What benefit cuts has Sir Keir Starmer backtracked on?
Sir Keir Starmer will mark his first year in government in eight days.
But one of the Prime Minister's largest – and most controversial – policy plans is in tatters.
Sir Keir hoped to save money and incentivise work by passing a bill making deep cuts to welfare, such as restricting who can access Personal Independence Payments (Pip).
Disability and anti-poverty campaigners told Metro the plans would push more sick and disabled people into poverty, while 120 rebel Labour MPs have refused to vote for it.
Yet the PM has been forced to do a humiliating U-turn after meeting with key rebels last night.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill would tighten who can receive Pip, which is designed to support disabled people, whether or not they are in work.
Pip is a two-part benefit – a sickness-related daily living component of at least £73.90 a week and a mobility component of at least £29.20.
The former helps people who struggle to do tasks like cooking meals, using the toilet or washing and bathing.
The Government wanted to limit who can access the daily living payment by increasing the eligibility requirements from November 26.
Universal Credit, a bundle of various benefits, would also have been restricted under the plans.
Claimants who have limited capacity to work because of a disability or long-term condition can get an extra top-up worth £423.27. The proposals would have restricted eligibility to those aged 22 and over.
All in all, the measures would have seen 1,200,000 disabled people lose up to £6,300 by 2030.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told rebel MPs that now, Pip and UC claimants will continue receiving what they currently get.
Instead, only future claimants will face the higher eligibility requirements.
A review into the welfare system involving disabled groups and a package of employment support measures has also been promised, according to The Guardian.
A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system.
'This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, supports those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.
'Our reforms are underpinned by Labour values and our determination to deliver the change the country voted for last year.'
The rebels, for one, are relieved. One told The Guardian: 'They've offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.
Another added: 'We always wanted to protect the most vulnerable, not to destroy the bill or cause the government trouble. We always hoped there would be an off-ramp, and that's what we have now.'
The selling point of the bill was simple – save £5billion.
But the turnaround means that about £3billion will be saved instead, which economists warn won't give Chancellor Rachel Reeves much wiggle room in her Autumn statement.
Tax rises or cuts elsewhere, they said, might be needed to plug the gap.
Campaigners, however, had mixed feelings about the news.
Ayla Ozmen, director of policy and campaigns at anti-poverty charity Z2K told Metro: 'It's right that the government has protected current PIP claimants, but we still have very serious concerns about the plans.
'The risk of trying work for current claimants could become even greater, as if it doesn't work out, people may risk being pushed into deep poverty with no way back. And for future claimants, the system will offer even less protection from poverty.'
'Instead of focusing on fending off a rebellion, the government must do what is right for disabled people and go back to the drawing board.'
Charlotte Gill, the head of campaigns and public affairs at the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society, however, was ALSO unimpressed.
She said: 'Instead of meaningful action, all they're doing is kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster.
'Down the line, these cuts will still push more people into poverty and worsen people's health. We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful bill with supposed concessions.
'The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the bill in its tracks.'
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: I was punished for not telling my boss about my disability
MORE: The secret choice Starmer has already made to save the UK from nuclear war
MORE: If Britain went to war I wouldn't hesitate to enlist
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
6 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Welfare reforms strike ‘right balance' after U-turn, says Starmer
Speaking for the first time after Downing Street agreed a series of concessions on its welfare policy, the Prime Minister said the climbdown followed a 'constructive discussion' with Labour rebels. He told broadcasters on Friday: 'The most important thing is that we can make the reform we need. 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right. 'For me, getting that package adjusted in that way is the right thing to do, it means it's the right balance, it's common sense that we can now get on with it.' Earlier, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the party was in 'a good place' on welfare reform, after offering concessions to rebels late on Thursday. Some 126 Labour MPs had signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on Tuesday. Leading rebels now believe the concessions on offer, which include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, will be enough to win over a majority. However, the fallout threatens to cause lasting damage, as harder line rebels remain opposed to the legislation and some backbenchers have called for a reset of relations between Number 10 and the parliamentary party. But the reversal means Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces a scramble to fill a potential hole in her budget this autumn, with the cuts now likely to save much less than the £4.8 billion the Government had expected. Economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation have both suggested the changes could reduce that figure by up to £3 billion. But Downing Street has so far declined to set out its own figures for how much it now expects to save, or to say how the shortfall will be covered beyond insisting there would be no 'permanent' increase in borrowing and refusing to rule out tax rises. Facing questions about the climbdown on Friday, Ms Kendall denied suggestions she had found it 'difficult' to water down reforms she had so strenuously defended and said the concessions left the Bill in 'the right place'. 'We have listened to people, we have engaged with them,' she said. 'I think we're in a good place now, alongside the huge investments we are putting in to create the jobs that people need in every part of the country… but also to make sure there's employment support for those who can work and protections for those who can't.' The Government has also left the door open to further reform down the line, with Ms Kendall saying there need to be 'changes in the future' to ensure 'people who can work do'. The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, as well as cutting the health-related element of universal credit. Existing recipients were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition. Now, the changes to Pip will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The concessions on Pip alone protect some 370,000 people currently receiving the allowance who were set to lose out following reassessment. The changes represent a major climbdown for the Prime Minister, just days after he insisted to reporters he would 'press on' with the cuts, arguing there was a 'moral case' for them. Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, hailed the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms. She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.' But not all the rebels have been satisfied with the changes, with several suggesting they would create a 'two-tier system' and raising questions about who would be classified as a new claimant after November 2026. One told the PA news agency that discontent and low morale among the backbenches would 'continue to fester' without a 'wider reset' of relations between Number 10 and the Parliamentary Labour Party. Another accused decision-makers in Government of operating as an 'exclusive club' and showing 'disregard' for both its MPs and experts outside Westminster, while some claimed Dame Meg had failed to include other backbenchers in her negotiations. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the U-turn, saying the Government's failure to make 'minor savings' on welfare showed they were unable to deal with major issues. Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling said his party would continue opposing the Bill, saying the proposed cuts would still 'cause immense damage to some of the most vulnerable'. There was mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. But the MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'.
