A dozen ministers could quit over Starmer's disability welfare cuts
As many as a dozen members of government are prepared to resign rather than support Sir Keir Starmer's controversial welfare reforms, it has been claimed, as backbench critics accused ministers of betraying Labour values.
A senior government figure told The Times that about 12 of their colleagues had privately indicated they would find it impossible to support the measures that are due to be voted on a week on Wednesday.
Another leading opponent said that as many as 80 Labour MPs were 'holding firm' in opposition to the plans and believed the government would ultimately have to pull the vote.
• No concessions on benefits reform, Starmer tells rebels
'If this goes through this will be our version of tuition fees,' they said. 'The optics of taking away money from people who find it difficult to go to the toilet are terrible.'
The government has a working majority of 165, meaning that 83 Labour MPs would have to rebel for Starmer to lose a vote.
Whips are warning potential rebels that they will be blacklisted for any future government job for as long as Starmer is prime minister — even if they simply abstain. Anyone openly opposing the plans faces a threat of having the whip suspended entirely amid growing concern in No 10 that the vote could slip away from the government.
But one government source suggested that contingency plans to pull the vote altogether were being prepared, in case Starmer's team concluded that they did not have the numbers.
Any move to back down would have implications for the government's finances as the £5 billion of savings from the changes have already been 'banked' by Rachel Reeves in the government's spending plans.
Those prepared to walk away from their jobs are understood to be a mixture of junior ministers and parliamentary private secretaries — the MPs who act as the eyes and ears of cabinet ministers in Westminster. A few are said to be new MPs only elected last year.
On Thursday Vicky Foxcroft, the MP for Lewisham North, resigned as a government whip and said she could not vote for the reforms.
'I have wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the government and fight for change from within,' she told Starmer. 'Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see.'
• Three months' grace for claimants about to lose disability benefits
MPs are due to debate changes to welfare on July 1, which include a tightening of the criteria for the personal independence payment (PIP), the main disability payment in England and Wales. Ministers also want to cut the sickness-related element of universal credit, and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim.
The package of reforms is aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work, but dozens of Labour rebels said last month that the proposals were 'impossible to support'.
A number of MPs spoke out in support of Foxcroft after her resignation.
Jonathan Brash, the MP for Hartlepool, said he had 'utmost respect for her and her principled stand here', adding: 'She's right. Our welfare system does need change, but the cuts proposed are not the right way to do it.'
Connor Naismith, the MP for Crewe & Nantwich, added: 'This must have been an incredibly difficult decision but she should be commended for standing by her principles. I agree with her that reducing the welfare bill is the right ambition, but cuts to universal credit and PIP should not be part of the solution.'
Asked about the resignation on Times Radio, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary said that it was 'up to every MP to look to their conscience and vote the way that they believe is right'.
'If you can't stick with collective responsibility in government, you have to resign,' she said. 'She's done the honourable thing. It will enable her to have a voice.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Reckless cyclists who kill pedestrians could be jailed for life as government set to crackdown on 'nightmare' E-bikes
Reckless cyclists who kill or seriously injure pedestrians will face tougher sentences in line with motoring offences. Under changes to the Crime and Policing Bill, a cyclist who kills someone by riding dangerously could face life in prison. Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling – or causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling – could be met with five years in prison, a fine or both. A serious injury caused by careless or inconsiderate cycling could result in a two-year prison sentence, a fine or both. The law change, which cleared the Commons this week, includes legal e-bikes as well as pedal cycles, the Government said. The Tories agreed to change the law after campaigning by Conservative grandee Iain Duncan Smith – only for it to fall foul of the early general election last year. Sir Iain has worked with Matthew Briggs, whose wife Kim died from head injuries after a collision with a cyclist in London in 2016. Charlie Alliston, who was riding a fixed-gear bike with no front brake, was found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' – a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – but cleared of manslaughter. Sir Iain said the change in the law would mean that for the first time there would be specific punishments for 'reckless, dangerous cycling causing injury or death'. The Bill includes e-bikes, which he said were becoming a 'major nightmare' for police, with crimes being committed using them as well as being ridden dangerously. Sir Iain said he hoped the legislation would make it 'worthwhile' for police to arrest someone for such offences. 'Now you have very specific criminal offences at those who misuse and damage people's lives and kill them,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'That will now be a specific crime, and will include e-bikes – riding on pavements, smashing into people, causing problems – that becomes a criminal offence.' The Government said it was changing the law to ensure there is an 'appropriate framework of offences to punish dangerous and careless behaviour that results in serious harm to other road users'. The Ministry of Justice said the new offences 'introduce penalties equivalent to those in place if the same level of harm is caused by drivers of other vehicles'. In 2023, four pedestrians were killed and 185 seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist, according to government figures. On average, three pedestrians have been killed per year by cyclists over the past decade.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Is the controversial suicide capsule coming to Britain? Australian right-to-die campaigner known as 'Dr Death' aims to bring euthanasia pod to the UK
