
No 10 says Starmer backs Reeves after Chancellor's tears in Commons
But allies said she was dealing with a 'personal matter' and No 10 said she had Sir Keir's 'full backing'.
Sir Keir, who stumbled on his way out of Downing Street for Prime Minister's Questions, faced questions over his handling of a welfare reform package which has been stripped of key elements to limit the scale of a Labour revolt.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether she would keep her job until the next election.
Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the Parliament, saying Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'.
Changes to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) were abandoned on Tuesday just 90 minutes before MPs voted on them, wiping out the savings that Ms Reeves had counted on to help meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through tax receipts rather than borrowing.
Mrs Badenoch said: 'Today the Prime Minister refused to back his Chancellor, leaving her humiliated.
'She is the human shield for his expensive U-turns. How can anyone be a chancellor for a man who doesn't know what he believes and who changes his mind every other minute?'
As the Chancellor left the Commons after Prime Minister's Questions her sister, Ellie Reeves, took her hand in an apparent show of support.
Asked about her tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said: 'It's a personal matter which, as you would expect, we are not going to get into.
'The Chancellor will be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.'
Reports suggested Ms Reeves had been involved in an altercation with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle shortly before Prime Minister's Questions.
A spokeswoman for the Speaker said: 'No comment.'
Asked why Sir Keir did not confirm in the Commons that he still had faith in Ms Reeves, the Prime Minister's press secretary told reporters: 'He has done so repeatedly.
Govt was planning to save ~£5bn in 2029-30 through welfare cuts – would have risen to ~£11bn in long run
Now, govt will save nothing this parliament
(2029-30 savings from cutting health element of UC (£1.7bn) roughly offsets cost of raising basic UC (£1.8bn))
— Helen Miller (@HelenMiller_IFS) July 2, 2025
'The Chancellor is going nowhere. She has the Prime Minister's full backing.
'He has said it plenty of times, he doesn't need to repeat it every time the Leader of the Opposition speculates about Labour politicians.'
Asked whether the Prime Minister still had confidence in Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, the press secretary said: 'Yes.'
Labour has promised that income tax, employee national insurance contributions and VAT will not be increased, restricting Ms Reeves' options for raising money if she does look to hike taxes.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies' incoming director, Helen Miller, said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely.
'This will doubtless intensify the speculation over the summer about which taxes may rise and by how much.'
Sir Keir declined to rule out tax rises later this year, telling MPs: 'No prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
38 minutes ago
- Scotsman
New 'Corbynesque' hard-left party plays into hands of Nigel Farage and John Swinney
Former Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn, centre, and Zarah Sultana together on a picket line outside London Euston railway station in 2022. Picture: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire Those activists welcoming Zarah Sultana's scheming are the very definition of 'useful idiots' Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It is always reassuring to check in with the radical left and learn it continues to take its strategy from Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. Put two Trots in a room together and they'll soon start arguing over whether the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front truly had the interests of the workers at heart. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The narcissism of small differences is a disease that infects extremists, for whom ideological purity matters more than intellect or motivation. We most recently witnessed this phenomenon on Thursday when the MP for Coventry South, Zarah Sultana, announced she had quit Labour and would now proceed to form a new political party alongside former opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Sultana, who has been sitting as an independent since having the Labour whip withdrawn last year, said she and Corbyn would 'co-lead the founding of a new party, with other MPs, campaigners and activists'. Shortly after Sultana issued her statement, Corbyn was said to be 'furious and bewildered'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad By Friday, he had softened a little. Discussions with Sultana were ongoing and she would 