Sunday, July 06, 2025
The threat to the right to protest
Both will willingly use the mechanisms available to the state to suppress views and actions they disapprove of when, in many instances, there are already routes that can be taken to prevent such protests going too far.
The treatment of Palestine Action is a good example of this. On Wednesday, the House of Commons was asked to vote on whether to proscribe three organisations as terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act: two neo-Nazi groups—the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult—and Palestine Action.
By linking these three groups together, the government put MPs into an impossible position. There is no doubt that the two white supremacist organisations listed clearly meet the threshold for proscription. But, as one Liberal Democrat MP explained, the vote was all-or-nothing. Parliament wasn’t allowed to assess each group on its own merits.
Dr AL Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, explained the dilemma he faced on Facebook:.
Let me be absolutely clear: I condemn in the strongest terms the reckless and illegal actions of those who broke into RAF Brize Norton and targeted military aircraft. Those responsible should be prosecuted using the full force of existing criminal law.
But that wasn’t the question before MPs. Tonight’s vote wasn’t about whether those actions were illegal (they were), or whether the individuals responsible should face criminal charges (they should). It was about whether supporting Palestine Action—regardless of whether you’ve broken the law—should carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison under terrorism legislation.
'''
I do not believe the Government has yet made a clear or proportionate case for using terrorism powers in this instance. Proscribing a group for damage to property alone—however serious—is unprecedented. Terrorism legislation is meant to address imminent threats to life, not provocative protest, however distasteful.
If the Government has intelligence it cannot share publicly, it needs to explain how that evidence will hold up in court. Because if the proscription of Palestine Action collapses under legal challenge, we’ll have achieved nothing except making martyrs of extremists and weakening the long-term credibility of our counter-terror laws. That’s why I walked through both the “Aye” and “No” lobbies to register an abstention.
I support action against genuine threats—but we need prosecutions that stick, not gestures that unravel.
By my count, six Liberal Democrat MPs, including Dr Pinkerton abstained in this way, others stayed away altogether.
Thursday's Guardian contained a number of letters on this subject, including one by former Greenham Common activist, Dr Lynne Jones. It is worth quoting it in full:
In 1983, along with thousands of other women, I cut down sections of the fence around RAF Greenham Common, which was to house nuclear weapons in the form of cruise missiles (Greenham Common women urge new generation to ‘rise up’ against nuclear threat, 27 July).
Arrested and fined £50 for criminal damage, I was jailed for a couple of weeks for refusing to pay the fine. After the missiles arrived in 1984, I joined Cruisewatch actions, which, by obstructing the convoys on the road and throwing paintballs at them, prevented any missile deployment exercises taking place in secret. Again the charges were not severe. Arrested on Salisbury Plain on one occasion, my friends and I were released without charge. Women who did more than £10,000 worth of damage by painting the Blackbird spy plane in 1983 also had their charges dropped.
This week, if the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has her way, those committing similar kinds of criminal damage could face 14 years in jail for “terrorism” (Free speech target or terrorist gang? The inside story of Palestine Action – and the plan to ban it, 28 June). Yet nonviolent civil disobedience works. In 2004, Mikhail Gorbachev said he attended the 1986 Reykjavik summit because he was confident that “the Greenham Common women and the peace movements of Europe […] would not let America take advantage if we took this step forward”. That step led to a 1987 treaty removing tactical nuclear weapons, including cruise missiles, from Europe.
Keir Starmer plans once again to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, under US government control, on British soil and mass protests are already planned. As the Guardian pointed out in its excellent editorial on Palestine Action (23 June), Starmer might think that “redefining visible dissent as a national security threat is a way to contain public anger”, but it is unlikely to make it go away.
On the contrary, Margaret Thatcher’s government appeared to recognise that increased repression of “eccentric” women might actually increase popular support for a cause. Perhaps he could learn something.
