Welfare reform bill fiasco re-empowers parliament
The government's failure to forge a constructive relationship with its backbench Labour MPs lies at the heart of its need for the last-minute revisions of its proposals, but a recharging of that relationship could well resonate with the electorate.
For voters, it is the way that they see their representative that has the most significance. Each MP has the difficult task of balancing their responsibilities to their constituents, their party and their consciences. To accept all this publicly is part and parcel of a democracy and can help rekindle a healthy interest and involvement in the political process.Michael MeadowcroftLeeds
Your article refers to a 'week of chaos'. While you are right that the progress of the welfare bill has been a 'bruising affair', it is also the very essence of parliamentary democracy that an assertive legislature should amend government proposals for legislation. Rather than deriding the weakness of the government, as with the Brexit saga and the assisted dying bill, should we perhaps be applauding the strength of a parliament which has for too long been controlled by an overpowerful executive?Michael Bartlet Frome, Somerset
You quote Keir Starmer's gratitude to 'our chief of staff, without whom none of us would be sitting around this cabinet table'. May I, through your pages, remind the prime minister that it wasn't Morgan McSweeney who put Labour in power, it was the millions of people who voted for Labour candidates last year, and that none of us voted to make the sick and vulnerable worse off. Shareen CampbellSwindon, Wiltshire
Your editorial (2 July) warns that 'the rebellion over Pip is unlikely to be the last such confrontation, especially if Downing Street doesn't learn the right lessons'. In reality, the government failed to learn the lesson from the smaller rebellion over keeping the Tories' two-child benefit cap. Seven Labour MPs had the whip removed as a result – including the former shadow chancellor John McDonnell – which suited Keir Starmer's ongoing assault on leftwing Labour MPs.
This time round, however, the rebellion was too big to use the same threat, even though it was rumoured that Morgan McSweeney wanted to make examples of increasing numbers of MPs until the rebellion backed down. When all Keir Starmer and McSweeney have is a hammer to smash the left, every rebel MP looks like Jeremy Corbyn.Derrick CameronStoke-on-Trent
John Crace may be right in describing Marie Tidball MP as making the speech of the day in the welfare debate (The politics sketch, 1 July). But he is wrong in suggesting that she was the only visibly disabled MP in the house. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson's guide dog was a bit of a giveaway.Geoff ReidWorsbrough, South Yorkshire
So Pat McFadden says there will be financial consequences after the last-minute welfare concessions. Labour's strategy revealed, thanks to Oscar Wilde, a belief in the price of everything and the value of nothing.Valerie MainwoodWivenhoe, Essex
Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The fundamental reason Europe will struggle to escape its growing irrelevance
Never does a country's capacity for reinvention matter more than during periods of economic, geopolitical, and political transition – like now. When the world is shifting and voters reward leaders who tackle practical, real-world challenges rather than recite yesterday's catechism, the key question is simple: can your party move with the times? Across much of Europe, the answer has typically been 'not really'. The grand old parties in the UK, France and Germany have tended to confront change by diminishing or mislabelling voter concerns. They have acted as closed exclusive clubs for party veterans, with a habit of closing ranks whenever challenged by outsiders. Given that the existing political architecture of Europe has tended to reward continuity over adaptation, key insurgents – like Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and Alice Weidel – have had to build new parties from scratch. Now compare with the US party system. The Democrats and Republicans may also have old imposing brand names and both parties maintain permanent national committees in Washington. But unlike most European parties, they do not hand-pick candidates or crack the whip. They do little more than coordinate, fundraise and share data. Crucially, nominees for election are chosen in the open by voters in primaries and caucuses, not anointed in back rooms. That single procedural choice drains power from the centre and pours it into thousands of local contests. Layer on federalism. Elections run under 50 distinct state regimes (plus DC and the territories), each with its own calendar, ballot rules and political subculture. That yields 50 semi-autonomous state parties and countless county committees. Add America's single-member, first-past-the-post districts, which reward broad, catch-all coalitions, and you are left with two giant party umbrellas instead of a dozen boutique brands. The objective is to assemble a wide – often unruly – alliance that can win from Miami to Anchorage. No national centre, however