'help us build a new alternative'. But the member for Islington North – expelled last year from the party he once led – stopped short of endorsing Sultana as co-leader of anything. This was hardly surprising: Corbyn is a man of considerable ego who has never previously shown much interest in sharing the spotlight with anyone (unless, of course, it's with one of his 'friends' from Hamas or Hezbollah). The same activists who previously declared that Corbyn only failed to become Prime Minister because Labour hadn't been left-wing enough to defeat the Conservatives in 2017 and '19, have been out and about over recent days declaring Sultana's decision to quit the party a disaster for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. At last! Here's a real alternative to the neoliberal/warmongering/genocidal (take your pick) policies of the political establishment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad There may well be some Labour voters who follow Sultana's lead but a number of leading MPs on the party's far left have already said thanks but no. If a new party of the left actually emerges, it will not include such Corbyn allies as John McDonnell, Clive Lewis, and Diane Abbott. Shortly after sharing Sultana's statement, one high-profile activist declared that Labour was 'dead'. There's no question that the Prime Minister has had a rough first year in office – with many of the problems he's faced being entirely of his own creation – but the idea that a Sultana-Corbyn dream-ticket stands ready to bury his party is laughable. These are people who could not co-ordinate a simple announcement. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If Sultana and Corbyn held a party at Tennent's Wellpark brewery, everyone would go home sober. Don't try to tell me they can steward a winning election campaign. That's not to say there is no appetite out there for an alternative to Labour. A recent poll for the More in Common group found that a new party of the left could end up taking as much as 10 per cent of the vote in a future General Election. But only a third of that support would come from Labour supporters with most of the rest coming from those who currently turn to the Green Party for their regular hit of unearned righteousness. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sultana's decision to cancel her Labour membership came days after she claimed 'we are all Palestine Action' in response to plans to proscribe the organisation as a terror group. According to Labour insiders, Sultana's statement had already sealed her fate and she was heading for expulsion. Was the politician's resignation really an act of principle or was it a face-saving jump before a humiliating push? The political right continues to go through a period of turmoil. Nigel Farage's Reform Party has been gutting the Tory vote recently and some pollsters suggest it could win the next General Election. This, one must assume, is a prospect that fills the likes of Corbyn and Sultana with horror (they can't be wrong about everything, after all) yet I can't see a new party of the left doing anything but making it more likely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If Farage continues to gorge himself on the Tory vote then Labour will be the only party that can credibly stop him. And, if a new Sultana-Corbyn vehicle nibbles away at Sir Keir Starmer's support – even by the meagre three points suggested by that More in Common polling – then Farage's chances of entering 10 Downing Street will, of course, increase. Like Farage, First Minister John Swinney would be happy to see a new Corbynesque party in the running. The matter of independence remains so potent that the chances of the nationalists losing support to the hard-left seems vanishingly unlikely. On top of that, the Scottish Greens are well established as the home for those who dream of the destruction of Israel and the free distribution of puberty blockers to confused children. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Attacks on Scottish Labour from the left will only strengthen the SNP's narrative that Sir Keir Starmer is the weak leader of a divided party. Sultana's departure from Labour was, I think, a significant step on her journey towards irrelevance. She might help take some votes away from her former colleagues – if she and Corbyn can get a new party up and running and then, crucially maintain some semblance of unity until the next General Election. But, surely, only the most committed ideologue believes that the British electorate currently thirsts for a Government of the hard left? Those left wingers cheering the news that Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn plan a new party are about to improve the chances of Nigel Farage being the next Prime Minister. They are, as is so often the case with those from their political tradition, the very definition of 'useful idiots'.


