Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Will Labour fail to act on key child poverty issue?
The paper quotes Government sources who say that charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour’s plans:
“If they still think we’re going to scrap the cap then they’re listening to the wrong people. We’re simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said.
In a letter to Keir Starmer on Tuesday, groups including Barnardo’s, Save the Children UK and Citizens Advice said scrapping the two-child benefit limit would be the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty.
The Child Poverty Action Group, which signed the letter, estimated the number of children in poverty would increase from 4.5 million to 4.8 million by 2029 unless urgent action is taken.
The government is planning to publish its long-awaited child poverty strategy in June, around the time of the spending review, raising expectations the plan will come with funding attached to try to drive down poverty levels.
As one MP says: “Ditching the cap is by far the most effective way of tackling child poverty. We have a moral obligation to do this. I’m afraid they’ll use the breakfast clubs to soften us up to tell us the two-child benefit cap remains.”
If Labour fail to revoke this cap it will amount to a betrayal of their core values. So far Labour MPs have been persuaded to give the government some leeway because of the promise of the new strategy in June. They may not be so understanding if ministers let them down.
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Some MPs spending a day a week on second jobs
The paper says that their analysis of self-declared working hours found the seven had worked at least 300 hours since July – the equivalent of eight hours a week, in outside employment averaged across the parliament – totalling more than 3,000 hours between them. A further seven MPs had worked at least five hours a week on a second job.
Naturally, the MP who has made the most money from outside employment in this parliament is Nigel Farage, who has declared an average of about 24 hours’ work a week as a cameo creator, GB News presenter, media commentator, public speaker, Telegraph journalist, brand ambassador and social media influencer.
This could explain why Farage has voted in only a third of parliamentary votes so far this parliament, while the average MP has voted 72% of the time, according to figures from the Public Whip. The figures don’t include abstentions, meaning MPs could have been in parliament but not taken a side on an issue:
The analysis excluded billed hours for work in other elected positions – a further 27 MPs had worked an average of one business day a week as a councillor since being elected to the Commons, with some declaring almost 30 hours weekly for their council role. An analysis by ITV News found 26 MPs were still doubling up their job in parliament with their local role, with a majority of those attending fewer than half of council meetings since being elected to parliament.
In total, 236 out of 650 MPs declared at least some outside earnings, working a combined 32,000 hours between them in the first 264 days of parliament. Of those MPs, 105 had declared at least one period of ongoing paid employment, and 164 had declared at least one ad-hoc payment.
The Labour party previously pledged to ban all second jobs, but has since softened its stance to focus on paid advisory or consultancy roles.
In 2011, the Hansard Society found that MPs from the 2010 intake estimated they worked an average of 69 hours a week.
An MP of course, has a duty to his/her constituents and it is for them to determine if he or she is doing the job properly. It is an intensive role, leaving me to wonder how somebody like Farage could do it properly with so many other roles.
Monday, April 21, 2025
An unholy alliance?
MSN reports that the objective of these discussions is to take on the “Establishment Blob”. You couldn't make it up: a former Prime Minister who achieved that position by climbing up the ranks of the Conservative Party establishment, joining with a former public school boy and ex-city of London commodities trader, to take down the very system that made them and which they remain an intimate part of.
MSN say that Truss is giving Reform advice on how to engineer a major overhaul of the state, a discussion Farage has also had with ex-Vote Leave mastermind Dominic Cummings:
“It’s not just a case of thinking about policy, it’s about working through delivery in the face of institutional resistance,” a source told The Times.
Despite Reform and the Tories ruling out any electoral alliance, Truss recently urged the “best of the Conservatives and the best of Reform” to work together.
We await the outcome of these talks with interest.
Sunday, April 20, 2025
Labour MPs revolt
The paper adds that this major rebellion appears to be hardening on the Labour benches rather than subsiding, despite frantic efforts by whips and government ministers to talk MPs round.
