MPs tell Keir Starmer disability benefit cuts impossible to support
The Prime Minister has already faced widespread criticism from members of his own party over the proposed £5 billion in benefit cuts, which includes the significant tightening of eligibility for personal independent payments (Pips).
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves's planned disability benefit cuts would affect around 700,000 families who are already in poverty.
READ MORE: Supporting Ukraine is about defending the values that unite Europe
Brian Leishman is the only Scottish Labour MP among the signatories, which includes names like Diane Abbott and Kim Johnson.
Starmer now faces the biggest rebellion of his premiership when the House of Commons votes on the proposed measures next month.
In the letter, Labour MPs said the proposals, set out in a government green paper, have 'caused a huge amount of anxiety and concern among disabled people and their families'.
(Image: PA)
It goes on to say: 'The planned cuts of more than £7bn represent the biggest attack on the welfare state since George Osborne ushered in the years of austerity and over 3 million of our poorest and most disadvantaged will be affected.'
It added: 'Whilst the government may have correctly diagnosed the problem of a broken benefits system and a lack of job opportunities for those who are able to work, they have come up with the wrong medicine. Cuts don't create jobs, they just cause more hardship.'
The letter calls on ministers to delay any decisions until they see full assessments on the impact of any cuts, raising concerns that they are being asked to approve the plans without proper knowledge of the consequences.
Adding that there needs to be 'a genuine dialogue with disabled people's organisations to redesign something that is less complex and offers greater support, alongside tackling the barriers that disabled people face when trying to find and maintain employment'.
It adds: 'We also need to invest in creating job opportunities and ensure the law is robust enough to provide employment protections against discrimination. Without a change in direction, the green paper will be impossible to support.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves can raise taxes as much as she likes, but it won't bring in any more money
The IMF has warned Chancellor Rachel Reeves that she must make tough choices to cut the UK's deficit, potentially including some combination of raising taxes on working people, abandoning the pensions triple lock or charging for the NHS. The first of these options – raising taxes – is considered politically the most likely. After all, Labour MPs didn't even agree to cuts to winter fuel payments. It's impossible to imagine them agreeing to cut the NHS, and abandoning the triple lock seems like political suicide. Yet it's highly doubtful whether raising tax rates further will produce any more tax revenue out of the UK economy. Even as matters stand, taxes are scheduled to go higher than they've ever been since World War II, and to be around 37½ percent of GDP for the rest of this Parliament. But that considerably understates the situation. Prior to 2021/22 they'd only ever once been above 35 percent of GDP since the 1950s, in 1969/70, and then for only one year before falling back sharply. Thereafter, until the 2020s, it was rare for them to be above 33½ per cent of GDP. We aren't merely at a record. We are at an out-of-the-park record scheduled to be sustained for an absolutely unprecedented period of time. The chances of the UK economy delivering even the tax levels already scheduled are slim, let alone imagining taxes could be raised a lot further. Yet despite these astonishing record-high taxes, the economy is still running a large deficit of over 5 per cent of GDP. Remember the 'Maastricht Convergence Criteria' requiring budget deficits to be no higher than 3 per cent of GDP? Well, we're way above that. When the deficit exceeded 6 per cent of GDP in the 1990s we had a significant fiscal consolidation under Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke. Yet at that time the UK's national debt was under 40 per cent of GDP. Now it's over 100 per cent. Our situation is way worse than it was in the early 1990s. We need a fiscal consolidation to address that 5 per cent deficit. But the current thinking appears to be that all of that deficit cut will come from tax rises. Indeed, possibly more than all of it, because spending will probably go up further. To balance the books we'd need to rise from that record 37½ per cent of GDP spending to over 42½ per cent. Add in a percentage point for further spending rises and we'd be over 43½ per cent or fully 10 percentage points of tax higher than the UK has ever produced on a sustained basis in well over 80 years. One key reason tax takes top out at some point relative to GDP is that they destroy growth. Over the long-term having a high share of tax in GDP damages long-term growth – each 10 per cent rise in tax reduces the growth rate by around 1.2 per cent – which in the UK's case would mean reducing its sustainable growth rate to zero. In the short-term, raising taxes often triggers recessions, bringing down tax revenues. That loss of tax revenues as growth peters out, or outright recession ensues, means that tax-based fiscal consolidations typically don't work. If you have a high deficit, raising taxes is almost never a way to cut that deficit – even if it were a Good Thing to have higher tax in itself, it simply doesn't work in that situation. The normal advice the IMF and similar bodies used to provide in fiscal consolidations was that they should be predominantly spending cuts-based. The IMF often used a rule of thumb of about two thirds spending cuts to one third tax rises. The EU used much the same rule of thumb in the Eurozone crisis era austerity programmes. However, the most successful consolidations – the ones where the deficit falls and stays down, with debt dropping away relative to GDP over time – tend to have higher ratios of spending cuts, of around 75 to 80 per cent to 20 to 25 per cent tax rises. We need at least that ratio in the UK now, if not higher. But that is not what Labour backbench MPs will ever agree to.
Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
Britain tries to tackle youth knife crime crisis
HINDHEAD, England, July 29 (Reuters) - A year after one of Britain's most harrowing knife attacks, the government is urging young people to drop off bladed weapons at "amnesty" bins or mobile vans in a month-long campaign - part of efforts to control knife-related violence, particularly when it involves youths. On July 29, 2024, teenager Axel Rudakubana, who was obsessed with violence and genocide, attacked a Taylor Swift-themed children's dance event in the northern English town of Southport, killing three girls and stabbing 10 other people. Since then, Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government has pledged tougher age checks for knife buyers, warned social media firms they could face fines for failing to curb sales and promotion of weapons, and banned zombie-style knives and ninja swords. Starmer launched a coalition in September last year aimed at tackling youth knife crime. Actor and anti-knife campaigner Idris Elba joined the conversation at a meeting this month, alongside King Charles. Charities and experts interviewed by Reuters call the government's efforts a step forward but say they largely fail to address the root causes. Some charities involved in classes and workshops aimed at young people are urging the government to make such education part of the national curriculum. Overall, knife crime in England and Wales has risen 87% over the past decade, with 54,587 offences last year alone, a 2% rise from 2023 and among the highest rates in Europe, figures from Britain's interior ministry show. It did not provide a breakdown of knife crime offences by age group. But data from the justice ministry showed that in the year to March 2024 there were just over 3,200 knife or offensive weapon offences committed by children (aged 10-17) resulting in a caution or sentence. Of the 262 people killed with a knife or sharp object in the 12 months to March 2024, 57 were under 25. Kitchen knives were the most commonly used weapons. A public inquiry into the Southport murders that opened this month will begin by looking into the specifics of Rudakubana's case before a second phase examines the wider issue of children being drawn into violence, an increasing concern for British authorities. Amanda Marlow, from the youth charity Safety Centre, which runs knife crime awareness workshops in schools, says young people carry knives for a range of reasons. These include seeing it as a "quick fix" to make money when growing up in poverty, trying to gain status among peers, or being drawn into the wrong crowd, such as gangs, where they are often exploited. Some police forces have launched dedicated knife crime units. In the West Midlands, one of the country's worst-hit areas, the Guardian Taskforce focuses on reducing knife crime among under-25s. In June alone, officers patrolled for over 3,000 hours, carried out 366 stop-and-searches, and seized 57 knives or offensive weapons. "Every knife seized is a life saved," Inspector Kate Jeffries of the taskforce said in a statement. After surviving the Southport stabbings, Leanne Lucas launched the "Let's Be Blunt" campaign, calling for safer, rounded-tip kitchen knives instead of pointed ones. Jade Levell, a researcher at the University of Bristol who studies masculinity, vulnerability and violence, said anti-knife crime efforts should focus on early intervention, such as mental health care, rather than short-term fixes like amnesty bins. "Some boys see their only option is to be afraid or to make others afraid of them," Levell said, referring to those growing up with violence, poverty or discrimination. Some 4.5 million children are growing up in poverty in the UK, according to charities. In 2023, about 1 in 5 children and young people aged 8 to 25 years had a probable mental disorder, according to the National Health Service. The government announced funding this month for hubs offering mental health and career support for young people at risk of gang involvement, violence or knife crime. The scheme, focused on high-risk areas, is starting with eight such centres and aims to have 50 open in the next four years. The violent death of his son two years ago prompted Martin Cosser to found a charity dedicated to educating young people about knife crime, one of several such initiatives around the country. Charlie's Promise, named after 17-year-old Charlie who was stabbed multiple times in the chest by another teenager at a packed end-of-term party, has spoken to 41,000 young people in schools and elsewhere. "Nothing brings my little boy home," said Cosser, adding that far more must be done to stop the knife crime crisis spiralling out of control. "We need to understand the emotional drivers behind why people pick up knives." Charity Safety Centre delivers workshops in schools, specifically designed for children aged 9 to 12. At a recent session in a school in the southern English town of Milton Keynes, staff from the charity explained what knife crime is and the dangers it poses, encouraging active participation through questions and games. Safety Centre and Charlie's Promise are among several groups calling for such education to become a mandatory part of the national school curriculum. Amani Simpson, who survived being stabbed in 2011 and now shares his story as a youth coach, believes societal pressures and some forms of entertainment such as violent video games also play a role in spawning knife crime. "Young people feel displaced and disengaged ... those things need to be uprooted," Simpson said after a talk at TCES North West London, a special education school, emphasising the importance of helping them believe in their own potential so they make better choices. "Hope for me is the missing piece," he said.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves' ‘save less to invest' policy could be brilliant for ordinary Britons – or a disaster
