Latest news with #welfarecuts
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Most Americans think Trump megabill will benefit wealthy people: Survey
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think the 'big, beautiful bill' will do more to help wealthy people, according to a new AP-NORC poll. That includes 48 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents, and 83 percent of Democrats, according to the poll, which was released on Friday. The bill extends many of the tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 during President Trump's first term, alongside significant reductions to welfare services. Democrats have assailed the law as a historic transfer of wealth to the rich from the poor. Sixty-one percent of Americans also said the law would do more to hurt low-income people. However, the two parties were divided on the question of low-income Americans. Less than a third of Republicans said the bill would do more to harm low-income people, compared to 90 percent of Democrats. Democrats are hoping to use the bill's cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other government support programs as key messaging during the upcoming 2026 midterms. The bill's effects on low-income Americans, however, could take several years to show. The bill's deepest funding cuts to Medicaid, which could result in millions losing their insurance in the next 10 years, will not kick in until 2028, although work requirements could begin by the end of 2026. Changes to SNAP will also not go into effect until 2028. The bill has also garnered criticism for its long-term additions to the national debt, estimated to be in the trillions. Many economists have expressed concerns about its cost at a time when government spending was already thought to be unsustainable in the long run. In the poll released Friday, approval of Trump's handling of government spending was down to 38 percent, compared to 46 percent from an AP-NORC poll in March. About two-thirds of Americans think the government is spending too much, with Republicans and Democrats in agreement, according to the poll. The poll surveyed 1,437 adults between July 10 and July 14, with a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's control freakery: the party once tolerated dissent. Now it treats it as treason
Sir Keir Starmer's crackdown on dissent has been a troubling hallmark of his leadership. Muzzling protest over welfare cuts won't make the policies fairer or more popular. He seems more focused on obedience than legitimacy. The timing – days before parliament rises – caught many Labour MPs off-guard. Some thought the leadership was softening; even Downing Street had preached 'the need to bring people with us'. This week shows that the old instinct still dominates. Three out of the four MPs suspended – Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Neil Duncan‑Jordan – were elected in 2024. Their suspensions are probably meant to deter newly arrived MPs from stepping out of line. Each built an early political identity by standing up to the government. Mr Leishman opposed the closure of Grangemouth oil refinery. Mr Hinchliff defied planning reform on environmental grounds. Mr Duncan-Jordan criticised cuts to winter fuel payments. Even experienced figures weren't spared. Rachael Maskell, a former shadow minister, lost the whip for opposing welfare cuts. Her suspension sends a message: no one is safe – not even those whose reasoning ministers largely accepted when reversing course on the cuts. The problem isn't Ms Maskell. It's a party that can't tolerate its conscience. Ministers who once revolted but now back the purge expose the factional logic at the heart of Starmerism. Three prominent ethnic minority MPs were symbolically demoted by being stripped of their (largely ceremonial) trade envoy roles. Separately, Diane Abbott was suspended on Thursday evening over racism claims for the second time. Past Labour leaders knew when to absorb dissent. In 1997, Tony Blair kept his 47 welfare rebels in the party; Clement Attlee weathered revolts. Today, internal challenge is met not with debate but with exclusion – even with a 157-seat majority. The final straw may have been that, even after ministers made concessions on their disability cuts, 47 MPs – including all seven sanctioned this week – still voted against it. The message from Downing Street now looks less like authority and more like insecurity, especially when the rebels' concerns are widely shared by the public. It's the political equivalent of pour encourager les autres. Perhaps Sir Keir's moves stem from the scale of the revolt – more than half the number needed to trigger a leadership challenge. But Labour famously doesn't do regicide. It may also be that Downing Street wanted to issue a warning to potential ringleaders of brewing mutinies – on special educational needs reform, the two-child benefit cap and the government's forthcoming immigration bill. Unable to win by force of argument, Sir Keir opts for the argument of force. It's a sign of weakness, not strength. Polling shows Labour is losing support not because of internal splits but because voters are disappointed with the substance of its policies. Labour has the evidence that economic populism works, but won't use it, reportedly out of deference to donor sensitivities. That's not a communications problem. That's a leadership one. The suspended MPs are not liabilities, they're canaries in the coalmine. By punishing them, Labour silences warnings that it needs to hear. If Sir Keir's team continues to equate principle with disloyalty, it risks alienating not just its base but the very voters who handed it power. Real strength doesn't come from silencing disagreement. It comes from meeting the argument – and being made better by it.
