Sir Keir Starmer could be ousted as PM within months, two senior Labour MPs tell Sky News
Sky News' deputy political editor Sam Coates said his sources - a member of the government and a prominent politician - have "put Sir Keir Starmer on notice".
Both warned that, if Labour performs badly in next May's elections across Wales, Scotland and London, it could mark the end of his time in Downing Street.
Coates added: "The level of unhappiness and despair in parts of the Labour Party is so striking that right now, on the first anniversary, I am hearing from ministers in government that Starmer might have to go in months."
Reform UK is surging in the polls in Wales, while Labour faces a threat from left-wing parties such as the Greens in London.
1:16
It comes as the prime minister made it clear that Rachel Reeves has his "complete support" as chancellor and remains integral to his project, Sky News's political editor Beth Rigby understands.
She looked visibly upset during Prime Minister's Questions, with a spokesperson claiming she had been affected by a "personal matter".
A day earlier, Sir Keir's controversial welfare bill was passed despite a sizeable rebellion from Labour MPs, with major U-turns meaning a new £5bn black hole has appeared in the country's finances.
One senior figure told Rigby that the pair were as "as close politically" as any chancellor and prime minister have ever been.
"She is going absolutely nowhere," they added.
2:58
Ms Reeves's tears sent markets spiralling, with the value of the pound and long-term government bonds falling sharply.
Later in the day Sir Keir, said Ms Reeves will be chancellor for a "very long time to come".
The prime minister said it was "absolutely wrong" to suggest her tearful appearance in the Commons related to the welfare U-turn.
"It's got nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with what's happened this week. It was a personal matter for her," he said while speaking to the BBC's podcast Political Thinking with Nick Robinson.
"I'm not going to intrude on her privacy by talking to you about that. It is a personal matter."
Asked if she will remain in post, he said: "She will be chancellor by the time this is broadcast, she will be chancellor for a very long time to come, because this project that we've been working on to change the Labour party, to win the election, change the country, that is a project which the chancellor and I've been working on together."
He said Ms Reeves has done a "fantastic job" and added: "She and I work together, we think together. In the past, there have been examples - I won't give any specific - of chancellors and prime ministers who weren't in lockstep. We're in lockstep."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
6 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
MP likens Government to flat-earthers over refusal to compensate Waspi women
Labour's Rebecca Long Bailey said the arguments against compensation for the 1950s-born women are 'bizarre' and akin to those made by people who believe the Earth is flat. The Government last December ruled out a compensation package for women born in the 1950s, whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men. This is despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves being among the senior ministers to support the Waspi campaign when Labour was in opposition. A report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) had recommended the UK Government pay compensation to women born in the 1950s whose state pension age was raised so it would be equal with men. The watchdog also said the women should be paid up to £2,950 each, a package with a potential total cost of £10.5 billion to the public purse, as poor communication meant they had lost out on the chance to plan their retirement finances. The Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) group is currently seeking a judicial review to force the Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package. Work and pensions minister Torsten Bell, who is also a Treasury minister, said the Government does not agree with the Ombudsman's approach 'to injustice or to remedy'. Speaking in the Commons, Ms Long Bailey argued that 'cost does not need to be and should not be a barrier to justice', as she urged the Government to introduce a wealth tax to fund a compensation scheme. The MP for Salford said: 'I don't want (Mr Bell) to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s women, I honestly don't. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally, finally managed to award them justice. 'But at the moment, he's got to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd, to say the least. In fact, they're akin to somebody arguing that the world is flat, in denying the Ombudsman's report.' Waspi campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London (Haixin Tan/PA) Earlier in her contribution, the former Labour leadership candidate, who had called the debate, disputed the Government's assertion that the women knew the change was coming. She said: 'Whilst the Government agreed with the finding of maladministration and apologised, no redress would be forthcoming. 'And contrary to the Ombudsman, they actually felt that the majority of women did know about changes to their pension age, based on Department for Work and Pensions research, and that sending the women letters would not have been effective, which I'm sure most people would agree is bizarre. 