The source of these MPs' ire is legislation being introduced to the House of Commons in early June to allow the cuts to come into force. The cuts will include tightening the criteria for personal independence payments (Pip) for people with disabilities, to limit the number of people who can claim it. One such change is that people who are not able to wash the lower half of their body will no longer be able to claim Pip unless they have another limiting condition:
One idea being floated as a way to win over rebels is for ministers to publish their long-awaited child poverty strategy shortly before the key Commons votes, and in it offer additional money for poor parents of children under five. Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall is understood to be examining a proposal focused on the youngest children that would cost less than the £3.6bn needed to scrap entirely the controversial two-child limit on benefit payments. It is now accepted in government that, given the state of public finances, the cap cannot be scrapped in the short term.
Many of the several dozen Labour MPs who are angry at their party’s cuts say they will refuse to get involved in any such “trade off” involving children in poverty and the disabled.
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, who is planning to vote against the legislation, said: “You can’t compromise with a trade-off under which you say you will take more children from poor families out of poverty by placing more disabled people into poverty. That simply cannot be right.
“The government really does need to start listening to MPs, civil society and the population at large because there is really widespread opposition to these policies.”
Ministers and the Labour whips have been holding talks with concerned MPs over recent days, only to find the strength of feeling is not abating. A group of MPs is understood to be preparing to break cover by calling for a complete rethink. One government source said: “If anything, I think there is more worry than there was. It is like this is non-negotiable for many of our people.”
Another major complaint from Labour MPs is that they will be asked to vote on the legislation to implement the benefits cuts before the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has concluded an impact assessment on the effect they will have on getting people off welfare and into the workforce – the stated objective of the cuts. The OBR report is not due until the autumn.
Last month, Keir Starmer said there was a “moral” as well as an economic case for reforming the benefit system. “It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and we will reform it. We will have clear principles, we will protect those who need protecting.
“We will also support those who can work back to work, but Labour is the party of work – we’re also the party of equality and fairness.”
Another Labour MP opposed to the cuts, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won the seat of Poole in Dorset by just 18 votes last July, overturning a Conservative majority of 19,000, said he had more than 5,000 Pip recipients in his seat.
He said he could not support any compromise or “trade off”. “There is not a hierachy of need,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
Duncan-Jordan said it did not make sense that MPs were being asked to vote on the cuts before the OBR had reported on how effective they would be in returning people to the workplace. “We are being asked to take a leap of faith. It does not make sense.”
In its report accompanying Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, the OBR said that “the full impacts of these policies are very uncertain, given the complexity of how trends in health, demography and the economy interact with the benefits system (as our 2024 welfare trends report explored).
“Welfare reforms incorporated into previous OBR forecasts have in many cases saved much less than initially expected, such as the transition from disability living allowance to Pip, or taken far longer to implement than expected, as was the case for the roll-out of universal credit.”
Whether this rebellion is big enough to force a rethink by Keir Starmer on these inhuman cuts has to be seen, after all he has a huge majority and many Labour MPs will want to enjoy the Prime Minister's patronage at some stage in this Parliament.
Those who are holding out against the cuts however, are causing Ministers a great deal of discomfort. That discomfort is nothing, of course, compared to the experience of the disabled people who will be hit by these changes to their benefits.
Saturday, April 19, 2025
Green party candidate tries to evict Labour opponent
The Guardian reports that a Green party council candidate is attempting to evict his Labour opponent from a house he owns using a no-fault notice, despite his party supporting a ban on exactly such kinds of eviction.
The paper says that William Pedley, who is standing for the Greens in the Victoria ward of North Northamptonshire council, has served a section 21 notice on his tenant and political rival Kelly Duddridge, who has lived in the property for 10 years:
Duddridge remains in the property but says the threat of eviction has caused her and her family significant stress, while Labour has accused Pedley of hypocrisy given his party’s opposition to no-fault evictions. Other Green party politicians have been accused of showing hypocrisy by calling for more clean energy while opposing solar farms and electricity pylons in their local areas.
