'How Is That Fair?': Victoria Derbyshire Confronts Wes Streeting Over Labour's 'Two-Tier' Welfare Plan
Keir Starmer was forced to make major changes to his government's blueprint for slashing billions from the welfare budget following a backbench rebellion.
Under the new plan, current recipients of personal independence payments (PIP) and universal credit will continue to get the same amount of money.
However, those who claim in the future will receive less.
On the BBC this morning, presenter Derbyshire read out the views of one viewer, called Matt.
She said: 'The big concern from a lot of people, including Matt, one of our viewers, is that you are creating a two-tier system.
'He says 'I still don't understand the logic of applying cuts to future applicants. Is that just so there are fewer people who are directly affected to protest the cuts?'. How is it fair that there's a two-tier system?'
Streeting, the health secretary, replied: 'You can say that about a number of other systems.'
But Derbyshire interrupted to tell him: 'I'm asking about this.'
Streeting snapped back: 'Yeah well I'm answering the question, which is when things change and evolve, as you bring in new systems, it does change sometimes from group to group, student finance being an example.'
Derbyshire then asked: 'My question is how is that fair?'
Streeting said the government needed to make sure the welfare system is 'sustainable'.
He said: 'Even before the changes were made this week, the cost of the welfare bill is growing enormously. There's a real risk to it, both in terms of financial sustainability and democratic support and legitimacy.'
Disability Charities Urge MPs To Defeat Starmer's Plans For 'Two-Tier' Welfare System
Keir Starmer's Authority In Tatters After Humiliating U-Turn On Welfare Cuts
'Has He Got A Grip?': Naga Munchetty Skewers Minister After Starmer's Welfare U-Turn
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Public wants much greater Lords reform than government's modest plan
The UK government's proposal to reform the House of Lords has now reached a crucial stage – with parliamentarians having a final chance to amend the bill outlining the plan before it becomes law. The House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill does one simple thing: remove the remaining hereditary peers from membership of the chamber. But a new survey commissioned by the UCL Constitution Unit from YouGov shows that the public overwhelmingly wants further change, in particular to limit appointments to the chamber. Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being up for our weekly , delivered every Friday. House of Lords reform has been on the agenda for decades. But change hardly ever happens, because agreement is so difficult to reach. In 1999, Tony Blair's government removed most hereditary peers from the chamber, cutting the total membership from an astonishing 1,210 members to 666. But 92 hereditary peers were allowed to remain, due to a compromise with the Conservatives. This was intended as the first stage in a two-stage reform by Labour, but despite multiple reviews, white papers and debates, no further bill was introduced. Later, during the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, a bill to introduce a largely elected second chamber was blocked in the House of Commons. Now, 26 years on from Blair's reform, the current government's modest bill simply seeks to complete what Labour started. Debate has often focused on introducing an elected second chamber. Some consider that necessary for democratic legitimacy, others worry about its other effects. A survey we commissioned in 2022 confirmed that the public see both sides of this argument. Asked whether the House of Lords 'should include elected members to ensure that it is democratically accountable to the people' or 'should include appointed members to ensure that it contains experts and people independent of political parties', respondents were evenly split three ways between these statements or 'I agree/disagree with both equally'. This nicely illustrates why large-scale Lords reform has never proceeded. But we were struck by near-unanimous public support for smaller-scale reforms, including limiting the prime minister's appointments power, and the size of the chamber. Currently, the prime minister has almost complete control over new appointments to the House of Lords. They can make as many as they want, at any time, with whatever party balance. This is a remarkable patronage power, effectively dating back to the old hereditary system (albeit updated by the Life Peerages Act of 1958, so the titles are no longer passed on to offspring). The sole constraint comes from the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), which advises on the narrow remit of the 'propriety' of nominees. But it has no power to block them, as demonstrated when Boris Johnson chose to overrule it to give a peerage to the Conservative party's former treasurer, Peter Cruddas. Unlimited prime ministerial appointment is the main reason for the House of Lords' ever-growing size. Having dropped to 666 after the Blair reform it now has 859 members. This makes it by far the