grand its headquarters, can command and discipline the patchwork required. True, the UK also has a first-past-the-post system, which is one reason Westminster politics also rewards big-tent parties. But a continent-sized federation of 50 states forces a much larger tent. Now consider how US candidates rise. Because primaries empower voters rather than party boards, campaigns are candidate-centred. Ambitious politicians build their own machines; donors route cash through candidate committees and independent groups; outside organisations – unions, advocacy groups, super-PACs – operate alongside parties rather than beneath them. In effect, US parties are brands you lease, not clubs for life; they function like pop-ups, rebuilt each cycle. A persuasive outsider can 'take over' a party by winning voters, not pleasing an executive committee. Donald Trump is the most vivid case study – but not the first and he will hardly be the last. Many commentators confuse constant US political volatility with weakness. In fact, it is a source of strength. American politics is constantly rewired: policy agendas are road-tested in primaries, new coalitions assembled, ideas that resonate are adopted and scaled. So US politics lives in permanent beta mode. Messy, yes, but the constant feedback loop makes it consistently quicker at developing new ideas and putting them into practice than less grassroots-oriented (less democratic) systems. Even more important is the system's circuit breaker. The same decentralisation that fuels innovation and ventilation of voter frustration also limits extremism. Because power is split across Congress, the courts, the states, the media and civil society, even a peak-power president must bargain through rival centres of authority. The Founding Fathers wisely built it that way, believing an 'inner despot' lurks in all of us. So governing is meant to be hard: the friction prevents any faction from freezing the system in its preferred shape for long. When Democrats overreached, voters clipped their wings; if Team Trump tries the same, the mechanism will bite again. Switzerland may be the only country that does it better – and it helps when you are only nine million strong. In the rest of Europe, power is much more centralised. Central offices recruit, train and discipline; manifestos bind MPs; loyalty is rewarded, apostasy punished. So adaptation to voter sentiment is a lot slower. In Berlin, parties can feel like guilds. In London, even after Brexit restored legal sovereignty, ministers often still behave as if awaiting permission from Brussels. And in Paris, the Elysée's gravitational pull remains immense: even after heavy electoral losses, Emmanuel Macron has found ways to let those with the old guard mindset run the government. The forms are republican but the smell is decidedly regal. Back to the US and the 'Trump question'. Love him, loathe him or call him a mixed bag – Trumpism will endure only as long as it is seen as mirroring the majority's priorities. The moment a rival ticket better fits the national mood, voters will hand over the lease. What works will be quietly kept; what doesn't will be reversed. So doom-mongers can put the smelling salts away. None of this denies that the American model can be exhausting; the noise is real. But the voter-politician feedback loop is far more direct than in Europe. Since even inside the establishment, political success depends on continually listening to the people that politicians always claim to serve. Which is why, foibles and all, the US is the clear frontrunner in today's global recalibration. Even more so now than during previous transition periods since much of Europe – especially the EU – has doubled down on centralisation, breeding the usual statism. Sure, the US is less stately, but also more self-correcting. The element of trial-and-error really is more pronounced, not only in politics but for closely connected reasons in industry, too. The restlessness is not a bug in the system. It is the system. This is why the US capacity for reinvention really is unparallelled. As the still-young AI revolution rewires whole sectors – and society itself – that edge will matter more, not less. Mark Brolin is a geopolitical strategist and the author of 'Healing Broken Democracies: All You Need to Know About Populism'
Times
4 minutes ago
- Times
How an inheritance tax raid could work — and what you can do about it
