logo
Starmer seeks to win round welfare rebels with promise of ‘fairness'

Starmer seeks to win round welfare rebels with promise of ‘fairness'

The talks ahead of Tuesday's Commons showdown come after 126 Labour MPs publicly backed a move to block it.
Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms, which will restrict access to sickness and incapacity benefits, to demonstrate 'Labour values of fairness'.
The Prime Minister told MPs 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 Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to vote on 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 – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9.
Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation, but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns.
Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.'
Overnight, six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks.
The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed.
The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties.
The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit.
The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year.
One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months.
'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country.
'It's not very grown-up.'
They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.'
The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published.
Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street.
Asked if Sir Keir had confidence in his chief of staff, the No 10 spokesman would not comment on Downing Street staffing matters.
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated that 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms.
The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment.
Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip.
The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment.
There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said.
NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels.
Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: https://t.co/8aP99eVQHS
— Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025
It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said.
A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday.
Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people.
A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'I was hospitalised with a panic attack after DWP cuts news - I was frantic'
'I was hospitalised with a panic attack after DWP cuts news - I was frantic'

Daily Mirror

time30 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

'I was hospitalised with a panic attack after DWP cuts news - I was frantic'

Lorraine Griffin, from Dudley, was hospitalised with a panic attack when the cuts to welfare benefits were announced earlier this year as she feared the impact on her sons A mum of two children with autism has said it is 'unthinkable' to think about how her family will suffer if they can't access vital disability benefits. Lorraine Griffin, from Dudley, was hospitalised with a panic attack when the cuts to welfare benefits were announced earlier this year. ‌ 'I was absolutely frantic because in your head, it's the worst case scenario, isn't it? Suddenly your bit of stability can just vanish, go up in smoke. It's awful. ‌ 'I'm not just talking for me. I'm talking about all the other families that I know so well, in school, in my autism groups, lots of Facebook groups, I'm talking for them too." Her sons Sam, 13, and Ben, 12, currently receive the medium and high amounts of Disability Living Allowance. But the boys will have to apply for the under-threat Personal Independence Payments when they turn 16. 'We do rely on that money for their needs... I can't even fathom in my head, not qualifying for PIP. Just because we get disability finances and disability benefits, we're not rolling in it. We're not mega rich. It doesn't mean that at all. 'It just means that that money is there for us with our everyday needs.' Lorraine said she currently needs the extra money to pay for anything from medication to clothing to taxis. She said her son Ben won't wear clothing so she has to buy leotards from a specialist website which cost an 'absolute fortune'. ‌ If their benefits were cut, she said 'a whole range of things would have to go'. 'It's unthinkable to be honest,' she added. ‌ The 53-year-old said the Government was "picking on the most vulnerable, the disabled, for goodness sake. She said: "I can't believe it.' Lorraine is pleading with Keir Starmer to hit the 'pause button' on his PIP changes. 'I hope that they see sense and just press the pause button and have another look and have another think and see what they can do. I really hope so. 'Obviously they've all got constituents like me, they need to listen, don't they, and take into consideration what it means for us. I really hope they do.'

'DWP disability benefit cuts could become Labour's poll tax moment'
'DWP disability benefit cuts could become Labour's poll tax moment'

Daily Mirror

time31 minutes ago

  • Daily Mirror

'DWP disability benefit cuts could become Labour's poll tax moment'