It is worth recording that, on the criteria being deployed by the Labour Government, the suffragettes would have also been proscribed, possibly the antit-apartheid movement too and, even further back, the Chartists, as well as many other protest groups, all of whom are now acknowledged by some of the same Ministers who want to ban Palestine Action as organisatons that secured social reform by direct action.
The treatment of Palestine Action is a good example of this. On Wednesday, the House of Commons was asked to vote on whether to proscribe three organisations as terrorist groups under the Terrorism Act: two neo-Nazi groups—the Russian Imperial Movement and the Maniacs Murder Cult—and Palestine Action.
By linking these three groups together, the government put MPs into an impossible position. There is no doubt that the two white supremacist organisations listed clearly meet the threshold for proscription. But, as one Liberal Democrat MP explained, the vote was all-or-nothing. Parliament wasn’t allowed to assess each group on its own merits.
Dr AL Pinkerton, the Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, explained the dilemma he faced on Facebook:.
Let me be absolutely clear: I condemn in the strongest terms the reckless and illegal actions of those who broke into RAF Brize Norton and targeted military aircraft. Those responsible should be prosecuted using the full force of existing criminal law.
But that wasn’t the question before MPs. Tonight’s vote wasn’t about whether those actions were illegal (they were), or whether the individuals responsible should face criminal charges (they should). It was about whether supporting Palestine Action—regardless of whether you’ve broken the law—should carry a sentence of up to 14 years in prison under terrorism legislation.
'''
I do not believe the Government has yet made a clear or proportionate case for using terrorism powers in this instance. Proscribing a group for damage to property alone—however serious—is unprecedented. Terrorism legislation is meant to address imminent threats to life, not provocative protest, however distasteful.
If the Government has intelligence it cannot share publicly, it needs to explain how that evidence will hold up in court. Because if the proscription of Palestine Action collapses under legal challenge, we’ll have achieved nothing except making martyrs of extremists and weakening the long-term credibility of our counter-terror laws. That’s why I walked through both the “Aye” and “No” lobbies to register an abstention.
I support action against genuine threats—but we need prosecutions that stick, not gestures that unravel.
By my count, six Liberal Democrat MPs, including Dr Pinkerton abstained in this way, others stayed away altogether.
Thursday's Guardian contained a number of letters on this subject, including one by former Greenham Common activist, Dr Lynne Jones. It is worth quoting it in full:
In 1983, along with thousands of other women, I cut down sections of the fence around RAF Greenham Common, which was to house nuclear weapons in the form of cruise missiles (Greenham Common women urge new generation to ‘rise up’ against nuclear threat, 27 July).
Arrested and fined £50 for criminal damage, I was jailed for a couple of weeks for refusing to pay the fine. After the missiles arrived in 1984, I joined Cruisewatch actions, which, by obstructing the convoys on the road and throwing paintballs at them, prevented any missile deployment exercises taking place in secret. Again the charges were not severe. Arrested on Salisbury Plain on one occasion, my friends and I were released without charge. Women who did more than £10,000 worth of damage by painting the Blackbird spy plane in 1983 also had their charges dropped.
This week, if the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has her way, those committing similar kinds of criminal damage could face 14 years in jail for “terrorism” (Free speech target or terrorist gang? The inside story of Palestine Action – and the plan to ban it, 28 June). Yet nonviolent civil disobedience works. In 2004, Mikhail Gorbachev said he attended the 1986 Reykjavik summit because he was confident that “the Greenham Common women and the peace movements of Europe […] would not let America take advantage if we took this step forward”. That step led to a 1987 treaty removing tactical nuclear weapons, including cruise missiles, from Europe.
Keir Starmer plans once again to deploy tactical nuclear weapons, under US government control, on British soil and mass protests are already planned. As the Guardian pointed out in its excellent editorial on Palestine Action (23 June), Starmer might think that “redefining visible dissent as a national security threat is a way to contain public anger”, but it is unlikely to make it go away.