Duddridge told the Guardian: “I am trying not to think about having to move away from the house. I love the neighbours and my four children are settled. But the reality is, once a section 21 notice has been served, there is not much I can do about it.”
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is yet more rank hypocrisy from the Green party. Threatening to evict a tenant via no-fault eviction while standing on a platform to abolish section 21 simply beggars belief. Time and again they pledge one thing and do another.”
A Green party spokesperson said: “We understand that Mr Pedley served the section 21 eviction notice almost a year ago. The order was served because his personal circumstances meant he required the premises for his own use.”
Section 21 notices allow landlords to take back control of their properties with two months’ notice without the tenant being at fault. Labour is planning to abolish such evictions as part of its renters’ rights bill, which has passed the Commons and is due to be debated in the Lords.
The Greens have also backed an end to no-fault evictions. In its fair deal for renters, the party argues that ending the practice will mean tenants “don’t have their lives turned upside down on the whim of their landlords”.
This is going to play well with voters, is it?
Friday, April 18, 2025
Labour failing on social care reform
The paper says that crucial cross-party talks aimed at building political consensus for large-scale changes to adult social care have failed to get off the ground with Liberal Democrats saying that not a single all-party meeting on the issue had taken place in the four months since the government announced ambitious plans to build a national care service to fix the UK’s growing social care crisis:
Wes Streeting said in January that older people could be left without help and the NHS overwhelmed unless a national consensus could be reached on how to fix a system widely regarded as failing.
The health secretary appointed Louise Casey to chair a commission on social care with a brief to build agreement between the main parties on how the changes could be taken forward. Streeting said past attempts at reform had stumbled because of “bad politics”.
Talks were scheduled to open on 26 February but were postponed after ministers said that not all parties could make the meeting. The Lib Dems offered to “clear our diaries” to reschedule but said a new date has not yet been proposed.
Helen Morgan, the Lib Dems’ health and social care spokesperson, said: “If it’s taking almost two months and counting to schedule a single meeting, I have serious concerns about the focus at the top of government needed to successfully undertake and implement this review.
“Ministers’ handling of these cross-party talks smells of a government that has put rescuing social care in the ‘too difficult’ pile.
“Their failure to grasp the nettle means that a review that could have been completed within a year is instead taking three, with ministers risking even longer delays because of their failure to get these talks off the ground.
“For years under the Conservatives, [social care] was shamefully neglected, with patients bearing the brunt. Now, the Labour government is taking an approach of kicking the can down the road rather than facing up to the challenges of fixing this broken system.”
Labour really need to do better.
Thursday, April 17, 2025
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
The paper says that these concerns have been raised after allies of vice-president JD Vance told the paper that he wants the UK to repeal hate speech laws and ditch plans for a new online safety law in exchange for a trade deal that could see the UK avoid tariffs.
They add that Vance has previously claimed that free speech is being undermined by laws banning hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, and sees UK legislation aimed at improving online safety as an attack on US tech giants:
Both the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the think tank The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) have highlighted concerns over any retreat by Labour on either area.
Matthew Sowemimo, associate head of policy for child safety online at the NSPCC, said: “The Online Safety Act offers a foundation that we believe will vastly improve children’s experiences online.
“For too long, too many children and young people have been exposed to harmful content, groomed, harassed, and bullied online.
“To ensure this vital legislation reaches its potential, we need the UK government to ensure the Online Safety Act is strongly implemented and bolstered where needed. They must be holding Ofcom and tech companies to account, and ensuring the act has enough weight behind it to change the tide for children’s safety online.”
Sophia Worringer, deputy policy director at the CSJ, said: “We have a deeply unhappy generation, amplified by the cancer of social media, whose childhood spent online is threatening their adulthood. Added to this is the ballooning welfare bill with more young people than ever going straight from education into long-term sickness benefit.
“Unless we act now to increase the age of digital consent to 16 and ban algorithms for users under 16, our forecasts show that one quarter of all UK children will suffer from a mental disorder by 2030. This is a national emergency, and we need to act now.”