Rachel Reeves has already shown that she is not afraid to use inheritance tax as a revenue raiser. In her first budget, in October, the chancellor declared that from April 2027 pension savings would for the first time be pulled into the scope of inheritance tax — a change expected to raise billions for the Treasury. Now, with an ever deepening fiscal shortfall ahead of the next autumn budget, the Treasury is again rumoured to be targeting inheritance tax. On the table are said to be plans to tighten the rules around lifetime transfers of wealth and to end many widely used exemptions. It wouldn't be the first time that a government has gone further than simply taxing estates after death. The capital transfer tax introduced by the Labour government in 1974 applied to lifetime gifts and inheritances, and was generally unpopular. It was replaced by today's inheritance tax system in 1986. But with more estates falling into the inheritance net because of frozen tax-free allowances and decades of rising property values, the political calculation has changed. • We all should worry about this underhand attack on wealth Ian Dyall from the wealth manager Evelyn Partners said: 'Many households could regard this as a rather intrusive tactic, aimed at raising revenue from the very basic desire to pass on to one's own family hard-earned wealth that has usually already been taxed in some form or other.' Here's what could be on the cards, and what you can do to prepare for it. The Treasury has several levers it could pull to increase inheritance tax receipts, and one involves extending or scrapping the well-used seven-year rule. At the moment, if you away an asset — whether cash, property or shares — and live for seven years or more after making the gift, it will be exempt from inheritance tax. If you die before then, the value of the gift will be counted as part of your estate, the rate of tax due on it falling on a sliding scale after three years. Officials are reportedly considering extending the seven years to ten, or abolishing the rule entirely. Ollie Saiman, a co-founder of the advice firm Six Degrees, said that while a ten-year period would make planning more complicated, it may not be catastrophic 'as long as taper relief continued to exist'. But if all gifts made within the window could be taxed at the full 40 per cent inheritance tax rate it could have a huge impact on families. The Office of Tax Simplification previously recommended scrapping the taper relief on gifts made within four years of death and cutting the seven-year rule to five years, to make the rules simpler. A new time limit would be unlikely to be applied retrospectively. A gift made five years ago, for example, should fall under the old rules. But you would need to live for the remaining years of the original period for it to be inheritance tax-free. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts This little-known but highly valuable rule allows you to make regular gifts out of surplus income without them being counted as part of your estate for inheritance tax purposes. The amount you can give is unlimited as long as the gifts are genuinely from income (not savings or the sale of assets) and do not affect your standard of living. You need to keep records of everything you give, and your income. Dyall said that many families who had taken out insurance to cover potential inheritance tax bills could be caught out if the gifts from income rule was scrapped. He said: 'Regular gifts from income are a small part of the system, and scrapping the relief wouldn't raise much but could cause problems for families who have planned around the system as it is.' Saiman said that while the relief was not widely used compared with other inheritance tax strategies, it could be in the government's sights as part of a general clampdown. The biggest change the chancellor could make would be to introduce a value cap on all gifts made during your lifetime, regardless of when they were given. Rachael Griffin, a tax and financial planning expert at the wealth manager Quilter, said: 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into the scope of inheritance tax and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members. The UK has never had such a limit, and if it were set too low it could affect a large number of middle-class estates, particularly in areas where property wealth alone can easily breach the frozen tax-free allowances.' She said that a lifetime cap could lead to 'unintended behavioural shifts', with families rushing to make large transfers earlier in life, potentially before they were financially ready. It would require HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to track gifts over decades, adding complexity and cost and increasing disputes. Saiman said that if the cap were set at US-style levels (around $14 million) 'it would only affect a small proportion of the population', while a lower cap would have huge political and practical impacts. • A ham-fisted inheritance tax grab on the middle class would end in tears A decade ago inheritance tax was seen as an almost voluntary tax because the wealthy and financial astute could avoid it through planning. That is becoming harder to do as more middle-class families face being caught in the net. All estates get a £325,000 inheritance tax-free allowance known as the nil-rate band. If you leave your main home to a direct descendant, and your estate is worth less than £2 million, you also get a £175,000 residence nil-rate band. Anything left to a spouse or civil partner is inheritance tax-free, and they also inherit each other's allowances, meaning that a couple can pass on £1 million between them. The nil-rate band, however, has been the same since 2009, while the residence band is unchanged since 2020. As a result, the number of families liable for inheritance tax is projected to double by 2030. Further pressure is on the way: from April 2027 the