largest second chamber in the world (France has the second largest, at 348), and the only one larger than its respective first chamber. The Lords' size is frequently subject to public and media criticism. Size of the House of Lords 2000–30 June 2025: As ennobled former Commons speaker Betty Boothroyd suggested in 2017, the chamber's 'inflated size fosters [its] laughing-stock image'. This, and the unconstrained prime ministerial appointments driving it, drag the Lords, parliament, and politics more generally into disrepute. Our survey shows the public overwhelmingly wants this situation to stop. Asked whether the prime minister should have unlimited appointment powers, or be restricted to appointing no more members than those who leave, only 4% supported the status quo position, while 79% wanted change. Strikingly, this far exceeded the majority of 60% who supported removing the hereditary peers. In a separate question combining both reforms, just 3% backed the government's position of removing the hereditary peers without also limiting appointments. While the political parties struggle to decide the next stage of Lords reform, the chamber itself has made firm proposals. The Lord Speaker's Committee on the Size of the House, chaired by crossbench peer Terry Burns, reported in 2017. It recommended that the chamber's size be brought down to no greater than the House of Commons (currently 650), with the prime minister's appointments restricted accordingly. Both peers and MPs strongly welcomed the plans. Prime Minister Theresa May broadly complied, but Johnson quickly revived over-appointment. Remarkably, since the 2024 election, nearly 80 further new life peers have been appointed. At the final stages of the bill, Lord Burns has proposed an amendment to implement his committee's core recommendation. This position clearly has overwhelming public support. Parliamentarians should seize this opportunity now to implement a reform that has been decades (even centuries) in the making. I hope our poll offers them the confidence to do so. If this opportunity isn't seized, the next step in Lords reform may well wait a further 26 years, or even longer. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Meg Russell receives research funding from the Legal Education Foundation, and her work on the House of Lords has in the past been funded by the ESRC.
Cosmopolitan
33 minutes ago
- Cosmopolitan
No, Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister's Questions isn't the political win you think it is
Look, I'll be honest – I've cried at work before. At one of my old jobs I even had a particular cubicle in the ladies' toilets where I'd go for a silent weep before re-emerging, head down, and slinking back to my desk. Thankfully, the times I have bawled until my face was a red-streaked and swollen mess have not been caught on camera for the world to see (I am a particularly ugly and colourful crier). So I genuinely felt for Rachel Reeves, who today was spotted puffy-eyed with a single tear rolling down her cheek, while sat behind Prime Minister Keir Starmer during today's Prime Minister's Questions, the day after the controversial welfare system reforms vote. Reeves, the country's first female Chancellor, has recently been on the receiving end of criticism from colleagues, opposition parties and the public over a proposal to cut benefits and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which help disabled people live a more independent life, as part of a much-needed benefits system overhaul. Elements of said plan is something the government has since been forced to u-turn on following backlash and the threat of a Labour rebellion. Much furore has been made of Reeves's clear upset when Starmer sidestepped a question about her future during PMQs – and it's something the financial markets have apparently picked up on, too. At around midday (when PMQ's are broadcast) the value of the pound declined sharply against the dollar (though whether that's entirely down to Reeves's tears, or more linked to the suggestion that unpopular tax rises or a new Chancellor with a whole new economical plan could be waiting in the wings, is unclear). What is clear, however, is the whiff of misogyny accompanying a lot of the commentary about Reeves online right now. There's a lot I find indefensible about this current Labour government – remember the halcyon days of last July when we actually thought change was afoot and things were going to get better? – but a politician showing emotion is not one. It's a tired and well-worn (not to mention chauvinistic) trope that women are often 'too emotional' in the workplace, and that showing any sign of upset is to be considered weak and feeble. It's a reductive take – and we don't know with certainty what has upset her (a spokesperson for the Chancellor said it was 'a personal matter' and that Reeves will be 'working out of Downing Street this afternoon', implying she has not been ousted or used as a scapegoat). Frankly, a few tears are far less embarrassing than some of the frequent, angry outbursts we see from other politicians. Donald Trump, for instance, regularly takes