The paper adds that Vance is “obsessed with the collapse of western civilisation” and believes that there is an erosion of free speech in the UK and Europe, he has also raised concerns about legal cases against Christians for praying silently outside abortion clinics.
This is an alien agenda to the UK and should be resisted. If anywhere is facing an erosion of free speech it is the USA, where the Trump administration is deporting innocent civilians in defiance of the courts, using its financial power to shut down campus protests and threatening states with sanctions if they don't adopt the Federal government's agenda.
Wednesday, April 16, 2025
Vance agenda must be resisted in any trade deal
The paper says that the warning came after the vice president suggested a UK-US agreement may be close, with the White House “working very hard” on it, saying: “I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”:
But allies of Mr Vance say he is “obsessed by the fall of western civilisation” – including his view that free speech is being eroded in Britain – and that he will demand the Labour government rolls back laws against hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any deal.
The Independent was told: “The vice president expressing optimism [on a trade deal] is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech. If a deal does not go through it makes Labour look bad.”
Mr Vance’s recent speech to the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank was cited as an example on his views on western culture and free speech being linked to securing an agreement.
“No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that,” the source close to the vice president said.
It is understood Britain has already offered to drop its proposed digital services tax as a means of getting a trade deal through. But the US wants to see laws on hate speech repealed as well as plans for a new online safety law dropped.
Labour has made it clear it is not prepared to go that far. A Downing Street source said the subject “is not a feature of the talks”.
However, the issue seems to be one of the main sticking points from the White House perspective.
The UK Government should not allow the United States to impose a MAGA-like agenda on our country in a desperate attempt to get a deal.
It is bad enough that ministers are considering rowing back on the digital services tax, without signing up to Vance's fantasies about our democracy, which appears to be far more respectful of freedom of expression than the current US administration.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Labour MPs under threat
The paper says that the analysis suggests almost 200 Labour MPs have a majority smaller than the number of recipients of personal independent payments in their constituencies – a significant number in northern England “red wall” seats:
Not all of those recipients will be affected by the changes – but more than 80 Labour MPs have a majority which is smaller than the number of disabled people who could see their benefits cuts.
MPs say an organising campaign to oppose welfare changes is stepping up coordinated action over the Easter recess, with a vote now expected in June.
Rebels believe they may be able to secure as many as 50 MPs to vote against the changes. One MP who opposes the changes said party whips had been suggesting some uneasy MPs may be quietly allowed to abstain on the vote.
A number of disaffected but loyalist MPs who do not want to rebel have been encouraging a campaign of personal letter-writing directly to Keir Starmer to urge changes to the cuts or pledges of more action to tackle poverty in advance of the vote, saying it was “pointless” to lobby the chancellor, Rachel Reeves.
More hardline MPs are planning a mass public intervention in the weeks after parliament returns, the Guardian has been told.
The Office of Budget Responsibility has suggested about 52% of current claimants do not score high enough on their current assessment to remain eligible for Pip, though many would be likely to challenge the reassessment.
Cabinet and senior ministers are among those who have smaller majorities than the number of constituents expected to be affected by the changes.
They include the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and health secretary, Wes Streeting, as well as the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips, education minister, Nia Griffith, and homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali.
The list also includes high-profile MPs who are vulnerable to Reform, such as the Barnsley South MP, Stephanie Peacock, Rotherham MP, Sarah Champion, Kingston upon Hull East MP, Karl Turner, and Grimsby MP, Melanie Onn.
Some MPs with healthy majorities could be at risk, the data shows. In Easington, where Grahame Morris has a majority of more than 6,000 over Reform, there are more than 12,600 Pip claimants. In Huddersfield, Harpreet Uppal has a majority of more than 4,500 over the Greens, but 9,387 Pip claimants.
