Keir Starmer suffers major rebellion on watered-down DWP benefit cuts
In a bid to save the welfare bill, the PM offered rebels a new concession on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - a key disability benefit.
In a key vote on Tuesday evening, MPs voted by 335 to 260 - a majority of 75 and well below Labour working majority.
Under a U-turn announced 90 minutes before voting began, it was announced changes to restrict PIP would be delayed until after a review by DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms.
Sir Stephen told MPs that the Government had listened to the concerns raised about the timing of the changes in shambolic scenes in the Commons.
Tuesday's changes leaves the government's welfare reforms in tatters with any future savings uncertain as the scale of the squeeze on PIP is now unclear. The latest concession follows a partial U-turn last week in the face of a possible defeat.
MPs hit out at the "shambolic" nature of the government concessions while the left-wing Labour MP Ian Lavery responded: "This is crazy, man." The Labour MP Mary Kelly Foy added in the chamber: "I popped out for a banana earlier on, and when I came back in things had changed again, so I'm more unclear on what I'm voting on"
It followed frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations as a series of Labour MPs and rebels spoke out about the welfare cuts during a debate in the Commons. Labour rebel Rachael Maskell described the cuts as "Dickensian", adding they "belong to a different era and a different party".
Follow our Mirror Politics account on Bluesky here. And follow our Mirror Politics team here - Lizzy Buchan, Mikey Smith, Kevin Maguire, Sophie Huskisson, Dave Burke and Ashley Cowburn.
Be first to get the biggest bombshells and breaking news by joining our Politics WhatsApp group here. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you want to leave our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Or sign up here to the Mirror's Politics newsletter for all the best exclusives and opinions straight to your inbox.
And listen to our exciting new political podcast The Division Bell, hosted by the Mirror and the Express every Thursday.
Ms Maskell, who proposed an amendment to block the measures in the bill, added: "They are far from what this Labour Party is for: a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother's keeper.
"These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community, my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side."
In a powerful moment during the Commons debate, the disabled MP Dr Marie Tidball was close to tears as she described the impact of austerity on disabled people. She said she "vowed then that I would do all I could to create a country which treats disabled people with dignity and respect".
On the welfare bill, she went on: "With a heavy, broken heart, I will be voting against the bill today. As a matter of conscience I need my constituents to know I cannot support the changes as currently drafted on the front of the bill."
Commons Work and Pensions Committee chairwoman Debbie Abrahams described the bill as a "dog's breakfast". And rebel Emma Lewell told her Labour colleagues voting for the bill would "haunt" them.
Pleading with MPs, she said: "For those on my own benches, stay loyal to your party today, it may feel good in this place, but once you go home, once you're in your individual constituency the reality of this will hit, and it will hit very hard."
Referring to the Tories' welfare-cutting bill a decade ago, she added: "Just like in 2015 constituents will never forgive - and it will haunt those MPs who voted for it."
We'll be bringing you the latest updates on this Breaking Politics News story.
Get all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you by following The Mirror every time you see our name.
You can sign up for Twitter alerts for breaking news here @MirrorBreaking_ and follow us https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics for all the latest updates.
