What will Keir Starmer learn from the Labour welfare chaos?
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈
It sounds like concessions are coming for the over 100 Labour MPs who had threatened to rebel over the government's planned welfare cuts.
On this episode, Beth Rigby, Ruth Davidson, and Harriet Harman went over the possible options for the Prime Minister. They also talk about what Keir Starmer needs to learn from the chaos of the past few days.
Plus, is President Trump the "daddy" in his handling of the Israel-Iran conflict, as NATO head Mark Rutte may have suggested?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Third U-turn in a month leaves Keir Starmer diminished
After his third U-turn this month, Keir Starmer will hope he has done enough to avoid a humiliating first Commons defeat as prime minister on Tuesday, even if he is now a diminished figure in front of his party and the country. Over Wednesday night and Thursday, Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and his deputy, Angela Rayner, sat down with leading rebels and agreed a series of changes to the government's welfare bill that ministers hope will be enough to get it over the line. Those changes are likely to be significant enough to win over the support of dozens of moderates who had signed an amendment that would have put the bill on hold indefinitely. But they have damaged the prime minister's reputation for embracing tough reforms, and his chancellor's reputation for fiscal probity. Stephen Kinnock, the health minister, said on Friday: 'Keir Starmer is a prime minister who doesn't put change and reform into the too-difficult box. He actually runs towards it and says: 'Right, how do we fix it?' And I'm sure that that's what will be foremost in people's minds on Tuesday.' Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebels, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'We're going to see some of the fine detail of this on Monday. We're expecting a written ministerial statement from the government, so we will get more detail then. But I think, in my view, we got as much as we can get in the time frame involved.' But others have spotted weakness. Helen Whately, the Conservative spokesperson on work and pensions, said: 'This is another humiliating U-turn forced upon Keir Starmer … The latest 'deal' with Labour rebels sounds a lot like a two-tier benefits system, more likely to encourage anyone already on benefits to stay there rather than get into work.' For the prime minister, this is the third time he has reversed course in recent weeks in the face of pressure from outside. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Earlier this month his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced she was undoing most of the cuts to winter fuel payments after a sustained political backlash. Just over a week ago, the prime minister told reporters on the way to the G7 in Canada he was dropping his opposition to a national inquiry into grooming gangs after one was recommended by Louise Casey. This week's decision to change key parts of the welfare bill could prove the most expensive of all three. Ministers will now limit their cuts so they only apply to new claimants and have also promised to lift the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. Along with promises to increase spending on back-to-work schemes and to redesign the entire system of Personal Independence Payments (Pips), the Resolution Foundation estimates the entire U-turn could end up costing £3bn. Reeves will set out the full costs of the package, and how she intends to pay for them, at the budget in the autumn. Asked about the cost of the U-turn on Friday, Kinnock would only say: 'Matters of the budget are for the chancellor, and she will be bringing forward a budget in the autumn.' But it is not just the cost of the immediate changes that Reeves will have to measure. Now she and the prime minister have developed a reputation for changing course in the face of backbench resistance, the chancellor is likely to come under heavy pressure over other issues Labour MPs care deeply about. Hillier said on Friday the prime minister would now have to listen more carefully to his parliamentary colleagues. 'There is huge talent, experience and knowledge in parliament, and it's important it's better listened to. And I think that message has landed.' Top of many Labour MPs' wishlist is an end to the two-child benefit cap. Starmer agrees on the importance of removing that cap altogether, but doing so would cost as much as £3.6bn a year by the end of the parliament. This is why, as the government's spending commitments grow, ministers are refusing to rule out tax rises this autumn. As Starmer has found out this week, angering nearly a third of your MPs is a costly business.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How Trump took us to the brink of World War 3 and back again
How Trump took us to the brink of World War 3 and back again Was this the art of the deal or the brink of disaster?
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves ‘must raise taxes' after welfare and winter fuel U-turns
Rachel Reeves is likely to have to raise taxes to pay for the £4.5 billion cost of Labour's U-turns on welfare and winter fuel payments, leading economists have said. The Resolution Foundation said the government's decision to protect existing claimants of disability and health benefits from the impact of welfare reforms will cost about £3 billion. The decision earlier this month to restore winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners will cost another £1.5 billion. The strain on the public finances has been increased by global economic turbulence and the anaemic levels of economic growth. Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'Altogether they are looking for over £4 billion. They have completed their spending review, which means that spending totals for departments are set. Revisiting that will be very difficult. 'Presumably, after this, looking for further savings from the welfare budget would be quite challenging so that leaves only extra borrowing, which the chancellor doesn't have much space for unless she were to change her fiscal rules or tax rises.' The prime minister offered to water down the cuts during talks with senior backbenchers after accepting that he could not force the bill through unchanged, given that more than 120 MPs publicly oppose it in its current form. The scale of the climbdown is even bigger than expected. In a move that would cost the Treasury £1.5 billion, Starmer has offered to restrict changes to personal independence payments (PIP) to new claimants, protecting 370,000 existing recipients who have been vocal over their concerns. Claimants of the health element of universal credit — paid to those who are unable to work — will also be protected. The government had planned to freeze the benefit until 2029-30 in a move that would have resulted in 2.2 million people facing a cut of about £450. The reversal is expected to cost another £1.5 billion. Restoring winter fuel payments to 7.5 million pensioners will cost the government about £1.5 billion. The decision to abandon some of the government's flagship pledges will increase pressure on Reeves ahead of the autumn budget. Economists believe tax rises are inevitable. Meg Hillier, the MP for Hackney South & Shoreditch, one of the leading welfare rebels, said she would now support the bill. She said: 'This is a positive outcome that has seen the government listen and engage with people, the concerns of Labour MPs and their constituents.' However, one rebel, the Nottingham East MP Nadia Whittome, said on Friday morning that the concessions were 'nowhere near good enough', and would create a 'two-tier' benefits system. When asked if she had been persuaded to back off, she told Today: 'In short, no. The existing claimants will obviously be relieved, but there will still be £3 billion of cuts made here which will push people into poverty. 'Even these revised proposals are nowhere near good enough and frankly are just not well thought through. It would create a two-tier system in both PIP and the universal credit system when somebody became disabled.' She said the bill would 'punish' people for trying to work, because the planned cuts would now only affect future claimants. 'Say you're on universal credit now, you do what the government tells you to do and you get a job, your health worsens in a few years, you need to go back on universal credit but you get less — that risks punishing people who are finding work which is the exact opposite of what the Bill is trying to do,' Whittome said.