'It's pretty effective when a bill addressed to you coming through your door comes through, it's pretty effective when it's a hospital appointment, it's pretty effective on the very rare but joyous occasion that HMRC gives you a tax rebate cheque. 'So, I ask, honestly, would 1950s-born women have actively refused to open letters with their name on from the DWP? It makes no sense.' Ms Long Bailey went on to say: 'In terms of options to make sure that schemes could be financially sustainable, Waspi have calculated that HM Treasury have saved a whopping £181 billion alone by increasing the state pension age. 'Well, there's other options, there's the option of applying a 1% to 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, raising up to £22 billion a year. Equalise capital gains tax with income tax rates, raising £15.2 billion a year. Apply national insurance to investment income, raising £8.6 billion a year. 'End stealth subsidies on banks, and you get up to £55 billion over the next five years, and even Gordon Brown has advocated for this. So cost does not need to be, and should not be, a barrier to justice.' During the debate, Independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, John McDonnell joked that the Government would soon be proscribing the Waspi group. On Wednesday, MPs supported legislation to proscribe the Palestine Action group as a terrorist organisation. Mr McDonnell said: 'I pay tribute to the campaign. A lot of those ladies have been patronised over the years, it was a terrific campaign. In fact, it was so terrific under this Government at the moment, they would probably be proscribed.' Responding to the debate, Mr Bell said: 'We agree that letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised, and we will learn the lessons from that. 'However, as honourable members and campaigners on this issue are well aware, we do not agree with the Ombudsman's approach to injustice or to remedy.' He added: 'An important consideration when making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely (to) affect what they knew, which is why letters are sent, but they are sent as part of wider communication campaigns. 'This evidence was not properly considered by the Ombudsman. 'Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware that the state pension age was changing, if not their specific state pension age.'
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Disraeli should be on our banknotes. Sadly he won't be
The Bank of England has asked the public's help in designing its new bank notes and suggesting which historial figures should grace them. Having worked as a professional historian for over 40 years and as the author of over 100 books, I venture that I am rather well qualified to offer advice. Indeed I was the historical adviser to the Royal Mail for the set of stamps they issued to mark the millennium. There is one standout candidate who should be honoured by the Bank of England: Benjamin Disraeli. His head on a banknote would be very welcome. It would be a true celebration of Britain's almost unparalleled genius for integration. Disraeli was a highly talented man of Jewish descent, born way outside the purlieux of the elite. This outsider became party leader, prime minister and Peer of the Realm – the Earl of Beaconsfield. A politician able to write effective novels about his country and national heritage, Disraeli believed in and sought to implement modernisation and continuity. He was Edmund Burke transposed into power and policy. Disraeli also helped save British politics from the course that was to wreck so much of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, that of blood and soil conservatism counterpointed by socialism. Instead, his was a conservatism that rested on the values of an imperial community and a politics of prudence. Moreover, in contrast to William Gladstone's grim, humourless self-righteous Puritanism for the people – think Gordon Brown plus a sideline in assisting fallen women – Disraeli had elan, style and sympathy. Disraeli represented Britain when it was great, tackled international problems with aplomb, and kept the ship of state proudly and powerfully afloat. That all explains why there is no chance Disraeli will go on a banknote. The reasons tell us much about our decline, and loss of sound purpose. The fact is that the new inclusiveness, the politics of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion or DEI, clearly does not apply to Jews any more – if it ever did. DEI is generally thought to permit discrimination against just two groups: white people, especially middle-aged males, and Jews. Disraeli also suffers as a Conservative, indeed the founder of modern Conservatism, for that is not a heritage that is now acceptable in the ' never kissed a Tory' age. It will not help that the great statesman's new biography will be by Andrew Roberts who is a Tory Peer as well as the country's ablest public historian. Recognition of Disraeli will also be rejected due to the prevailing modern opinion that Britain before the appearance of modern socialism was a vicious colonialist oppressor, monstrously cruel both to its own people and any others with whom it dealt. We see this constantly, as with the pejorative use (this occurred in the Commons just this week) of the word 'Dickensian'. The past has always been contentious, but I did not have these problems when advising the Royal Mail just 25 years ago. Since then almost everything prior to 1945 has been peeled away and thrown aside. We all suffer from this. Disraeli would never have made this mistake. He was honoured by contemporaries and should continue to be recognised and honoured today.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The BBC was right to broadcast Bob Vylan