to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to get involved in spats with whoever has irked him that day, using language akin to an angry eight-year-old who has been told he's had enough screentime for the day, labelling former colleagues as 'losers' or any vaguely unflattering (and oftentimes honest) commentary about himself as 'fake news'. Or take his Vice President, JD Vance, and his petulant outburst against Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House earlier this year, during which he berated a man whose country is at war for his lack of wearing a suit. These are treated as popcorn-worthy entertainment, meme-ified and held up as the embodiment of 'power' and strongman politics – when really, it's just a tantrum for all to see. Somehow, though, I reckon Reeves will be judged more harshly. I'm not saying crying at work is necessarily a good thing – if you find yourself dissolving into tears frequently and publicly, maybe it's time to accept that perhaps the job isn't for you. But what I am saying is, sure, there's plenty to attack Reeves over politically (seriously, those welfare reform plans and the threat to remove PIP payments were a mess) – but visibly showing emotion should not be one of them. If the markets are affected by a woman crying, then it's the markets that need to get a grip, not Rachel Reeves. Kimberley Bond is a Multiplatform Writer for Harper's Bazaar, focusing on the arts, culture, careers and lifestyle. She previously worked as a Features Writer for Cosmopolitan UK, and has bylines at The Telegraph, The Independent and British Vogue among countless others.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How your MP voted in Wales on Keir Starmer's cut to winter fuel allowance for pensioners
MPs have today voted on controversial cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Under the plans, the winter fuel allowance for pensioners will be limited to only those claiming pension credit or other means-tested benefits. It is expected to cut the number of people receiving the payment of up to £300 from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. The Labour administration says it will save about £1.4 billion this year. Ahead of the vote, Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said the UK Government had "no choice" but to make the change. He rejected suggestions that the Government's decision to strip all but the country's poorest pensioners of the allowance could see some die of cold this winter. Asked whether ministers accepted this was a possibility, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No. We are making sure that we can reassure people by saying the state pension is higher than last winter and energy bills are lower than last winter." READ MORE: Woman dies after family of four's car collides with two lorries in horror crash READ MORE: 'Grotesque' man secretly filmed woman performing sex act then showed people Pressed on why the Government was pursuing the policy, he told Sky News: "We have no choice." The Tories accused Labour of having failed to "properly examine" the implications of the policy. For the latest politics news in Wales sign up to our newsletter here. "This has been completely rushed. There's no need to do this as quickly as the Government has done, other than for purely political reasons," shadow work and pensions secretary and Conservative leadership candidate Mel Stride told Times Radio. "And it means that the implications of this, of course, have not been properly examined in the normal way that they would be, and which is why even trade unions such as Unite has described this as picking the pockets of pensioners." MPs voted on a bid to block the government's cut to winter fuel allowance in the House of Commons today. 23 Labour MPs supported the cut by voting against the amendment Four Labour MPs did not vote All four Plaid MPs tried to block the change Wales' sole Lib Dem MP also tried to block the cut Opposition MPs have failed to block government plans with 348 MPs backing the government and 228 supporting the opposition motion. Wales has 32 MPs with 27 representing Labour, four for Plaid Cymru and one Lib Dem. Stephen Kinnock - Labour Against Mark Tami - Labour Against Claire Hughes - Labour Against Nick Smith - Labour Against David Chadwick - Liberal Democrat For Chris Elmore - Labour Against Chris Evans - Labour Against Jo Stevens - Labour Against Anna McMorrin - Labour Did not vote (teller) Stephen Doughty - Labour Did not vote Alex Barros-Curtis - Labour Against Ann Davies - Plaid Cymru For Ben Lake - Plaid Cymru For Becky Gittins - Labour Against Gill German - Labour Against Liz Savile Roberts - Plaid Cymru For Tonia Antoniazzi - Labour Did not vote Nia Griffith - Labour Against Gerald Jones - Labour Against Catherine Fookes - Labour Against Steve Witherden - Labour Against Carolyn Harris - Labour Against Jessica Morden - Labour Against Ruth Jones - Labour Against Henry Tufnell - Labour Against Alex Davies-Jones - Labour Against Chris Bryant - Labour Against Torsten Bell - Labour Against Nick Thomas-Symonds: Labour Did not vote Kanishka Narayan - Labour Against Andrew Ranger - Labour Against Llinos Medi - Plaid Cymru For
