Latest news with #Tories
The Sun
25 minutes ago
- Business
- The Sun
Fury as Labour minister suggests Brits on the dole can turn down job offers they do not like
WELFARE Minister Alison McGovern was slammed last night after saying people on benefits will not be forced to take 'any job' offered to them. Under the last Tory government, people on the dole had to look for work and take up a role if a jobcentre found them one. 2 But MsMcGovern hit out at the policy and suggested that under Labour those on the dole would be able to pick and choose what job they take before having their benefits taken off them. She told The Guardian: 'The Tories used to talk about ABC: 'Any job, Better job, Career'. 'I think that if you think about the career [first] … If we can get people into an NHS job where they're more likely to move on and move up, then that is far better for them.' Tory shadow welfare chief Helen Whately hit back: 'The mask has slipped - and it's the same old Labour. 'Those who can work, should work. To do otherwise is unfair to them, unfair to the taxpayer and unfair to society which pays the spiralling cost of worklessness. 'It's one of the biggest problems facing the country. But with the employment minister telling people not to worry about getting a job, we know the Government hasn't got a grip.' 2 Last night, the government slapped down Ms McGovern - saying there was no change in policy and that jobless Brits on benefits must take work if offered it. A Government source said: 'There's no change in policy. The rules remain the same: jobseekers have to be actively seeking work and they have to take up reasonable job offers. 'The Tories ran down job centres and locked millions of people out of work. "This Labour government is changing the way job centres work to help more people into secure, well-paid jobs.'
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour plots ‘family bathtime tax' on water bills
Labour has opened the door to 'progressive' water bills that would force those with larger family homes and gardens to pay more. Ministers have said they support utilities companies trialling new tariffs that charge the heaviest users of water a higher rate. Some firms are also pushing for a move to a seasonal pricing system, which would mean it costs more to use water in the summer than the winter. Combined, the changes would disproportionately hit the bills of families with children and of households with gardens and swimming pools. The Tories said the 'punitive' plans would hit young parents hardest, accusing Labour of allowing a 'tax on bathtime' and 'waging war on family homes'. It comes after England experienced its driest start to spring for almost 70 years, with the Environment Agency declaring a drought in the North West. Water companies are lobbying ministers to give the green light to the use of new tariffs, which they say will reduce bills for most households and cut consumption. They want to be able to switch to a model of 'progressive' pricing, whereby families that use the most water are charged the highest prices. Under the system, also known as rising block tariffs, the rate people are charged per litre increases at intervals in line with their usage. Such a system would have to be underpinned by the rollout of smart meters to all homes so that companies could monitor their water usage in real time. Around 60 per cent of homes in England are currently metered, but the vast majority of those have a conventional meter from which periodic readings are taken. The Government estimates that only 12 per cent have smart meters, which are connected to the internet and provide data directly to the utility company.
The Independent
a day ago
- Business
- The Independent
Can Reeves calm Labour's troubled waters with her spending review?
The term 'fiscal event' hardly does justice to the significance of the government's comprehensive spending review, due to be published on Wednesday 11 June by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. It's been in preparation more or less since Labour took office last July. It matters at least as much as any Budget because it sets out broad public spending plans for each area of government. These cover planned investment and current spending in areas such as wages, but exclude cyclical items such as unemployment benefits. So they are a strong statement of the Labour government's priorities. All the signs are that it's been a difficult process, and the leaks and the spinning have already begun. What's the trouble? Trying to balance the books (in reality borrowing huge but manageable sums) is the answer to that. In an environment of great global uncertainty, alongside sluggish UK growth thanks to Brexit, and in a country with an ageing population, Reeves's task is an unenviable one. In addition, she will have to balance the pressing political demands of colleagues with her determination to stick to her 'fiscal rules'. Specifically? At the moment, backbenchers in the red wall seats in the North and the Midlands that Labour regained from the Tories at the general election are pressuring the Treasury to pour billions into much-needed investment in infrastructure, to make the most of the industrial potential of these neglected areas. This would also, of course, have a helpful electoral benefit for those MPs who are facing a challenge from Reform UK. Reeves has hinted that she could adjust her rules on investment spending to facilitate tens of billions to be devoted to levelling up the regions. Sounds familiar? Yes, indeed. Although Labour chooses not to use the loaded slogan 'levelling up' about 'left behind' communities, it is very much what Boris Johnson promised in 2019 and, for good and bad reasons, wasn't delivered as expected in the last parliament. Before that, George Osborne, Tory chancellor from 2010 to 2016, talked ambitiously about devolution, the ' Northern Powerhouse ', and the 'Midlands Engine'. There was even a red wall caucus of Tory MPs, named the Northern Research Group (NRG), who lobbied hard for successive Tory administrations to live up to their promises (most of the NRG members have since lost their seats). The ultimate symbol of Tory failure was the cancellation of the HS2 rail project, launched with so much hope by David Cameron but miserably dismembered by Rishi Sunak at the 2023 Conservative