On the contrary, Margaret Thatcher’s government appeared to recognise that increased repression of “eccentric” women might actually increase popular support for a cause. Perhaps he could learn something.
It is worth recording that, on the criteria being deployed by the Labour Government, the suffragettes would have also been proscribed, possibly the antit-apartheid movement too and, even further back, the Chartists, as well as many other protest groups, all of whom are now acknowledged by some of the same Ministers who want to ban Palestine Action as organisatons that secured social reform by direct action.
They really have lost all perspective.
Saturday, July 05, 2025
A most unusual listed building
As this website states, Mumbles’ distinctive Big Apple has been one of the village’s most recognisable landmarks for generations – it has appeared on postcards, been painted by local artist Nick Holly and has even earned a mention on TripAdviser.
The building, which originally had a long stalk attached to its top, was built in the 1930s by the company Cidatone:
It promoted its apple drink with the slogan “Drink your apple a day!” There were several apple kiosks placed around Wales and England’s coastal towns as part of a wide promotional campaign, including one at Aberavon, Porthcawl, Trecco Bay and Barry. The Mumbles Big Apple is believed to be the only survivor, which makes it unique!
The concrete building has had a couple of mishaps to it along the way. In 2006 it was painted orange by pranksters. Then in 2009, a ford fiesta ran into its front causing extensive damage. After the accident, around 27,000 people backed a campaign on Facebook to safeguard its future, and it underwent specialist repairwork. At its reopening, the Assembly health minister and Gower AM at the time, Edwina Hart, cut the ribbon at the kiosk before handing out free apples.
In 2019, after a campaign by local supporters, the Big Apple was granted listed building status. Cadw described the elliptical building as having “special architectural interest” and was recognised as being an iconic feature from the heyday of seaside entertainment.
Ameco, the company which also runs the Mumbles Pier, now owns this rare and unusual example of a seaside kiosk and well known Mumbles landmark.
Friday, July 04, 2025
Brecon and Radnor forty years on
As the Journal of Liberal History recants, the by-election was caused by the death of the sitting Conservative MP Tom Hooson (a cousin of the former Liberal MP for Montgomery Emlyn Hooson:
The Conservatives held the seat with a majority of over 10,000, however the government encountered problems and the election developed into a three way contest with Labour, which had held the seat before 1979, fighting hard to win it back. When the result was declared after a recount, Livsey emerged as the victor by 559 votes over Labour with the Tories slipping to third place. Livsey remained an MP (apart from 1992-97 when the Tories recaptured the seat) until he retired in 2001.
The BBC report that Labour might well have won the by-election, had it not been for a speech two nights before the poll in which the miners' leader, Arthur Scargill, demanded the right to choose the next chairman of the National Coal Board.
They add that the reminder of the only recently ended miners' strike, along with tactical voting by Conservatives, were enough to put Mr Livsey over the top with a slim majority of just over 500 votes.
Thursday, July 03, 2025
No investment west of Cardiff
Nation Cymru reports that the critcism came from Plaid Cymru’s Cefin Campbell during a scrutiny session on the work of Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Ken Skates:
Last month, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she had delivered what the Welsh Government had asked for in her spending review.
The package of funding included £445m for Welsh railways over the next 10 years.
Opposition parties in the Senedd have argued that this is less than what Wales is owed.
In the Senedd on on Wednesday (July 2), Campbell referred to a number of examples where investment was needed in mid and west Wales – including alleviating “chronic delays” on the Heart of Wales line, ensuring more regular services on the Cambrian Line and building a new railway station in St Clears.
Quizzing the Transport Secretary, the Mid and West Wales MS said: “Rachel Reeves said that the Welsh Government had got everything it asked for, including when it comes to rail investment.
“My question to you today is simple: is this true? And if it is true, why did you ask for nothing, literally nothing at all, to invest in the railways west of Cardiff?
