tariff war on 2 April – so-called Liberation Day – the shifting schedules and random pauses have lacked both rhyme and reason. Even at the time, their supposed 'reciprocity' was ridiculed. They have generated huge uncertainty, and, for a time, did so much damage to the dollar and US Treasuries on the capital markets that even Mr Trump had to make a tactical retreat. In fact, the US president's observed tendency to cave in whenever a trading 'partner' showed any sign of resistance led to the unwelcome 'Taco' sobriquet – 'Trump Always Chickens Out'. Some countries, such as the UK, Japan and the EU member states, have breathed a sigh of relief that they have escaped the worst, while others – often impoverished ones with no diplomatic leverage, such as Bangladesh and Lesotho – will find it difficult to cope with tariffs that are now considered moderate, but would have seemed shocking even a few years ago. Yet the game, even now, is not over. China – the second-largest economy in the world, and America's most formidable rival – has been left out of this supposedly final list of tariff increases. The trade talks between the two economic giants in Stockholm are dragging on, the prohibitive mutual tariffs having been abandoned, and they may well be extended past the next deadline of 12 August. President Trump met his match in Xi Jinping, and will not be imposing any further punitive trade sanctions on China for fear of another tit-for-tat escalation. Thus far, the markets have received the latest news of tariffs with some equanimity, but a collapse in trade between the world's two greatest economies would generate the kind of turmoil Mr Trump doesn't need right now. Even assuming that the eventual trade truce with China avoids disaster, these US tariffs are, in broad terms, the highest since 1934 and the era of the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which helped to strangle world trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. The Trump tariffs are no less damaging to world trade, and thus to economic growth, including that of the United States. But these restrictions on trade are what Mr Trump's Maga 'base' voted for, the folk memory of the previous disastrous experiment with tariffs having faded. The president's winning slogan was 'America First', epitomising a zero-sum, nationalistic view of the world, and unfortunately, he has proved as good as his word on inauguration day: 'Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.' Words that were both misguided and economically illiterate, naturally – but a promise kept. Many of the worst fears of America's friends and allies are coming true in these early months of Mr Trump's second term. With far more preparation than took place prior to his first term (which followed an election that, reputedly, he never expected to win), the US president has pressed on with his protectionist, isolationist, natalist agenda with speed and determination, surrounded by mostly underqualified, grotesquely sycophantic cronies. The judiciary is increasingly cowed, and Congress is listless in defending the constitution. The tendency to Caesarism is apparent in everything from the theatrical executive orders to the grandiose golden remodelling of the White House, and the contempt for the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell – a 'moron', apparently. Mr Trump thinks he can, with a stroke of a Sharpie, abolish the birthright to citizenship enshrined in the 14th amendment, passed in 1868. His conception of 'America First' is more America Alone, yet everything he does weakens American power and prosperity. It is an inward-looking, selfish, exclusionary approach. Undoubtedly it enjoys a political constituency, but ultimately it will prove self-defeating.