Keep up-to-date with your must-see news, features, videos and pictures throughout the day by following us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MirrorPolitics/ . See all our social accounts you can follow here: mirror.co.uk/social
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Suranne Jones details 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for thriller role
Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller and detailed one fiery moment in particular Suranne Jones has opened up about her 'rambunctious' experience shadowing Keir Starmer for her new Netflix thriller. The former Coronation Street actress, 46, is now starring as fictional Prime Minister Abigail Dalton in Hostage, and follows the events that unfold after her character attends a summit with the French president Vivienne Toussaint (Julie Delpy) and her husband is kidnapped. As part of her research for the role, Suranne took a trip to Downing Street and ventured into the House of Commons, where she managed to catch a heated moment with the real-life Prime Minister. Speaking on Wednesday's edition of This Morning, she told hosts Sian Welby and Craig Doyle: "I did go to the House of Commons. It was great because when we then built our set, I'd been in the actual place. We did see Keir Starmer having a...[debate] it was quite rambunctious." The actress noted her disbelief at watching it all take place in front of her as she added: "There was a lot of shouting in there. You don't believe it til you see it!" The UK has only seen two female Prime Ministers in its time, with the late Margaret Thatcher having served a leader of the Conservative party from 1979 until 1990. In October 2022, Liz Truss became the shortest-serving Prime Minister in the country's history having managed to survive just 50 days in office. Suranne noted the lack of females in such a role of power but approached the role with a 'fresh' perspective, which she believes was necessary when taking into account the current political climate. She said: "We haven't got a lot of women to look at, have we? But that's another great thing. What I did and women in power, I wanted Abigail to be a fresh set of eyes, and the political landscape as it is, we needed that as it is." However, Suranne, who has carved out a stellar career in drama since leaving her role as Karen McDonald on ITV's flagship soap more than two decades ago, recently admitted she wouldn't want to take on the top job at number 10 in real life, mainly because of the amount of 'baggage' her new alter-ego has to carry round. She said: "A woman, before she's even put on her very high, hurty shoes, she has a lot of baggage and a lot of things that she is carrying: the way she looks, the way she dresses, the way she's been educated. "All of those things. How she behaves with her family or her background, everything, before she starts to go out into the world and getting judged for it. "Obviously, I'm well known. People recognise me. I try to keep a private element to my life, but then I do want to show support of the charities I work for and all of that stuff, and the community theatre that I like to give elevation to, so I drew on a lot of that stuff. But I wouldn't want to be a prime minister." She continued: "The early name for the show was The Choice and I think that's the thing, the choice of wanting a job like that, the choice of your family or your country. "It blows my mind, I can't even imagine... obviously, I had to because I play the prime minister, so I did have to imagine. But these big, big choices, they're huge and so it's just making people think." The five-part political thriller witnesses Dalton being blackmailed following her husband's kidnapping whilst he's working overseas, with the captors threatening his murder unless she steps down from office.
Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Spectator
Closing hotels won't stop the migrant crisis
After yesterday's landmark decision on the Bell Hotel in Epping, the next question must be: where do we go from here? What is essential to understand is that yesterday's High Court judgement was what might be called an 'Al Capone reckoning'. One ultimate actor, the state, and by extension the government, has been humbled on a mere technicality. The Essex hotel was deemed in breach of contract for using its rooms to accommodate refugees, rather than paying guests. The state was not brought to heel on its ethically unsound and socially corrosive laws on immigration and re-settlement. That the Home Office sought to block Epping Forest council's application for an injunction is important. Campaigners and the public will still face an elite establishment – especially, despite yesterday's judgement, a judiciary – that has an intransigent and indulgent attitude to migrants, and a slavish, literal-minded adherence to human rights laws. The fundamentals of the migrant crisis, then, have not been resolved by the closure of the Bell Hotel. They will not be resolved by the closure of other hotels, either. Illegal migrants will still come to Britain, and they will still be housed. This crisis will end in the same way it was always going to: with changes in policy and attitudes. We have already witnessed the effectiveness of one stern response. That was the Rwanda scheme. Although the plan for its establishment was fraught with difficulties, when it did briefly come into law last April many illegal immigrants responded by taking flight to the Republic of Ireland, as complaints by the