Latest news with #welfareCuts
The Independent
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
PM fails to back tearful Reeves after welfare chaos
A chaotic Prime Minister's Questions saw Rachel Reeves appear distressed as the government faced a damaging rebellion over welfare cuts. The prime minister refused to rule out new taxes to address a £5bn funding gap resulting from welfare U-turns, intensifying pressure for cabinet changes. Rachel Reeves' emotional state at PMQs led to questions about her future, which Sir Keir Starmer avoided, though Downing Street cited a personal matter or an altercation with the Speaker. The Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that welfare reforms would cost money, not save it, causing unease in bond markets and a drop in the pound's value. Calls for a wealth tax are growing, with support from within the cabinet and the Trades Union Congress, as a potential solution to the financial shortfall.
Telegraph
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Lord only knows the pressure Rachel Reeves is under
Can there be anyone who didn't feel absolutely mortified by the sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, crying during Prime Minister's Questions? It was slightly heartbreaking and very troubling. These weren't misty eyes that could be explained away by adult onset hay fever, or tears welling at the sound of another screeching U-turn on her swingeing (now swinging in the wind) welfare cuts. This was actual weeping, and it was beyond uncomfortable to watch. If, as her spokesman later insisted, her heightened emotional state was down to a personal matter, why on earth was she forced to sit on the front bench in the televised Westminster bear pit, for all the world to see? Whatever upset her – she says this visible anguish wasn't prompted by looming redundancy, and some are pointing to a row with the Commons Speaker – it was obviously impossible to put aside for the length of PMQs. So why did she turn up to what was going to be a humiliating exchange about the government's welfare omnishambles? From the outset Reeves, 46, looked a shadow of her former self. Gone was the shiny helmet of blow-dried hair, the set chin and the slightly pursed lips we've come to expect of the Chancellor. She appeared sleep-deprived, diminished, dishevelled even, as she fought to control her mouth and blink through the tears that rolled down her face. Show this to your daughters the next time they wonder about entering the 'rough and tumble' of politics. Nobody likes a full-on altercation with a colleague in the office. After a certain age, we tend to swear under our breath or kick a waste paper basket, rather than bursting into tears. If Reeves had indeed just received a dressing down from Sir Lindsay Hoyle before taking her place beside the Prime Minister, her response speaks less to any innate sensitivity – you don't rise to her rank without a thick skin – and more to the extraordinary strain of the job. Lord only knows the pressure Reeves is under. Aside from the vile trolling aimed at all female MPs, the mother of two will be working 24/7 under the glare of media, and getting it in the neck from everyone: backbenchers, the bond markets, cabinet colleagues determined to prise more money for their departments, and no doubt about it, a PM appalled to discover the depth of feeling in the rank and file about her scrabbling down the back of the Benefits Street sofa to balance the books. Now the climb-down has left her with a £5 billion black hole to fill and her reputation in tatters. When Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, commented that Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable', she was underplaying it. In truth, she looked broken. It did not help matters when Starmer was asked whether the Chancellor would keep her job until the next election – and he dodged the question. 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place,' purred Badenoch. It was a vanishingly rare bullseye, but felt uncomfortably Mean Girls, so nobody came out of it well. Life happens. Politicians cry. But usually only when they leave their jobs – either voluntarily or not – with the dishonourable exception of our former health secretary, Matt Hancock, who fake cried on Good Morning Britain when 81-year-old William 'Bill' Shakespeare received the UK's first Covid vaccine, but signally failed to emote after he was caught snogging his closest aide in his ministerial office in breach of his own Covid rules, and indeed marriage vows. What the future holds for Reeves, who knows? Without wishing to intrude on personal grief, I suggest that she rest up, buy herself a Dyson Airwrap pronto, and multi-style herself back into the spotlight before her P45 arrives in the post.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Reeves in tears as Starmer declines to confirm she will remain chancellor