MPs are also warning that family members of claimants are also likely to be affected significantly or feel very strongly about the cuts – meaning the ripple effect could be much greater. The data also shows the sheer numbers of voters in Labour constituencies – even with large majorities – where people receive Pip. In some Labour constituencies, including Easington, Blaenau Gwent and Aberafan and Maesteg, one in five of the working-age population receive Pip payments.
This also impacts Swansea West, where I live. Here, in the seat of the pensions minister, Torsten Bell, one in six people receive Pip. No wonder disabled constituents are anxious to meet him and get an explanation for the cuts.
Monday, April 14, 2025
Consequences
The paper says that analysis by Save the Children lays bare the true impact of repeated cuts to the budget, the latest of which will see spending fall to just 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) – the lowest level in 25 years:
Women and girls will suffer the most as the government is likely forced to scale back programmes across global education, family planning, water and food aid.
This could leave 12 million people without access to clean water or sanitation and result in 2.9 million fewer children in education, compared to 2019 when aid spending was at its peak at 0.7 per cent.
Save the Children warned the loss of funding would “devastate lives across the world”, while MPs from across the political divide condemned the government for abandoning the world’s poorest people.
Labour MP Sarah Champion, the chair of the Commons international development select committee, told The Independent: “The cuts made to UK aid over recent years are nothing short of savage. The prime minister told me at the liaison committee that his recent decision to slash the aid budget even further wasn’t a choice he wanted to make. But is he fully aware of the true cost of that decision?”
The latest cuts – announced by chancellor Rachel Reeves to pay for a boost in defence spending – will reduce the foreign aid spend to just £9.22bn by 2027, a substantial drop from £15.3bn in 2023. But the scale of the cuts is worsened by the fact that the UK’s asylum-seeker housing costs continue to come out of the same budget.
The latest cuts come despite a Labour manifesto pledge to return spending to 0.7 per cent after pressure on public finances during the Covid pandemic saw it reduced to 0.5 per cent, in what the Tory government of the time said was a “temporary measure”.
Ms Reeves’s announcement prompted outrage among Labour MPs and saw international development minister Anneliese Dodds quit, saying it would be “impossible to maintain [key] priorities given the depth of the cut”.
When Labour unveiled the plans, Sir Keir Starmer promised support for Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan would be protected.
However, the cost of keeping that pledge is around £6.98bn of the total £9.2bn budget. This includes, among others, £520m in aid and development spending for the three countries if current levels are maintained; at least £1.1bn for global health initiatives; and £1.6bn for climate change and environmental protection projects.
That figure also includes areas that are highly unlikely to be cut, such as legally binding multilateral funding (£365m), Gift Aid (£165m), and the UK Integrated Security Fund (£406m) which tackles high-priority national security threats overseas.
Meanwhile, the cost of housing asylum seekers in the UK, which also comes out of the foreign aid budget, is forecast to sit around £3bn in 2027, according to the Center for Global Development.
That is a third of the total budget, so on top of the £6.98bn to keep Sir Keir’s Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza commitments, the government will be left with a black hole of at least £750m. That leaves no room for the £1.1bn across other projects – meaning tens of millions of people will lose out.
“Breaking promises is baked into slashing the aid budget,” said Dan Paskins, director of policy at Save the Children. “But even the pledges Keir Starmer made in the same breath as announcing these cuts are at best back-of-the-envelope and at worst, disingenuous. These cuts cannot be made without delivering a hammer blow to his stated global priorities.”
The charity’s analysis found that 32.8 million women and girls could miss out on family planning support, due to a reduction in sexual health and other programmes, which will have major implications for maternal health, population growth, and even the spread of HIV.
The Women’s Integrated Sexual Health programme (Wish) is one such project at risk. The programme, which is currently budgeted to receive £49m in 2027, aims to “reduce maternal deaths and prevent the use and access to unsafe abortion, including for marginalised and young women”.
As ever, these cuts will have real consequences for people's lives. The fact that those affected are neatly tucked away in other countries does not justify them, though ministers may feel that they can get away with the cuts for that reason. And there are consequences too, for UK influence in affected countries - soft power.
