James Heale
Unless improvement is forthcoming, Starmer's own political death will start to look like a real possibility
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government expected to unveil welfare concessions after talks with Labour rebels
Number 10 had been locked in crisis talks with backbenchers after some 126 MPs within the party signed an amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks. On Thursday night, sources said a deal was being thrashed out between leading rebels and the Government as it seeks to head off the prospect of Sir Keir Starmer's first Commons defeat in a crunch vote next week. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to support or reject it. If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill. The Government's original package restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limited the sickness-related element of universal credit. Existing claimants 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 by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. However, concessions offered by the Government to save the Bill from defeat are understood to include a commitment that those currently receiving Pip will continue to get the allowance. Ministers had hoped the reforms would get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year, but fresh changes such as these would leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to find more money elsewhere. The Government had earlier said it was listening to suggestions to improve the legislation amid concerns about the swift timetable of the Bill. The so-called 'reasoned amendment' led by Treasury select committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier had argued that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. Speaking in the Commons earlier, Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness' and that discussions about the changes would continue over the coming days. He said there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.'
The Herald Scotland
41 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Government expected to unveil welfare concessions after talks with Labour rebels
On Thursday night, sources said a deal was being thrashed out between leading rebels and the Government as it seeks to head off the prospect of Sir Keir Starmer's first Commons defeat in a crunch vote next week. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to support or reject it. If the legislation clears its first hurdle, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill. The Government's original package restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limited the sickness-related element of universal credit. Existing claimants 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 by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. However, concessions offered by the Government to save the Bill from defeat are understood to include a commitment that those currently receiving Pip will continue to get the allowance. Ministers had hoped the reforms would get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year, but fresh changes such as these would leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to find more money elsewhere. The Government had earlier said it was listening to suggestions to improve the legislation amid concerns about the swift timetable of the Bill. The so-called 'reasoned amendment' led by Treasury select committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier had argued that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. Speaking in the Commons earlier, Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness' and that discussions about the changes would continue over the coming days. He said there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.'
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
No 10 gags civil servants to stop them speaking out in public
Sir Keir Starmer has gagged senior health officials, military leaders and even the head of the civil service from speaking openly in public, in a move that has been described as a 'chilling' attack on free speech. In an edict issued across Whitehall, Downing Street has warned public sector officials not to talk at open events where their comments have not been vetted in advance. They have also been barred from taking part in any public question-and-answer sessions — even if they are part of an industry event. The rules also apply to media briefings on issues such as public health, carried out by senior figures such as the chief medical and scientific officers. While these can go ahead they must be cleared in advance by Downing Street and have a minister or special adviser in attendance. Those affected include public sector officials working for arms-length bodies such as the media regulator Ofcom and the education inspectorate Ofsted, which have operational independence from the government. The rules also apply to senior health leaders, diplomats and military officers. The edict has already led to cancellation or curtailment of a number of public events where senior government officials were due to speak. The Whitehall think tank the Institute for Government (IFG) was forced to cancel an event on Tuesday which was due to discuss Labour's new approach to public sector spending after Nick Donlevy, a senior civil servant at the Treasury, was made to pull out. Last week the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) told journalists attending a land warfare conference that they would not be able to report on a speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the chief of the air staff, who is expected to become head of the armed forces. • No 10 gags military chiefs at events where a minister is present The think tank said there had been a change in 'reporting rules relating to speakers from the British armed forces'. It said that the majority of speeches and panel appearances by British personnel 'will not be for reporting', whereas those by individuals from foreign militaries will be. Sources confirmed that the change had been forced on Rusi by the new Downing Street senior Whitehall figure said the move had been made to prevent high-profile officials from causing 'problems' for the government by using speeches to 'lobby ministers in public' or criticising spending plans or government policy. However, it has caused unease both inside and outside the government with one senior source describing it as 'unnecessary' and heavy-handed. 'It's the usual desire of No 10 to control absolutely everything without thinking through the consequences,' the source said. 'The idea that even the cabinet secretary cannot take part in a public question-and-answer event is both misguided and counterproductive.' Another added: 'This is mad on so many levels.' Alex Thomas, programme director at the IFG, said the rules would have a 'chilling effect' on public debate. 'This will lead to a more closed government and less effective policymaking,' he said. • Foreign Office staff told to resign if they don't like Gaza stance 'Openness is one of the seven principles of public life and it cannot be a good thing that officials that are responsible for the day-to-day running of critical public services will no longer be able to attend, speak, and answer questions at events.' 'Ministers will always be the main public spokespeople for government activity but this is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.' Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the move as 'outrageous'. He said: 'This unprecedented ban on civil servants speaking in public will damage public debate, politics, policymaking and the civil service itself. What are they thinking?' Baroness Spielman of Durlston, the former head of Ofsted and now a Conservative peer, said the restriction was 'astonishing and unworkable'. She added that it would force bodies like Ofsted to cancel interactive stakeholder events without a minister present and slow down communication. 'Government grinds too slowly and this will jam the works completely,' she said. Sir John Kingman, a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, said that when he worked for government he would participate in an event involving questions most days. 'It was quite an important part of the job because many people understandably want to know what the government thinks and why, and want a chance to discuss it,' he said. A Downing Street source insisted the guidance was not heavy-handed and would be looked at on a 'case by case' basis. But No 10 said it reflected the principle that ministers were responsible for representing the government in public — rather than officials. A Cabinet Office spokesman said that the rules around media engagement were 'longstanding and established'. 'It has always been the case, and a constitutional principle, that ministers are ultimately accountable for decision-making to parliament and the public — so it is right they are routinely scrutinised by the media and MPs.'