A controversial suicide capsule could be coming to the UK after the assisted dying Bill passed its final Commons vote yesterday. Dr Philip Nitschke, the Australian right-to-die campaigner known as 'Dr Death' who is behind the Sarco euthanasia pod, said he will be 'enthusiastically' seeking to bring the technology to Britain for the first time. The coffin-like device offers patients a way to end their lives painlessly by flooding a sealed chamber with nitrogen gas that leads to loss of consciousness and death within ten minutes. A camera records their final moments and the video is sent to a coroner. Dr Nitschke said he intends to start 'enthusiastically pursuing the option of using the device in the UK' as soon as the assisted dying Bill becomes law. The campaigner said he has already had inquiries from 15 Britons seeking to use the Sarco pod and expects this number to increase with the passing of the Bill. 'We'll be looking to find UK-registered doctors to assist and of course someone who wants to use it and satisfies all of the requirements under the law,' he told The Times. 'The doctors involved would know that this would attract attention and possible close scrutiny, which by and large most doctors aren't enthusiastic about, so we'd have to find someone a little crusading.' If it becomes law, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will let terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live apply for an assisted death. The person wishing to die would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves. So far the Bill does not detail what the medication should be. Last year police made arrests after the Sarco pod was used for the first time by a 64-year-old American woman in Switzerland. Swiss authorities confiscated the capsule and took one of the pod company's founders, Florian Willet, who was present at the death, into custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting suicide. He was detained for ten weeks after police claimed there were strangulation marks on the neck of woman who had died. It comes after MPs on both sides of the assisted dying debate made impassioned interventions ahead of the Commons vote yesterday. Former home secretary Sir James Cleverly opened the debate for opponents of the Bill, speaking movingly of losing his closest friend to cancer this year as he warned that he could have 'lost' these precious final moments had assisted dying been available. Meanwhile Mother of the House Diane Abbott described it as the 'most fateful Bill that we discuss this Parliament'. The Labour MP warned that, under the Bill in its current form, 'there will be people among the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society who lose their lives unnecessarily'. 'It is literally a matter of life and death,' she added. 'I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation?' Former security minister Tom Tugendhat warned that legalising assisted dying would represent 'a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the State'. The Tory MP said: 'It's about the power over life and death. Not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives, it's called suicide. It is not a crime – it hasn't been a crime in this country for decades. 'This is a different power. This is about the power of the State through its agents to exercise power over life and death. 'Yes, agreed; yes, approved of in advance; but when the State takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the State.' But one of the Bill's leading backers, Tory MP Kit Malthouse, wanted to give a voice to dying people 'not because they want to be rescued, but because time and time again, they're begging us for mercy'. The former Cabinet minister added: 'We honour life by giving it meaning and power. And the one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is control over the disease that is destroying them.' Campaigners from both sides had spent the day in rival but respectful demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament. A cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Rebecca Wilcox, Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter, called her mother, who is terminally ill, in front of supporters and told her she wished she was there. Ms Wilcox said that she even gave Bill proponent Kim Leadbeater's mother a 'big hug' following the result announcement and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. It was quite extraordinary.' Meanwhile Labour MP Dr Peter Prinsley said: 'As a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable, but now I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' He added: 'There is an absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death. For there is also a sanctity of human dignity and fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that?'
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Middle East situation ‘perilous', says Lammy amid calls for more talks
David Lammy flew from Washington to Geneva on Friday to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi alongside his French and German counterparts as the UK continued to press for a diplomatic solution to the Middle East crisis. The talks followed US President Donald Trump's announcement that he would delay a decision on joining Israeli strikes against Iran for up to two weeks. Speaking after the meeting, Mr Lammy told reporters: 'It is still clear to me, as President Trump indicated yesterday, that there is a window of within two weeks where we can see a diplomatic solution.' Urging Iran to 'take that off ramp' and talk to the Americans, he said: 'We have a window of time. This is perilous and deadly serious.' Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi speaking to the media after the Iran-EU meeting in Geneva (Martial Trezzini/Keystone via AP) He added that the US and Europe were pushing for Iran to agree to zero enrichment of uranium as a 'starting point' for negotiations. But Mr Araghchi said Iran would not negotiate with the US as long as Israel continued to carry out airstrikes against the country, and insisted his country's nuclear programme was entirely peaceful. Both sides continued to exchange fire on Friday, with Iranian missiles targeting the city of Haifa while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tel Aviv's military operation would continue 'for as long as it takes'. Meanwhile, the UK Government has announced it will use charter flights to evacuate Britons stranded in Israel once the country's airspace reopens. Mr Lammy said work is under way to provide the flights 'based on levels of demand' from UK citizens who want to leave the region. The move follows criticism of the Foreign Office's initial response, which saw family members of embassy staff evacuated while UK citizens were not advised to leave and told to follow local guidance. The Government said the move to withdraw temporarily family members had been a 'precautionary measure'. On Friday, the Foreign Office announced that UK staff had also been evacuated from Iran, with the embassy continuing to operate remotely. But the Government continues to advise British nationals in the region to follow local advice, rather than urging them to leave.