“Because the truth is that not only did the spending review deliver painfully little for Welsh rail, it delivered literally nothing for the railways in the region that I represent.”
Skates described the comments as “wholly unfair” adding that he would not “play regions off against each other”.
He said: “It’s absolutely right that we take forward the projects that are most advanced, that we can draw down the funding for, otherwise we could be promised the money, it would never be spent. We will spend that money.
The fact remains that most of the schemes that are 'advanced' are concentrated in the South East of Wales. It is the same old story.
Wednesday, July 02, 2025
An inadequate reform
The poll finds that just 3% of those surveyed backed the government’s plans, with 56% of respondents agreeing that ministers should additionally limit the number of peers the prime minister is able to appoint to the upper chamber for life.
The hereditary peers bill is due to enter its report stage in the House of Lords today after five days of debate with line-by-line consideration of more than 100 amendments during March and April:
The bill fulfils part of Labour’s manifesto pledge for “immediate reform of the House of Lords”. Labour described the Lords as “too big”, with changes “overdue and essential”, promising not just to remove the hereditary peers but also to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80, participation requirements, make it easier to remove disgraced members, and overhaul the appointments process to improve the quality of peers.
Despite these pledges, ministers argued against every amendment proposed to the bill that would have implemented these changes. Instead, the government said it needed more time to consider how to implement its commitments, and that the bill was “not the right vehicle”.
But “right now, the House of Lords has a legislative vehicle in front of it which is certain to pass. If peers want change, they should seize it,” according to Prof Meg Russell, the director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, which commissioned the polling by YouGov.
Russell said there would probably not be another opportunity to overhaul the Lords for decades. The last major bill was in 1999, in what was meant to be a two-stage reform starting with the removal of 667 hereditary peers.
“You just would not believe how slowly it moves,” she said. “Basically, it’s impossible to get agreement on anything, inside parties as well as across parties.
“No bill has reached the House of Lords coming from a government in 26 years and if you haven’t got a government bill it’s very hard to achieve any legislative change, which is why I’m saying seize it. These things come around on roughly a generational kind of cycle.”
A longstanding cross-party consensus exists that the House of Lords needs to be smaller, a position backed by the public, 71% of whom think it should be no bigger than the House of Commons’ 650 MPs.
But even as the 86 hereditary peers start to pack away their ermine, a steady flow of 76 newly ennobled life peers since the election will limit the effectiveness of the government’s changes in reducing the overall size of the chamber, which now has 859 members. Some hereditary peers may receive life peerages to allow them to stay.
“The problem here is that whenever a prime minister over-appoints, particularly to their own party, the PM that follows them feels the need to over-appoint to counteract those appointments,” said Russell. “And that’s how it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and it’s completely unsustainable.”
My issue with this poll is that it is quite limited in what it reportedly asks, while the government's proposals are even more limited. The Lords needs more than cosmetic changes, it needs wholescale reform including being properly accountable by being elected.
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Concessions not enough as Welfare Bill threatens to push 150,000 into poverty
Whether this will be enough to generate a revolt big enough to kill the bill has to be seen, but headlines like this are not going to help the government get the legislation over the line.
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
In an impact assessment written after the changes made in response to a threatened rebellion by more than 120 Labour MPs, officials said there would now be a “negligible” impact on child poverty, which had been one of the key concerns in the original measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
In an impact assessment written after the changes made in response to a threatened rebellion by more than 120 Labour MPs, officials said there would now be a “negligible” impact on child poverty, which had been one of the key concerns in the original measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
Monday, June 30, 2025
Welfare cuts could strand disabled women with abusers
The paper says that the charities have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships:
Thousands of disabled women could find themselves trapped with abusers as a result of the government’s upcoming welfare cuts, campaigners have warned, despite Sir Keir Starmer offering significant concessions on the reforms late on Thursday.
In the face of a growing rebellion, the prime minister announced adjustments to his welfare bill, including protecting personal independence payments (PIP) for all existing claimants – a move that is expected to ensure the legislation passes its second reading on Tuesday.