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer used to stand up for the kinds of protesters he now labels terrorists
Two days before the missiles started raining down on Baghdad in March 2003, Josh Richards packed a mixture of petrol and washing-up liquid into his rucksack and headed off to RAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire. His plan was to set fire to the wheels of a B-52 USAF bomber to prevent it from joining in the imminent shock and awe. He was caught before he could act, but he was not the only person with the idea of mounting a last-ditch attempt to hinder a war which many considered illegal. A few days earlier, Margaret Jones and Paul Milling had cut their way into the same airbase and damaged a number of fuel tankers and bomb trailers. Another two men in their thirties, Phil Pritchard and Toby Olditch, armed themselves with paint, nuts and bolts, with the intention of damaging the bombers' engines. Today, this group of five would be labelled terrorists. See the government's reaction last week when pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and – just like their earlier counterparts at Fairford – damaged two military planes with red paint. "A disgraceful act of vandalism," said the prime minister, Keir Starmer. Within days, home secretary Yvette Cooper was on her feet in the House of Commons announcing that the group involved, Palestine Action, would be added to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. If you dare donate so much as a fiver to it in future, you will be committing a crime. Twenty-odd years ago, we lived in a kinder, gentler age. Society was not so harsh in their judgements about the group which became known as the Fairford Five. The protestors lawyered up and their briefs decided on an original defence, arguing that their actions were justified, morally and legally, because they were aimed at preventing a greater evil – ie. the war in Iraq and its probable consequences. They were, in short, willing to commit crimes in order to prevent greater crimes. Among the barristers who came up with this intriguing defence was a rising star of the human rights bar, Keir Starmer QC. He argued the case on behalf of Josh Richards, first at the Court of Appeal in June 2004 and then again before the House of Lords in March 2006. The presiding judge, Lord Bingham, went out of his way to praise the "erudition" involved. The appeal did not totally succeed, but in his judgment Lord Hoffmann articulated a humane view of how, in the UK, he believed we have traditionally regarded such acts of protest. "Civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country," he wrote (at paragraph 89). "People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind." Hoffman outlined the "conventions" he thought should govern such acts of civil disobedience in his "civilised community". The law-breakers had to behave with a sense of proportion and avoid excessive damage. The law-enforcers, on the other hand, should "behave with restraint [and] … take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account". I imagine Mr Starmer QC read those words with some pleasure at the time: they have been quoted many times in courts over the years by his learned friends in defending clients acting on conscientious grounds. But now, at the behest of his government, such people are to be defined as terrorists. Forget trying to understand their conscientious motives. Lock them up and ban them. What happened? Let's try some hypotheses. The first possible explanation is that Starmer in 2004 was just operating on the "cab rank" principle. He didn't actually believe all that stuff he argued in the posh courts: he was just making the best case he could. But one former Doughty Street Chambers colleague told me Starmer "totally" believed in the right to protest. Some argue he is simply a massive hypocrite. He couldn't care less that there's a yawning gulf between what he then argued and what he now advocates. Or maybe he has just changed his mind? Perhaps he had some sympathy with the Fairford cause (Iraq) and less for the Brize Norton protests (Palestine)? Perhaps he still holds the same views he expressed 20 years ago, but has been advised it would be politically unwise to voice them. Reform is storming ahead in the polls and is demanding tough action. Now's not the time to out yourself as a bleeding-heart liberal. So you can show your toughness by outlawing the very sort of people you once defended. And, while you're about it, tell Glastonbury to drop another "terrorist" – in this case, the Irish language rap group Kneecap. Or maybe he believes in nothing? That, after all, is what a significant slew of even his own backbenchers are coming to assume. Twenty years ago, the public took a more forgiving view of protestors. Juries initially failed to agree on a verdict on charges against four of the Fairford defendants. Olditch and Pritchard were subsequently cleared of all charges after two trials. Josh Richards was also tried twice after admitting he wanted to set fire to a B-52 