It's with a heavy heart that I write about the Government's proposed Welfare Reform Bill. The planned cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) are already turning the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in Britain into a nightmare of fear and uncertainty. These changes are not the way forward. Moreover, they are certainly not remotely helpful to those who rely on PIP to live with dignity and independence. We cannot claim to be a democratic and inclusive society if we punish people for circumstances beyond their control, while pretending we are levelling the playing field. These cuts do not fix a broken system — they make it worse. In my Bradford East constituency, where half of all children are growing up in poverty, I hear first-hand from constituents who are terrified they may lose their PIP support. The sense of panic is real. And so is the damage. Let's be honest with ourselves: PIP supports people with serious physical or mental health needs — people who often require help to cut their food, to wash, or to go to the toilet. These are not luxuries. They are necessities. And losing that support would strip away the last threads of independence and dignity that people have. The anxiety is palpable. People already feel pushed to the brink. Now, they fear falling off it altogether. These reforms may have been presented with good intentions, but they place us on a road that leads straight back to austerity and failure. They are not guided by a moral compass, but by the cold calculations of a Treasury spreadsheet — the same spreadsheet that failed to anticipate the human impact of scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance. Let me be absolutely clear: these cuts are not the Labour way. If passed it will lead to extreme poverty for the most vulnerable in its tracks. That's why I have joined more than 100 Labour MPs in signing a reasoned amendment to stop this unjust legislation in its tracks. I urge the Government to heed the warnings of Labour MPs, disability rights campaigners, and charities. If they do not, we risk walking straight into a political disaster — one that could become Labour's poll tax moment. We must learn the lessons of the Winter Fuel U-turn. When it was clear the policy was wrong, we changed course. We must do the same here. Because let's be honest - we all know this is wrong. It is wrong to persecute those most in need. It is wrong to target people with mental health conditions. It is wrong to attack the most vulnerable. 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. That is why I will not vote for this Bill. Because stripping away vital support is not the way to build a fairer society. The Government must rethink these damaging proposals, reject further cuts to disability benefits, and focus instead on raising living standards and protecting those most at risk. There are clear and fair alternatives available. The Government could raise funds through a simple two per cent wealth tax on the super-rich — which could raise £24 billion a year-would put The burden on the broadest shoulders, while protecting those most in need. It could continue to invest in jobs, infrastructure and public services to revitalise the economy after 14 years of Tory decline. Instead, this Bill targets those least able to fight back. It sows fear, breeds injustice, and abandons principle. If we continue down this path, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past — and creating a defining failure of this Government.

South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal
South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal

The Independent

time33 minutes ago

  • The Independent

South Carolina lawmakers won't get paid while justices determine whether their raise was legal

All money paid to South Carolina lawmakers while they aren't in session has been stopped by the state Supreme Court as the justices sort through a lawsuit from one of their members, alleging legislators improperly gave themselves an $18,000-a-year raise. The raise is what is called 'in-district compensation' — money set aside for legislative duties that has few limits on how it can be spent and requires no receipts or other documentation. Lawmakers voted, in the budget set to start July 1, to increase it from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members. Republican Sen. Wes Climer sued his colleagues, saying the raise violates the state constitution, which bans the legislature from increasing their per diem during their terms. House members would get 18 months of the extra money and senators would get more than three years of payments before facing reelection. Lawyers for the House and Senate disagree. They said the money isn't a 'per diem' considered part of legislators' salaries, but a reimbursement for expenses, even though there are no reporting requirements. They also said the money isn't an extra cost to taxpayers because it came out of funds already set aside to operate both chambers. The compensation is usually paid monthly, but neither the $1,000 that has been paid for decades nor the $1,500 raise will land in lawmakers' direct deposits in July since the state Supreme Court decided Wednesday to suspend the budget item containing the money until it rules. The justices set out a schedule with a deadline in early September for the final legal filings, meaning lawmakers won't get paid for at least two months. If the justices rule the raise is legal, then lawmakers would get back pay for both the raise and their regular pay. In South Carolina, the Supreme Court justices are elected by the Legislature. Along with the in-district compensation, lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 annually, paid in a lump sum that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, mileage to drive to the state capital in Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part-time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May, and outside of the in-district compensation, they don't receive any money when not in session. The raise was proposed by Republican Sen. Shane Martin late in the budget process in a proviso, which is a one-year order on how to spend money. The monthly stipend hadn't changed in about 30 years, and Martin said the increase was needed to offset inflation. It is meant to pay for computers or other equipment, travel to events in their districts, or holding town halls. More than 40 of the state's 170 General Assembly members have refused the increase. All are Republicans.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store