Rachel Reeves was in tears at prime minister's questions on Wednesday as the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, attacked the government over its U-turn on welfare cuts. The chancellor wiped away a tear after a series of questions from Badenoch, who said Labour MPs had said she was 'toast', and suggested the prime minister had failed to confirm that Reeves would stay in post until the election. Downing Street weighed in immediately behind Reeves, with aides saying she was 'going nowhere' and that there would be no reshuffle. A spokesperson for Reeves said: 'It's a personal matter, which – as you would expect – we are not going to get into. The chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.' Reeves had appeared to be upset before prime minister's questions had started. During the 30-minute session, Badenoch said the chancellor looked 'absolutely miserable', before pressing Starmer on whether she would be in post at the next election. After Starmer did not directly reply, the Tory leader replied: 'How awful for the chancellor that he did not confirm she would be in post.' As the prime minister continued to speak, Reeves wiped away a tear. Angela Rayner, the deputy leader, appeared to mouth some words of comfort to her colleague. The dramatic moment in the House of Commons comes after Starmer withdrew the welfare cuts following a rebellion by Labour MPs. It leaves Reeves with some extremely hard choices to come in the autumn budget on tax rises and spending priorities – including on the two-child benefit cap – after the government's welfare U-turn. Earlier on Wednesday, sources close to the chancellor said she would have to underline to MPs that there was now £5bn less to spend on other priorities, which would have consequences for other measures – including the £3.5bn cost of scrapping the unpopular cap on child benefit payments. The Treasury and No 10 have not definitively ruled out a change to the two-child rule but said the chaotic U-turn on welfare cuts on Tuesday night would have a major impact. The second reading of the government's flagship welfare bill passed its first Commons test only after a central element was removed – changes to personal independence payments. The bill passed with a rebellion of 49 Labour MPs, more than three times more than the previous biggest rebellion. Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister, said explicitly on Wednesday morning that there were now tough choices to be made. 'In any budgetary decision, there's definitely a cost to what was announced yesterday, and you can't spend the same money twice, so more money spent on that means less for some other purpose,' he told the BBC. While economists including the Institute for Fiscal Studies have focused on the need for the chancellor to raise taxes at the budget, Treasury sources said there would also be implications for spending priorities – including ones popular with Labour MPs. 'We're not going to bluff this, we're not going to hide it. We're going to be clear there is a financial cost to this,' said one ally. 'Labour MPs need to understand that. Of course, tax is one of the levers we could have to pull. We're not going to duck that. 'Those Labour MPs and charities and others who want the two-child limit lifted, how are you going to pay for it now? Labour MPs made a choice last night, and the government accepted that choice, but we are going to be honest that that choice comes at cost, because it does.' They said they would not countenance further changes to the fiscal rules. 'That means more debt interest, taxpayers' money going to hedge funds. Is that a progressive thing?' No definitive plans are yet in motion for how to fill the hole left by the welfare U-turn. A Treasury source said it would depend on future economic growth, as well as oil prices and receipts the Treasury receives from its clampdown on tax evasion.
The Independent
02-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Good Morning Britain's Ed Balls in fiery clash with Tory MP for ‘waffling' over welfare cuts
Good Morning Britain 's Ed Balls and Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury clashed over welfare cuts, with the presenter chastising the Tory MP for 'waffling'. Appearing on the ITV show on Wednesday (2 July), after Gareth Davies failed to say where the Conservatives would be making cuts instead, Mr Balls chastised him for 'failing to answer the question' 'Don't go all waffley on us at this point in the interview' he told Mr Davies, to which the MP disputed. 'It isn't waffle, it's about reform'. The Tory MP critiqued Labour 's watered-down bill that was passed yesterday in the House of Commons, after the party revised some cuts to universal credit.