bomber. Twice, he walked free. Only Margaret Jones and Paul Milling were found guilty – at the second attempt – and were treated relatively leniently. Milling was given a conditional discharge and a £250 fine. Dr Jones was given a five-month curfew order. So perhaps this explains what's going on in Starmer's mind. He, of all people, knows that juries are quite likely to side with conscientious protestors on an issue like Gaza. So it is cleaner simply to outlaw protest groups from the start. For someone who believes in the rule of law, it's a clever way of getting round the rule of law. "Yes, they should stand trial. Yes, they've committed criminal damage," Baroness Helena Kennedy, a fellow civil rights lawyer told me. "But to label them terrorists seems extraordinary to me. It's going down the old Trump road, and I don't like it at all. There's a sense in which you have a US government which has no respect for the rule of law and there's now a kind of poison seeping into our own legal aquifer." As I write, another four protestors have been arrested by counter-terror police at Brize Norton. You can't help wondering whether the concept of terrorism itself is being somewhat watered down by the Starmer government. And you can't help wonder at the philosophical somersaults taking place in Starmer's mind as he stands everything he argued for 20 years ago on its head.
Daily Mirror
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Have your say on whether Starmer was right to U-turn on DWP benefit cuts
After a group of rebel Labour MPs forced Keir Starmer into a huge benefit cuts climbdown, we want to know whether you think the PM made the right decision Following the threat of a major Labour Party rebellion, Keir Starmer has been forced into a major climbdown over DWP welfare cuts. Hundreds of thousands of people who would've lost their PIP are now expected to keep receiving the payments - and we want to know if you think Starmer was right to U-turn? Under the proposed changes to the welfare bill, those who currently claim Personal Independence Payments will not be affected by cuts. Instead, the number of people who are eligible for the benefit will be reduced after November 2024 and, crucially, the changes will affect new claims only. The Prime Minister's U-turn appears to have satisfied some MPs, including Dame Meg Hillier, who originally put the rebels' torpedo amendment forward. The long-standing Labour MP described it as a "positive outcome" and said ministers had come up with a "workable compromise". If you can't see the poll below, click here. Some Labour rebels have warned the PM that his benefit cuts U-turn is 'nowhere near good enough', setting up a showdown in the House of Commons next week. It comes after 126 Labour MPs backed an amendment that looked set to kill Starmer's DWP reforms a matter of days ago. MPs have warned the compromise would create a 'two-tier' system of disability payments, making it clear that the Labour rebellion is likely set to move forwards. However, Liz Kendall told broadcasters she is optimistic that the major concessions will make a difference. The Work and Pensions secretary said: "I hope these changes will mean we get support for our bill, a bill that wants to ensure fairness in the welfare system for people who really need support and fairness for the taxpayer, too. But we also all agree that there do need to be changes in future to make sure that people who can work do so, we protect those who can't, but we make the welfare state sustainable for the future." Nadia Whittome, who was one of 126 Labour MPs to sign the motion that threatened to completely torpedo the legislation, told the BBC: "I'm very clear that these revised proposals are nowhere near enough and actually would create a two tier benefit system." She explained: "We have a situation where someone with the same disability and the same level of needs doesn't get PIP just because they became disabled at a later date or gets less money in the Universal Credit health element because they became disabled at a later date. "If you're somebody with a fluctuating or degenerative condition who doesn't need PIP or the Universal Credit health element now, but knows that you'll probably need it in the future, that's not going to be any comfort to you." In response to news of the Prime Minister's climbdown, Mirror Political Editor Lizzy Buchan said Starmer had 'underestimated how strongly backbenchers opposed these cuts'. She wrote: "For months I'd been hearing how unhappy MPs were, concerns echoed by Labour's trade union backers, party members and Mirror readers. "Most Labour MPs accept the welfare bill is too high, and agree that people need help to get back into work .But the PM and his ministers failed to convince them that cutting Personal Independence Payments - an in-work benefit - was the way to achieve this. "The Government blew a lot of political capital on its disastrous decision to cut the winter fuel allowance. And the recent U-turn gave Labour MPs hope that they could persuade the PM into another rethink."