Dublin government at the time attested. This principle of deterrence must be re-visited. Keir Starmer's plan to 'smash the gangs' has not worked. A government that really wanted to stop illegal migration would consider more stringent measures, such as automatic deportation of illegal immigrants or those with criminal convictions languishing in our prisons. These policies would prove popular, but Starmer isn't going to enact them. One might imagine that only a Reform government would. The ultimate 'uncompassionate' policy is the unsayable one: stop picking up migrants from their boats in the first place. Return them to France, with or without the French government's cooperation. This would most likely contravene maritime law and cause legal challenges and a diplomatic fallout with our neighbours. Lurking behind so many of these preventative measures are not legal or political obstacles, but rather intangible ones, those which can't be revoked or reversed by diktat, legislation, court ruling or vote. In order for matters to change for good, attitudes need to change and lazy assumptions need to be dismantled. The first is the one parroted by those with no imagination, no will or just no wish: this is that there is 'no solution' to this fundamentally global problem. There is, as outlined above. It just takes determination and the willingness to risk the opprobrium of bien-pensants. Passive and defeatist mantras should have no place anywhere in political discourse. The second is to confront the idle axiom that British people today increasingly hate foreigners. This is mostly untrue. Rather, many are angry at the increasing number of immigrants and their decreasing quality. If there is ire directed against one group of people, it is the liberal elite and those who have favoured cheap labour in their factories and homes. It is imperative that the thought-terminating accusation of 'xenophobia' is ignored or rebutted. A third shibboleth contains other weedy platitudes: that migrants who force their way onto our shores are 'fleeing persecution' and 'are only seeking a better life'. That first bromide is refutable. Those who come by boat are arriving from France, a democracy where no-one is persecuted by the state for their beliefs or ethnicity. The second statement represents a worrying detachment from reality. Of course illegal immigrants are seeking a better life. We all want a better life. The ultimate mindset which demands the most patience and perseverance in overturning is the embedded belief and unspoken truism that 'compassion' is inherently good. Sometimes it manifestly isn't. Sometimes, voicing compassionate sentiment only improves the feeling of well-being among those who voice it. Immigration policies based on compassion have so far only served to increase feelings of resentment and anger among the native population. Yesterday's judgement about the Bell Hotel matters, but real change will only come when we upend the conceit that compassionate beliefs or saying nice things necessarily correlate with or result in positive outcomes. Only an unfashionable attitude and 'uncaring' policies will solve the migrant crisis.
Glasgow Times
35 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
SNP speak out in row over Glasgow congestion charge
A row has developed between Labour and the SNP since it was revealed the council is looking at pursuing plans to introduce a congestion charge on drivers entering the city. It has come up against opposition with the Labour Group opposed, the Chamber of Commerce speaking against it, and Monica Lennon, a Central Scotland Labour MSP, stating it would discriminate against people who need to use services in Glasgow like hospitals and higher education. READ NEXT:Business leaders and MSP hit out at congestion charge plan The SNP group, which is in charge of the council, said it is right to look at raising a charge but that it would be years before it can be implemented. A Glasgow SNP Group spokesperson said: 'Glasgow City Council has no specific proposals to introduce a congestion charging scheme any time in the near future as Monica Lennon should be aware. 'It is of course right that the council should continue to explore all future opportunities to tackle congestion and raise revenues that can both improve our road network and our city's public transport offer. 'But any charging initiative, from which we would seek to exempt Glasgow residents, remains at an exploratory stage and is several years away.' After a discussion at a council committee, Johnny Carson, Labour group deputy leader, said 'These plans are wrong for our city. 'The council should be focused on fixing our expensive, unreliable and disjointed public transport system and securing the fair funding Glasgow deserves from the Scottish Government.' He said the Scottish Government has had an extra £5.1 billion from the Labour Government at Westminster. The SNP, however, said other parts of the UK have had better deals. READ NEXT:Opposition to plans for a Glasgow congestion charge on drivers revealed On the need to raise revenue, the SNP councillors suggested the UK Labour government could look at providing Glasgow with additional funding for public transport projects. The group spokesperson said: 'If Monica Lennon feels so strongly about improving public transport in the Glasgow city region, she should publicly demand her Labour bosses at Westminster award us the same transport funding packages that have been made available to our comparator city regions in England.'