Telegraph
01-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
The calamitous day that leaves Starmer's reputation in tatters
There was a hush in the Commons as Sir Stephen Timms stood up at the despatch box to make what proved to be a monumental announcement. The minister – one of the most mild-mannered in the House – interrupted a Labour MP speaking in the long and uncomfortable debate on welfare cuts, to reveal the Government had 'heard' MPs' concerns and would drop yet another part of its Bill. The screeching about-turn came just hours after Liz Kendall, the embattled Work and Pensions Secretary, had vowed that no more concessions would be made. And yet the concession announced by Sir Stephen – that the cuts to personal independence payments (PIP) would be delayed – effectively rendered the whole Bill pointless. As leading rebel Rachael Maskell crowed: 'There is hardly a Bill left to oppose.' All seem agreed that the calamitous day in Parliament leaves Sir Keir Starmer's reputation for competence in tatters. On Tuesday morning, just hours before the vote, he held a back-slapping Cabinet meeting to celebrate Labour's first year in office, a milestone it will reach on Saturday. He used the event to castigate ministers briefing against Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff. The day's events also raise huge questions about whether Ms Kendall will be able to stay in post, after having presided over such a disastrous piece of legislation. Opening the debate at 1.45pm, she was defiant, saying: 'Unlike the previous administration, this government must not and will not duck the big challenges facing this country. Because the people we are in politics to serve deserve so much better than this.' She had no intention of giving way, just days after she had been forced to make major concessions to her Bill after 127 backbenchers signed a motion against it and one government whip resigned. These changes included exempting existing PIP claimants from any cuts to their benefits. It had been thought that that had staved off defeat, but over the weekend, it emerged that rebels still had concerns. On Monday, MPs were angered once more when the Government admitted that even its watered-down reforms would push 150,000 into poverty. The rebellion was back on. In a sign that things were not going to go so well, Ms Kendall was jeered by MPs when she made her opening statement. Throughout the debate, the drumbeat of opposition grew, with Labour backbencher after Labour backbencher lining up to criticise the Bill or calling for it to be withdrawn altogether. Soon, there were rumours of a climbdown, as ministers accepted the inevitable lesson from the way the debate was going. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, was meeting rebels in her Commons offices to thrash out a deal. Rebels wanted the government to pull the entire legislation, but they were prepared to accept changes so large that they effectively meant a neutering of the Bill. Ms Rayner offered to delay the introduction of tightened eligibility for PIPs from the planned date of November 2026 until after a review of the future of the whole benefits system – raising the prospect that the change may never come into effect. It was just after 4.20pm that the minister broke into a Labour MP's speech to make his dramatic announcement. 'Others across the House during this debate have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading,' he said. 'We've heard those concerns and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove the Clause Five from the Bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms Review and only make changes to PIP eligibility activity and descriptors following that review.' A prominent Labour rebel said: 'Ministers on the front bench just lowered their heads as backbenchers looked over.' The debate then continued for another two and a half hours, with little sign that even this concession had appeased backbenchers. The Conservatives were jubilant, glad to see that the chaotic votes seen under the premierships of Baroness May and Liz Truss were now happening to Labour. Simon Hoare, a former Tory minister, said the confusion felt in the House of Commons 'is now being felt and expressed in the country at large'. He told the Commons: 'I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by their own sponsoring ministers in such a cack-handed way. 'Nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interest of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it and start again?' Labour's Ian Lavery said: 'This is crazy, man! This is outrageous, man! This Bill isn't fit for purpose. If you have a look, it's 16 pages. I can ask the Right Honourable gentleman to rip the ones out that's changed. There would only be two pages left. Withdraw the Bill!' Sir Stephen, winding up, described the debate with understatement as having been a 'passionate and eventful'. Sitting next to him was Ms Kendall, dressed in dark garb as if for her own funeral. Outside the chamber, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, was seen looking even more miserable than usual. The U-turn overturns her plans to find savings worth billions. Westminster insiders pointed out that the Work and Pensions Secretary had been a special adviser to Harriet Harman in 1998, when she was forced to resign from the same job. Then known as social security secretary, she took unpopular proposals to slash single-parent benefits through the Commons despite a rebellion of 47 Labour MPs – two short of the rebellion suffered by Sir Keir. Soon after, Ms Harman was sacked by Sir Tony Blair. Critics were left wondering whether Ms Kendall may now be on the verge of suffering the same fate.