Sky News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Starmer defends suspending rebel MPs after backbench criticism
Sir Keir Starmer has defended suspending four of his own MPs, saying those who "repeatedly break the whip" have to be dealt with. In his first comments on the decision to purge a handful of backbenchers, the prime minister said all Labour MPs were elected on a "manifesto for change" and that needs to be delivered "as a Labour government". Asked by Sky's political editor Beth Rigby if the suspensions make him look weak, Sir Keir said: "I'm determined that we will change this country for the better for millions of working people. "I'm not going to be deflected from that and therefore we have to deal with people who repeatedly break the whip, because everyone was elected as a Labour MP on the manifesto of change and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government." The casualties of the crackdown were Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell, who are no longer part of Labour's parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs pending a review. The move has been criticised by several of their colleagues who say the party leadership should listen to backbench concerns rather than punish them for speaking out. The four MPs had voted against the government's welfare cuts earlier this month. However, it is understood this isn't the only reason for their suspension with party sources citing "repeated breaches of party discipline". More than 100 Labour MPs had initially spoken out against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP), though only 47 voted against the bill's third reading after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat. Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair faced a similar-sized revolt when he tried to push through welfare reforms in 1997, but he did not suspend those who voted against him. Sir Keir was speaking in a Q&A following a press conference alongside the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. He said he is determined to carry out his reforms "because we inherited a broken economy and broken public services" and "no government has inherited both of those". However, he is facing a fiscal blackhole as the original welfare plan had aimed to save £5bn before it was softened. It also remains unclear how the government will fund extending the winter fuel allowance, which was another concession to angry backbenchers following the controversial decision to scrap universal payments. On Wednesday night a chorus of MPs who have been critical of the government hit out at the decision to suspend four of their colleagues. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby who was temporarily suspended last year for revolting over the two-child benefit cap, said: "These decisions don't show strength. They are damaging Labour's support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform." Richard Burgon, the Labour MP for Leeds East, said a key role of backbenchers is to challenge policies that "make a Reform government much more likely" and the prime minister should be "listening to those voices, not punishing them".
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Starmer hits back at ‘rattled' accusation over Labour MP suspensions
Sir Keir Starmer rejected comparisons to Sir Tony Blair when grilled over the suspension of Labour MPs due to their opposition of welfare cuts. Sky News' Beth Rigby recalled how 47 MPs voted against the former Labour prime minister's welfare plans in 1997, but none had the whip removed. It comes after the party suspended Brian Leishman, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, and Rachael Maskell on Wednesday after they led a backbench rebellion over planned welfare cuts. When asked why he was "so rattled" by the rebellion, the PM replied: "I'm determined that we will change this country for the better for millions of working people, and I'm not going to be deflected from that. "Everyone was elected as a Labour MP on the manifesto of change, and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government."
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Are suspended Labour MPs undisciplined? Readers have their say
Sir Keir Starmer's decision to suspend four Labour MPs for defying the party whip has triggered a strong reaction, both inside and outside Westminster. The punishment meted out to Rachael Maskell, Chris Hinchliff, Brian Leishman, and Neil Duncan-Jordan comes after the government was forced into two major U-turns on planned welfare cuts amid its largest backbench rebellion to date. Some see the suspensions as a reassertion of control before MPs leave for summer recess, especially given rumours that disaffected Labour figures are in talks with Jeremy Corbyn about forming a new party. Starmer's supporters, including Labour minister Jess Phillips, argue the rebel MPs were right to be punished for 'slagging off their own government'. Meanwhile, the prime minister's critics say the move exposes his weakness, not his authority. Union leaders have condemned the actions as 'authoritarian' and warned of a deepening rift between Labour and the labour movement. The rebel MPs have defended their stance as a matter of principle, insisting they were elected to stand up for struggling constituents, not to rubber-stamp legislation they believe will cause harm. Independent readers also weighed in with strong, but divided, views. Some backed the need for unity and discipline in government, but others questioned Starmer's leadership style. Here's what you had to say: You sign up to follow party discipline If you get elected using the party's funding, logistics and "brand", you have signed up to follow party discipline and – on a three-line whip –to back the government. That's pretty much written in stone from the moment you put yourself forward as a candidate. In all parties. You might feel obliged to rebel on some matter of conscience, perhaps. But you do so knowing full well what the consequences are. SteveHill Do you think Keir Starmer was right to suspend the rebel MPs – or is Labour silencing dissent? Share your thoughts in the