But domestic violence charity Refuge and the Women’s Budget Group (WBG) have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships.
Even with the concessions, the welfare cuts will be “devastating for disabled women”, WBG said, noting that disabled women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse.
For many, PIP is the only income they receive, WBG warned, so not having access to this source of individual support elevates the risk of coercive control and makes it harder to escape abusive situations.
As a result, Refuge argued, Sir Keir will struggle to reach his target of halving violence against women and girls (VAWG).
A scathing report, published jointly by WBG and disabled women’s collective Sisters of Frida, claims the cuts will deepen disabled women’s “economic insecurity, increase their vulnerability to violence and abuse, push them out of the labour market, and make parenting harder”.
Their analysis, seen by The Independent, shows that women who are future claimants will be disproportionately affected by stricter eligibility rules for PIP.
Currently, 52 per cent of female PIP claimants don’t score four points in any one activity compared to 39 per cent of male claimants. This is likely due to the higher prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions and arthritis among women, conditions which are less likely to score four points in one indicator.
Although current claimants will be protected, it indicates a broader gender imbalance that will leave women more significantly impacted by the cuts in the longer term.
The government estimates that under the current rules, around 1,000 new people are signing on for PIP every day.
Dr Sara Reis, WGB’s deputy director, warned it would make women more vulnerable to abuse, while Refuge said the cuts would have “devastating impacts on disabled survivors”.
Gemma Sherrington, CEO of Refuge, told The Independent that the cuts present a “truly terrifying prospect for disabled survivors”, warning that they would “severely undermine the government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls”.
“At Refuge, nearly one in three [29 per cent] of the survivors we support have a disability or mental health condition. For PIP claimants, this support is vital for covering essential living costs – and can mean the difference between fleeing to safety or remaining with an abusive partner”, she said.
“Further restricting the financial resources of disabled survivors could leave thousands trapped with abusers – and that could have fatal consequences.
“If the government is serious about tackling VAWG, it cannot afford to neglect disabled survivors. We strongly echo the report’s recommendation to scrap these cruel reforms and provide disabled survivors with the protection and support they deserve.”
Dr Reis added: “The proposed changes will be devastating for disabled women, cutting away income that grants many of them independence.
“The government already knows that it will push more people into poverty, but it also needs to be aware that these changes will make disabled women more vulnerable to abuse, make it harder for them to parent, and shut them out of jobs.
“We are glad to see the government reconsidering the reforms and to consult on changes to PIP – disabled people should be at the centre of designing any changes to the disability benefit system.
“However, as reforms stand, they will bring more and more people into poverty as new claimants will not have access to the same support as exists now.”
Even with the concessions, the impact of these cuts will be horrendous. Let's hope that those Labour rebels who are now considering backing the government will look at this again and vote the bill down.
Sunday, June 29, 2025
Home Office staff concerned about ‘absurd’ Palestine Action ban
On Monday the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to ban the group, which would make membership of it, or inviting support for it, a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
It would be the first time a direct action protest group has been classified as a terrorist organisation, joining the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida and National Action. The move has been condemned as draconian by many other protest groups, civil society organisations and politicians of different stripes.
A senior Home Office official, who requested anonymity as they are not allowed to speak to the press, said concerns about proscribing Palestine Action extended into the home secretary’s own department.
“My colleagues and I were shocked by the announcement,” they said. “All week, the office has been a very tense atmosphere, charged with concern about treating a non-violent protest group the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis, and the dangerous precedent this sets.
“From desk to desk, colleagues are exchanging concerned and bemused conversations about how absurd this is and how impossible it will be to enforce. Are they really going to prosecute as terrorists everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action’s work to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel as it commits war crimes?
“It’s ridiculous and it’s being widely condemned in anxious conversations internally as a blatant misuse of anti-terror laws for political purposes to clamp down on protests which are affecting the profits of arms companies.”