Without wanting to sound like a jeremiad from the Daily Mail, I should warn you that Rachel Reeves is after your money. Part of her plan to grow the UK economy involves persuading cautious Britons to take more risks with their savings. It's a win-win, she says. British business gets more investment and savers get better returns. The 'nation of shopkeepers' becomes a nation of investors. And it could all work out like that, of course. But there is the potential for things to go horribly wrong if the mooted letters from banks suggesting different investments and changes to risk warnings are done badly. There is also the danger of persuading people into the market in the good times, only for them to find themselves nursing losses in the next downturn. There are things that you will need to know – and they will need to know that you know – if this is to be a responsible policy. People, voters, know about savings. Stocks and shares, not so much. Timing is everything in stock markets – being able to sit out falls in share values is vital, and if people need their money just as things are going badly, they will rue the day that they moved money from their cosy cash Isa. Mis-selling is another problem. Allowing banks to flag up investments to people who are deemed to be sitting on more than enough in savings makes sense from the point of view that banks can see those accounts, but few would suggest that banks offer the best alternatives, or have previously done the best job of marrying consumers with the most suitable deals. And then there's the potential for scams – a call or email claiming to be from your bank, and suggesting you move your money, may not seem as suspicious if there are genuine communications flying around. The plan is not untenable. I agree with a lot of the government's comments about the stock market's potential to provide people with greater returns than cash deposits. The numbers are inarguable (even if the Treasury's choice of figures to show just how much better shares do has provoked disagreement). I invest: I have emergency money in savings, some in fixed-rate accounts that offer a bedrock. I have a couple of stocks and shares Isas too – the first was an absolute disaster and demonstrates what could go wrong if people are persuaded to buy in at the top of the market. I was just starting in personal finance and excited by everything I'd heard about shares. I had £500 in a savings account that was doing miserably, and I thought that by making it work harder I would get some money to put towards a flat deposit in a few years' time. I chose a UK growth fund – a fairly cautious choice as it invested in big UK companies that I understood. It was March 2000: the peak of the dotcom bubble. For the next decade, my investment was worth less than I had paid in. In 2009 it stood at £335.05 – the fund managers still had to be paid, so as well as falling prices, I'd had charges to contend with. I was lucky I didn't need to realise my paper loss, but the six-monthly statements outlining it did not inspire me with confidence in the market. Any attempt to persuade people out of their comfort zone is going to need to be clear about the potential for falls in value. But the chancellor has suggested that the risk warnings on investments now are too scary, and that they need to change. 'For too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light, quick to warn people of the risks without giving proper weight to the benefits,' she said, in her Mansion House speech. Balancing out risk warnings with details of the potential gains – as researchers have tested with consumers – does encourage more money into stocks and shares. However, those warnings shouldn't be so diluted that people do not understand the unpredictability of when those gains might be available. If you have a specific timeframe in mind, you need to know that you might be getting back less than you paid in. By the time I started my second stocks and shares Isa, I had learned a lesson about 'pound cost averaging'. Never again would I put a lump sum in the stock market – paying in regularly is the best way to reduce risk. I've also spread my money across several funds – and not all in the UK. These things are simple and have not added to the cost, but they take time to explore, and are not necessarily what will be offered widely. Past mis-selling scandals make me wary of handing responsibility for this to the big financial companies. Although the worst of the incentives that drove sales staff to heavily tout investments seem to have gone, there is a disincentive to offering the kind of holistic approach that is needed to make sure people are getting the guidance for specific investments at the right time: the promise is 'targeted support', but the more targeted it is, the more costly it will be for companies to provide. At what point does it become wise to put money in the market, rather than savings? Advice on that will need to be clear. The answer is not one size fits all. Some people have bigger monthly commitments than others, so should keep more in easily accessible accounts. Retired people generally should be taking less risk than younger people because they have less time to ride out the falls. But we all have our own goals and financial ties. A bank letter that is generated as soon as someone's savings account hits, say, £10,000 is not going to be offering the right advice for everyone. But making it more bespoke will cost more. The chancellor is basically right – more people should be investing, and there are things that could be done to help this. Perhaps a note on savings accounts: a warning of the risk of inflation eroding money in low-interest accounts – something experts say is too often ignored. Confidence could be built by reminding us that if we have a private pension, we already are investors – it's not something we will be doing for the first time. Increasing the contributions that must be paid into pensions through auto-enrolment will also bring money into the market. Better financial education in schools is crucial. Investing is, like politics, a matter of rises and falls, risk and returns – ever subject to sudden turbulence. Reeves understands both spheres, but can the public live like that? That's really quite the gamble. Hilary Osborne is the Guardian's money and consumer editor