comments. Behaving like an undisciplined bunch Starmer is right to do so. A group of Labour backbenchers are behaving like an undisciplined bunch of student protestors, not members of the governing party. Maybe it's because Labour holds power so rarely, but it invariably has a troublesome internal opposition who don't seem able to grasp that once a party is in government, the primary duty of MPs is to govern in the national interest and adopt collective responsibility – and then to represent the views of their constituents. Their own political and ideological preferences come some way down the list of priorities, and undermining their own government by throwing their toys out of the pram when they don't get their own way is stupid. The voters don't like divided parties which fight internal wars – that was a large part of the reason they chucked the Tories out. If the impression that the left has run amok and is creating anarchy takes root, then Labour will be toast and we will get the Tories back (or even worse, Reform). If that happens, the 'rebels' will have enabled the destruction of the welfare system and a rollback on what Labour has achieved on NHS improvements, net zero, green policies, and much else. Being in power and achieving something, even if not everything that all MPs want, should be far preferable to being back in opposition and achieving nothing. Tanaquil2 Have a backbone Being in government is not easy, and difficult compromises sometimes have to be made for the longer term. It's called not cherry-picking your favourite policies (remember the Brexit negotiations?) without being responsible for not being able to do other things. They will be someone else's favourites, and that way lies chaos. Support the government or don't, but have the backbone to call a vote of no confidence. The government is responsible to the people—not Labour Party members or other parties, for that matter. Longsands No easy fix Each MP should also have a duty to consider how to ensure the best for their constituents in the long term. This government is struggling to put right long-term abuses which have been levied on the ordinary British public for decades, many since Margaret Thatcher. Lies about giving ordinary people bigger stakes have been sold ever since, while the few accumulate more and more wealth and power. It will take a decade to rebalance some of this, and many of us will suffer in the short term for the greater good and for true democracy. Alas, there is no easy fix, even though many (most?) MPs would like to be able to offer one to their constituents. Reeves and Starmer seem to be doing the best they can with a lousy hand of cards and a rigged deck! Greym Primary duty I am reminded of Winston Churchill's comments about the duties of an MP: "The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organisation or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy." So an MP's primary duty is to the good of the country, then to his constituents as a whole, and only then to his party. Starmer has suspended MPs for doing their duty by putting the good of their constituents higher than party obligation. WellActually He can't sack them all! His vindictiveness is a sign of his weakness, as noted above. Leisham is the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth (Scotland); his suspension will likely set off alarms in the Scottish Labour Party, where Starmer is becoming increasingly unpopular. 26.6 per cent of children in Alloa and Grangemouth live in poverty. Brian Leisham, as a Labour MP for the area, has consistently opposed Starmer's policies, particularly those intended to worsen the lives of poorer people in Great Britain. He stuck to his principled approach in the welfare cuts debacle. I suspect that many other Scottish Labour MPs will continue their opposition to Starmer. In the end, he can't sack them all! PaleHorse A group of 'martyrs' If he thinks he can assert his authority this way, then it will backfire, and he has created a group of "martyrs" who will feel free to be highly critical of his policies with no fear of retribution. It might even set an example. Other than that, he should have a word with himself over the summer, and ask why Labour MPs could possibly object to cutting PIP support dressed up as reform – a reform that wasn't even in the manifesto. He doesn't seem to understand how it looks on the ground when they take freebies whilst cutting from the poorest. And if he still doesn't understand why the rebels did what they did, he should resign. His top-down leadership style of commanding over 400 Labour MPs was always going to have its limitations. These people have opinions and are voicing them, but Starmer seems incapable of taking anything on board. It's a very old-fashioned, top-down leadership style. More modern styles engage with people and take them with them. Having kicked out any dissenting voices during his time in opposition, he has surrounded himself with yes-people, and now he is reaping the rewards. Organisations with those kinds of structures are always destined to fail. Leftyandproud One step towards a dictatorship This should not happen in a representative democracy. Each MP has an obligation to their constituents and their conscience, and should be free to vote in line with them. A cabinet should convince its MPs to vote for party policy, but forcing them to vote a certain way – which these bans effectively do, is one step towards a dictatorship. BigDogSmallBrain Heavy-handed Looks a bit heavy-handed to me, an outsider. These MPs gave an honest opinion and tried to persuade the government that it was making a wrong move. Once again, the government has handled an obviously sensitive issue clumsily, and the presentation came over badly. Advice to the government – if anyone should get the boot, it is your current PR advisers. There have been a series of bad calls over the past year that looked bad from WFA onwards. Learn or suffer the consequences. 49niner Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day's top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click 'log in' or 'register' in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