Party conference. In Manchester. In a former railway station. Now, exactly the same dynamic is operating within the Starmer administration. There are some big personalities involved? Yes: Angela Rayner, deputy leader and deputy prime minister, for one. Powerful as her office makes her, she also has an excellent case for expanding the 'affordable homes fund', because of the importance Labour placed on the housing crisis and its target of 1.5 million new homes to be built during its first parliament. This was always a tough one – so much so that it's been reported that Rayner threatened to quit in exasperation and Tony Blair had to persuade her out of it (a story she denies). She is also surely right to get some adequate funding into local authorities before many more fall into chaotic bankruptcy, which would look like carelessness if not incompetence on the part of Rayner. Other ministers putting up a fight are Yvette Cooper at the Home Office, Ed Miliband (Energy), and Steve Reed (Environment). Liz Kendall (Work and Pensions) and Reeves will also need to persuade their backbench colleagues to back whatever welfare reforms they eventually settle on – ideally, restoring the pensioners' winter fuel payment, lifting the two-child cap on child benefit, and ameliorating planned cuts to disability benefits. Defence and Health are the only areas likely to escape demands for 'efficiency savings'. What can Labour backbenchers do? The spending review is an odd beast, because unlike, say, a finance bill, it's not legislation and doesn't necessarily have to be voted on; and for that matter, a government doesn't have to stick to it (even if it wants to). It's just a 'plan', a statement of intent, and a series of signals about priorities. But some sort of backbench rebellion seems inevitable, even among the usually loyal 2024 intake, even if only by proxy. At a minimum, they will certainly expect some signs of the imminent restoration of the pensioners' winter fuel payment – the cutting of which was hated by the voters and would have saved little money – and on progress to end child poverty. Will there be resignations? There's talk of Rayner being pushed to the limits of her patience, again, and her resignation would be cataclysmic. However, in most cases of a politician wrestling with their conscience, their conscience usually loses. Rayner would not be thanked for abandoning the administration less than a year into its life. Even worse, as the party is already suffering in the polls, she would thereby be hastening the onset of the ultimate catastrophe – a Farage-led government. She would attract at least as much scorn and blame for that as she would gain respect for standing up for working people, or whatever. She might, as others have in the past, improve her chances of winning the leadership in due course by making a tactical move to the back benches now, but she's said she's not interested in the top job, and her treachery would probably cost her dear in any case. Having come this far, she'll most likely stick with it. Others, maybe some more junior ministers with an eye on the long game, might decide to leave office 'on principle'. But this would not affect the outcome of the spending review, which is ultimately going to be more cuts.
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Labour under pressure as viral video shows broken promises to nuclear veterans
A video showing Labour ministers promising compensation to nuclear veterans has gone viral, putting the government under pressure to keep its word Pressure is growing on the Labour government to keep its years of promises to nuclear veterans, after a social media video went viral. It includes clips of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, Defence Secretary John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard all insisting that when in power they would offer full recognition to Britain's most mistreated heroes. More than a million people have now seen the video, compiled by social justice campaigner Peter Stefanovic. He is calling on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to sit down with the families affected by involvement with Cold War nuclear weapons tests. In Opposition and the shadow cabinet, the three gave unscripted and unasked-for offers of compensation, saying "there was no good reason" not to and it was "really dumb" of the Tories not to have done it already. Mr Starmer himself told them: "The country owes you a huge debt of honour. Your campaign is our campaign." Yet after almost a year in power, nothing has changed. Mr Stefanovic said: "Despite expressing his "gratitude" to the veterans in opposition, after becoming PM, Keir Starmer has made no public comment on the nuclear blood test programme, and 10 months since Labour came to power, there is no compensation scheme, no recognition, beyond a commemorative medal which was authorised by the Tories. "A 'thorough' review of the archives promised to Parliament by Mr Healey has been given no budget with which to find answers. Our nuclear test veterans - national heroes to whom this country owes a huge debt of honour and gratitude, most of whom are now in their eighties and with chronic ill health - are calling on the PM to meet with them and honour the commitment which his party to them in opposition... it's the very least the veterans deserve." The pledges were all made before evidence emerged in November 2022 of the Nuked Blood Scandal, a secret biological monitoring programme on troops involving blood tests, urinalysis and chest x-rays to determine whether radiation had entered their bodies. The MoD had long denied such a programme existed, but a three-year investigation by the Mirror has uncovered thousands of pages of evidence hidden on a secret database at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Discovery of the cover-up has led to a civil lawsuit, a police complaint, and a decision to declassify the entire historic archive. After it featured in a BBC documentary, a review was launched but six months on ministers have refused to reveal any findings, and admitted it has no deadline. The video shows Ms Rayner addressing a conference of the forgotten Cold War heroes in 2022, telling them: "Myself and my Labour colleagues are calling on the Secretary of State for Defence to.... liaise with the Treasury to