The paper reports the response of Palestine Action, who argue that “proscription is not about enabling prosecutions under terrorism laws – it’s about cracking down on non-violent protests which disrupt the flow of arms to Israel during its genocide in Palestine”.
They have a valid point about the government seeking to stifle non-violent protest. There are already laws in place that can punish those who destroy or damage government property. Instead, the Labour government has planted both feet onto a very slippery slope.
On the publicly available criteria for this action, they would also have proscribed the suffragettes, Greenpeace, the Greenham Common women and a host of other groups, including farmers protesting fuel prices and the Country Landowners Association, all intent on changing public policy through direct, non-violent action. That is not a democratic approach.
Saturday, June 28, 2025
The Accidental Pilgrim
The renovation work inside the cathedral is very impressive. There are also a number of poems displayed by Sion Aled Owen. I particularly enjoyed this one called the Accidental Pilgrim:
I don’t know why you’ve arrived
Whether just because we’re there,
Or out of faith’s determination,
Like the myriads who came before
To earn celestial favour.
But no, it can’t have been always have that, a frigid spiritual transaction,
The miles, the blistered steps, from horizon to horizon
To pay for paradise
There had to be a frissioning of souls
In tired haste
The last mile to Glyn Rhosyn,
Surprised by the sudden sight
Of journey’s end almost at journey’s end.
At least the last mile was down hill.
And here you are
Diverted by curiosity from the Coastal Path,
Seeking some solace on a vacation rainy day
Or on a taster tour from your ship
Granted an hour to inherit centuries.
Or coming with heart already aflame
To claim the shrine’s promise.
No matter.
Here you will find croeso
And a whiff of heaven,
Not for sale,
Not to be auctioned for your deserving deeds,
But free
As in truth it ever was.
Welcome, pilgrim,
By intent or ‘just looking’ chance.
Friday, June 27, 2025
Starmer performs u-turn but the disabled will still suffer
It is long-standing tactic by governments through the ages when faced with serious rebellions, making changes without altering the thrust of the legislation.
The Guardian reports that leading rebels told the paper that they had been promised significant changes to the planned cuts that could cost the government several billion pounds over the next few years but look set to shore up the prime minister’s precarious authority:
The compromises, which are understood to include moderating the bill to make it easier for people with multiple impairments to claim disability benefits, were offered during a tense day of talks in Downing Street.
They would mark a major reversal from Starmer, who had insisted for weeks he would not change course, but appears to have been forced to back down after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kill the bill.
One of those leading the opposition to the bill said: “They’ve offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.”
Other, more hardline rebels were urging their centrist colleagues not to drop their objections, but with ministers insisting they would hold the vote on Tuesday, more moderate MPs were understood to be backing the government’s proposals.
However, these MPs salve their conscience, the reality is that the watered down bill will still hit those in receipt of PIP hard, many of them in work and reliant on the benefit to make ends meet. It is not a good look for a Labour government.
The Guardian reports that leading rebels told the paper that they had been promised significant changes to the planned cuts that could cost the government several billion pounds over the next few years but look set to shore up the prime minister’s precarious authority:
The compromises, which are understood to include moderating the bill to make it easier for people with multiple impairments to claim disability benefits, were offered during a tense day of talks in Downing Street.
They would mark a major reversal from Starmer, who had insisted for weeks he would not change course, but appears to have been forced to back down after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kill the bill.
One of those leading the opposition to the bill said: “They’ve offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.”
Other, more hardline rebels were urging their centrist colleagues not to drop their objections, but with ministers insisting they would hold the vote on Tuesday, more moderate MPs were understood to be backing the government’s proposals.
However, these MPs salve their conscience, the reality is that the watered down bill will still hit those in receipt of PIP hard, many of them in work and reliant on the benefit to make ends meet. It is not a good look for a Labour government.