value of your pension pot will be included in your estate for inheritance tax purposes, while Labour's recent tightening of agricultural and business property reliefs is expected to draw more family enterprises into the tax net. The so-called great wealth transfer, in which an estimated £5 trillion is set to pass from baby boomers to younger generations over the next 30 years, is also in full swing. A government looking for extra revenue will be tempted to take a slice. Financial planners emphasise two golden rules when it comes to inheritance tax planning: avoid making irreversible decisions based on speculation, and never give away more than you can afford. This is particularly important given that the wealth manager Charles Stanley advises budgeting for costs of £100,000 a year for the last three years of your life. So, make the most of the rules now, and use up your annual allowances. You can give away up to £3,000 a year inheritance tax-free, plus carry over one year's unused allowance. You can make unlimited £250 gifts to different people, and wedding gifts of up to £5,000 for a child, £2,500 for a grandchild. These may sound small, but over time they add up significantly. If you have more income than you spend, consider setting up a pattern of regular gifts — while you still can. Keep meticulous records, including a note of intent and evidence of your annual income and expenditure to satisfy HMRC. Trusts are becoming more popular for passing on wealth while retaining some control over your assets. Discretionary trusts in particular allow assets to be distributed at the trustees' discretion, helping to protect against divorce or bankruptcy in the family. Trusts can be used in combination with life insurance policies to ensure that your family can cover inheritance tax bills. Life cover, including whole of life or gift inter vivos policies can provide lump sums to avoid your heirs having to sell assets to pay tax. Demand for such policies spiked after the chancellor announced her plan to tax pension pots. Saiman said they are a 'simple and highly effective' hedge against a 'disaster scenario'. Whatever changes come in the budget, clear documentation will be key. Keep receipts, bank statements and formal letters for significant transfers. If you have made gifts in the past few years, note the date and terms so it's clear that they should fall under existing rules.
Times
4 minutes ago
- Times
David Lammy faces £2,500 fine for fishing without licence with JD Vance
The foreign secretary could be facing a fine of thousands of pounds for going fishing with the vice-president of the United States without a licence. David Lammy and JD Vance were pictured last week with rods in the grounds of Chevening, the grace-and-favour country estate used by foreign secretaries, during the vice-president's family holiday to the UK. The two men confirmed they had been fishing for carp, along with their children, but said that the adults had failed to catch anything. At the start of their meeting, Vance said: 'Unfortunately, the one strain on the special relationship is that all of my kids caught fish, but the foreign secretary did not.' It is a requirement in England and Wales for individuals over the age of 13 to hold a rod licence to fish, even on private land. It is understood neither Lammy or Vance held a licence at the time. People caught fishing without a rod licence can face fines of up to £2,500 from the Environment Agency, the government's environmental watchdog. Lammy has since purchased the relevant licence retrospectively and referred himself to the agency. The Foreign Office has said that 'administrative oversight' meant that the licences were not properly organised in advance. A spokesman said: 'The foreign secretary has written to the Environment Agency over an administrative oversight that meant the appropriate licences had not been acquired for fishing on a private lake as part of a diplomatic engagement at Chevening House last week. 'As soon as the foreign secretary was made aware of the administrative error, he successfully purchased the relevant rod fishing licences. He also wrote to the Environment Agency notifying them of the error, demonstrating how it would be rectified and thanking them for their work protecting Britain's fisheries.' Vance is continuing his family holiday with his wife and three children in the Cotswolds after visiting Lammy at the country estate as part of a series of engagements for the vice-president since arriving in the UK. • Jane Austen was in the air as this bromance novel began All the fish caught were returned to the waters after the group had finished. A Labour source said: 'There's nothing fishy to see here. The foreign secretary isn't much of a fisherman but he landed a big diplomatic catch getting the vice-president to stay for the weekend at Chevening. 'As soon as he learnt of the administrative error he got the relevant licences and notified the Environment Agency to avoid getting caught up.' The Environment Agency said: 'Everyone who goes fishing needs licence to help improve our rivers, lakes and the sport anglers love. We understand the relevant licences have been purchased.'