set up an appropriate financial compensation programme for veterans and their descendants, as America, France, China, Russia, Fiji and the Isle of Man have done." Mr Healey told the same event: "The UK remains the only nuclear test country in which there is no scheme at all for compensation and recognition, and that's why on behalf of the British Labour Party I've said to your veterans, your campaign is our campaign. It's why British Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has met with veterans and their families, the first-ever party leader in Britain to do so. We are totally together on the campaign for justice, for compensation." Mr Pollard is shown in a third clip, saying: "The UK, unlike many of our allies, has never compensated or recognised the sacrifice of those veterans... their significant exposure to radiation has also led to consequences for close family members and their children. "So that's why it seems really dumb the UK government has been denying, not only a medal to those veterans for their exceptional service 70 years ago, but compensation, and Labour has been campaigning on this for quite some time." Steve Foote's sailor dad John was sent to Christmas Island to take part in Operation Grapple in 1957. After two years of fighting he was bale to get his dad's medical records, which show he was given 6 chest x-rays in 8 years with no clinical reason. He said: "If only their actions were as powerful as their words in Opposition." Jim Shaw, whose dad was also a veteran, added: "It's taken the government 65 years for my dad to receive his nuclear veteran's medal and certificate. The government are just biding their time, in 10 years most of the veterans will be gone.. The same will happen to the blood scandals, and the post office sub-postmasters, sadly.. Cannot and never will be trusted.." Campaigners have requested a meeting with Mr Healey and Mr Starmer, but received no response. A spokesman for the MoD said: "We recognise the huge contribution that nuclear test veterans have made to national security. Since entering government, ministers have commissioned officials to look again at unresolved questions regarding medical records as a priority, and this is now underway. This work will be comprehensive, and it will enable us to better understand what information the department holds in relation to the medical testing of service personnel who took part in the UK nuclear weapons tests."
The Guardian
a day ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Is John McDonnell's criticism of Keir Starmer's Labour fair?
John McDonnell clearly takes responsibility, along with Jeremy Corbyn, for the 'policy platform' they developed together in the hope that 'eventually Labour would return to power' (Starmer and co are trashing Labour's legacy. We must take back control of our party – before it's too late, 28 May). Throughout his article, McDonnell argues for an alternative strategy to that being followed by the current prime minister, Keir Starmer. At no stage does he acknowledge that, when standing on this Corbyn/McDonnell policy platform, Labour lost two general elections. By losing these elections they condemned this country to seven years of Tory rule – seven years during which the Tories wreaked havoc. Yet I note that not once in his piece does McDonnell offer any kind of apology for these years of mayhem. Starmer is at least attempting to put this right. He changed the party's policies in order to make it more electable, and he was (thankfully) successful. Now let him get on and finish the job. Passing 'control' back to McDonnell and his sidekicks will merely send Labour back into the SoperMidhurst, West Sussex John McDonnell has identified Labour's malaise, which, he reminds us, affects not just its members in No 10 (hubris) but the entire movement (disillusionment). Almost a year ago seven MPs – including him – were suspended when they voted against maintaining the two-child cap on benefits, and after Labour's recent U-turn we can only look forward, in hope, to their reinstatement. But, as he warns us, we face a looming crisis. He is right to characterise how Labour is governing as 'timid'. Its tone-deaf acceptance of corporate gifting was dismissed as trivial sniping by the left. Try citing that as an excuse when attempting to retain support on the doorstep and being met with 'they're all the same' while those desperate for change look over your shoulder at Reform. The number of MPs who vote with the government, or abstain, when it attempts to cut disabled people's benefits will be a measure of how deeply unwell the party has Peter ManganBeckenham, Kent John McDonnell's criticism of the Labour government may well be music to the receptive ears of people frustrated by a lack of progress on many issues of concern to those in the labour movement and beyond in these still early days of Starmer's government. I'm reminded of the early years of Tony Blair's government, during which so many felt frustrated with progress. But look at how that changed and bore fruit, to the extent that by 2010 Labour was deemed an overspending, reckless, leftish government. In 2010, in the dog days of Gordon Brown's tenure, I recall sharing a platform with John McDonnell, who castigated Brown as a rightwing monetarist who had failed the labour movement and the people. What we would all give to have those levels of social spending now. Trevor HopperLewes, East Sussex Like John McDonnell, I am in my 70s, a lifelong Labour voter, and I have been a member of the party for more than 40 years. I would just note that every Labour government in my lifetime, including the great Attlee government, has been accused of betrayal and abandoning principles, mainly by people who claim to be on the left. I would also note that, despite the criticisms, it is Labour governments that have delivered almost every social advance and economic improvement in the lives of ordinary British voters over those more than seven GallagherLargs, North Ayrshire Bridget Phillipson says it is the moral mission 'of this Labour government to ensure that fewer children grow up in poverty' (Report, 27 May). What's with 'fewer'? Shouldn't it be that no children grow up in poverty, or am I missing something?Simon Lauris Hudson Pontefract, West Yorkshire 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.