I yield to few in my disdain for the modern BBC. Its partial and sometimes just embarrassingly bad news reporting (yes BBC Verify, we mean you), its starry-eyed inability to manage its own 'talent', and above all its discomfort in disseminating Western history or cultural tradition (see the year-on-year deterioration of the Proms), all show it has moved a long way from its founding Reithian values. So while it's always enjoyable to see the BBC embarrassed, and tempting to join the calls for its director general, Tim Davie, to step down for not pulling the plug on its Glastonbury coverage, I nevertheless don't do so. Serious business must come before transitory pleasure, and urging the BBC to censor its coverage still further seems to me to risk even bigger problems down the line. Why? Well, it's precisely because I don't have confidence in the BBC that I don't trust them to exercise any further discretion over what we can see and hear. Speech that is illegal – and that is unfortunately a very uncertain boundary nowadays, a problem in itself – is one thing. Speech that is just unpleasant is another. The supporters of the original Online Safety Bill had one go, thankfully unsuccessful, at least formally, at banning such 'legal but harmful' language. I don't want to see the BBC given a second chance to police this grey area entirely on its own authority. Now I have had the counter-argument made to me that if a band on the Glastonbury stage had embarked on a rant against criminal immigrants or Islamic dress codes the BBC would have pulled it pronto. Only anti-Semitic hatred (let's call it what it is, we know what 'death to the IDF' means) gets a pass. That's extremely likely. But it's not an argument for banning even more speech, however crude and unpleasant. It's an argument for being more robust, more able to hear unpleasant concepts, and then to judge those retailing them accordingly. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting the BBC should actively platform racists and anti-Semites in its programming. But when people on the BBC express such opinions, the BBC shouldn't cut the feed but should let us hear them and judge them. We need to be less like children living in the Harry Potter world where certain words must not be said, and more like adults. Urging broadcasters to exercise more discretion takes us precisely in the wrong direction. The more encouragement you give the BBC to police speech, the more they will use it. They will always err on the side of caution and will always favour their own values. It is already impossible to express doubts about climate change or net zero on the BBC. There is already too much guiding of opinion, reporters telling us someone is making 'fake' or 'unfounded' claims. No. Just tell me what they said and I'll make my own mind up. And that is the second reason for my hesitation in joining the bandwagon. It's the facts that are the problem, not the reporting of the facts. If large numbers of people, otherwise respectable and presumably somewhat affluent, are prepared to chant something pretty close to 'Death to the Jews', don't we need to know that? Isn't it telling us something we ought to be aware of about our society? If 'Bob Vylan' are telling us, apparently to the audience's approval, that they've 'got the gammons on retreat' and 'we're coming for you' to take back 'land that ain't theirs', doesn't that tell us something about how well multiculturalism and integration is going? Let's face it, if the BBC had not let their feed run, none of this would be a news story. We know that because there has been almost no comment about the band Kneecap's words in support of Palestine Action, because the BBC didn't cover it . The BBC rightly reports on the anti-Semitic hate marches across our cities, and covers their disgusting posters and slogans, because we need to know about them. So, when something similar happens in front of their eyes, the right reaction is not to censor it, but to make sure we know about it. The problem is that too many people don't want to know. They prefer to say that multiculturalism is generally working well. 'Yes maybe there are a few problems but basically everyone can get along as long as we don't push it.' That is the attitude that makes it difficult to discuss the cultural consequences of mass immigration. It is the attitude that made it 'inappropriate' to dwell on the rape gangs scandal until about two minutes ago and that helped the gangs get away with it. The problem we have in this country is not too much free speech but too little. We can't face obvious problems and we hide that from ourselves by not discussing them. The BBC is comfortable with that. I'm not. I'd rather have proper, honest, news and debate, and risk people hearing 'inappropriate' comments, than everyone being frightened to open their mouths in case they upset someone. We're not far off that point now. Time to turn back.