Scotsman
38 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Scottish Labour 'firebrand' Brian Leishman on why Sir Keir Starmer should apologise, and Jeremy Corbyn's party
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It is not your standard political backstory. Until just a few years ago, Brian Leishman was a golf professional, including a stint at the luxurious Gleneagles resort in Perthshire where he coached A-list celebrities such as John Travolta, Gerard Butler and Shakira. He is now one of Scottish Labour's highest-profile MPs, with a reputation as a left-wing firebrand unafraid to speak his mind and take his own party's leadership to task. On Tuesday, he was one of 49 Labour MPs to rebel against the Government's welfare reforms. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth. Picture: Michael Gillen | Michael Gillen/National World "I don't know about firebrand," Mr Leishman told The Scotsman from his constituency office in Alloa. "My politics is described as left-wing, but I would say, to be honest with you, I would describe it as common-sense stuff." The Alloa and Grangemouth MP said he is amazed by the lack of debate about class in Westminster. "For me, all the societal problems that we've got are class issues," he said. 'We see gross inequality.' He is scathing about his party's benefits reforms. Sir Keir Starmer was forced to make major last-minute concessions to avoid a humiliating defeat on Tuesday, but Mr Leishman wants the entire Bill scrapped. He also wants the Prime Minister to apologise to disabled and vulnerable people. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "It was messy, and I would say it is certainly no way to govern a country and legislate, that's the important thing," he said. "We've seen chaos with the Tories over Brexit and over a whole host of other things. It doesn't paint Parliament in a good light. "The Prime Minister can still emerge out of this with credit, if he were to acknowledge he's made a mistake, apologise to the disabled and vulnerable community - the disabled community that have been so terrified at these potential changes - and actually withdraw the Bill.' He said Sir Keir should go back to the drawing board and "get round the table with key stakeholders" such as disability charities. Mr Leishman argued apologising would be a sign of strength. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Brian Leishman, Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, at Alloa Business Centre. | Michael Gillen/National World "No one is ever expecting a Government or a Prime Minister or whoever to be perfect,' he added. 'If anyone wants perfection, they are hoping for something that they will never, ever get.' He continued: 'We're talking about legislation that is going to impact millions of people. It's going to have huge, life-changing consequences for people. There's nothing wrong with saying, right, OK, maybe I need to take a step back here, and actually go again.' Mr Leishman said the UK Labour government's first 12 months have damaged the chances of Scottish party leader Anas Sarwar winning the Holyrood election in May. "Last summer, when we got elected a year ago, I'm sure all the bookies fancied we were going to have a Labour Government in Holyrood,' he said. "I would say the first 12 months of the Labour Government in Westminster, we've damaged and weakened Anas's chances. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "So I would say that it's all to play for, what, ten months out? But if we're better in Westminster, we'll improve his chances of getting elected in Holyrood. His wagon is hitched to us. If we do better in Westminster, we improve his chances in Holyrood." The breakaway party Mr Leishman joined Labour in 2016, when Jeremy Corbyn was leader. "I was listening to the leadership at the time, and I thought, this is speaking to who I am politically,' he recalled. He described the 2017 and 2019 election manifestos as 'phenomenal'. Mr Corbyn, of course, has since been expelled from Labour. He is now in talks over the creation of a new left-wing political force that could challenge his old party at the ballot box. Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana, who had the Labour whip suspended last year, said on Thursday she was quitting Sir Keir's party and would 'co-lead the founding of a new party' with Mr Corbyn. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The former Labour leader and independent MP from Islington North insisted on Friday that 'real change is coming' in a 'new kind of political party' with 'democratic foundations'. There are plans to build the movement from the grassroots up, by bringing together left-wing independents across the country. Mr Leishman is full of praise for the pair, but insisted he is a 'proud' Labour Party member. "I've got an enormous amount of respect for them both,' he said. 'What I would say is, my first reaction is that it's very sad that there's not room in the Labour Party for Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana. Jeremy Corbyn, MP and former Labour leader, will be speaking on social justice in a show called In Conversation with Jeremy Corbyn. | Getty Images "Jeremy has dedicated his life to the Labour movement, and to the protection and the advancement of the working class, not just in this country, but he's been fantastic on foreign issues as well. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "I would say that Zarah has been a phenomenal member of Parliament. She is an absolute whirlwind, a driving force, again, for working-class communities. "She's a credit to the Labour movement, and it's very, very sad that the pair of them are not in the Labour Party. I think there should always be room for people like Jeremy and Zarah in the Labour Party. "In regard to joining another party, it's not entered my head. I'm a Labour Party member. I'm a proud Labour Party member." He said there needed to be more internal democracy and "tolerance" for different views within the party. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Pushed on whether he had been approached about a new left-wing party, Mr Leishman said: "I've not had anyone approach me. There's been no discussion about me joining any other political party." On a Labour collision course Welfare reform is far from the only issue to put him on a collision course with the Labour leadership. Earlier this year, he said he was "disgusted" by his party's broken promises on the Grangemouth oil refinery, which ceased processing crude oil in April. He has also backed the Waspi [Women Against State Pension Inequality] women in their fight for compensation. But Mr Leishman said the UK Labour government has also done some "fantastic" things, pointing to examples such as boosting workers' rights. "Those things, they're terrific,' he said. 'I just want to see more of them." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He is critical of his party for 'aping' the language of Nigel Farage's Reform UK, and highlighted Sir Keir's speech about immigration in May in which he said the UK risked becoming "an island of strangers". Mr Leishman said: "When it comes to 'island of strangers' and comments like that, he admits he was wrong on that, and that's quite right, because you know what, I find that language pretty appalling to be honest. We should not be aping Reform." He said Labour should instead set out exactly what it stands for. "We've got to say, this is who we are, this is what we believe in, this is what we stand for, and take people on that,' he said. 'That's strong leadership, for me. "That's got to come from the top in both Scottish Labour, but also down in Westminster as well. We've got to nail our colours to the mast and say this is who we are, this is what we are, this is what we believe, and give people that choice.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Leishman said Labour amplifies Reform 'far too much', adding: 'When I go to Prime Minister's Questions, the amount of times that 'the honourable member for Clacton' [Mr Farage] gets mentioned in a derogatory manner, he sits and laughs." He continued: "How much airtime do they [Reform] get for five MPs? An incredible amount. We amplify that by mentioning them. "Now, what we need to do is instead of trying to paint somebody else as some sort of bogeyman, how about actually let's just try and improve things ourselves. "Let's concentrate on ourselves. Let's get our house in order and let's actually positively change society, instead of pointing the finger at anybody else." 'Very concerned' for Scottish Labour Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Leishman said he was "very concerned" that Scottish Labour could be heading for defeat at next year's Holyrood election. "We've got to be awake, and we've got to be alert and alive to Reform, but let's concentrate on ourselves,' he said. 'Let's get our own house in order and let's actually deliver a proper change for people." Asked if he is satisfied with Mr Sarwar's leadership of Scottish Labour, Mr Leishman pauses for a couple of seconds before giving the answer quoted above about the UK government damaging and weakening his position. Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes and Cherie Blair share a platform at the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh (Picture: Andrew Milligan) | PA But he is also critical of some of the Scottish party's messaging. "What I would be saying is, let's talk less about quangos,' he said. 'Because in all the years that I've been out door-knocking and knocked thousands of doors, how many times do you think the word quango has come up on the doorstep? Zero." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Sarwar has promised to 'strip back the number of quangos', arguing there are too many public bodies in Scotland. Mr Leishman said the focus needs to be on 'big ticket' issues, such as the NHS and public services.


New Statesman
41 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The welfare bill that pleases no one
It was Labour's touted welfare cuts that made all the difference for Reform in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election in May, which the party won off Labour by a whisker. And now after a series of U-turns and threatened rebellions, the welfare bill has passed, but it is now stuffed so full of question marks and concessions that literally no one is happy. Happy anniversary, Labour. YouGov's snap poll found four-in-ten of us approved of the government's climb down. Three-in-ten say the government was wrong in its approach. The rest don't know what to think. Maybe they don't care. In truth, it's no real advantage either way because seven-in-ten Britons now perceive the Labour party as divided, more so than the Conservatives. The proposed welfare changes had the support of a quarter of the country. Fine. But the government was proposing a policy most popular among Conservatives, and least popular among Labour, Reform and Green voters. This is not a reason not to do something, of course. Unpopular choices are the scaffolding of governance. But, something to bare in mind at least. The ballooning welfare bill is unsustainable. With an ageing population, change is no optional luxury. But do the voters see that? As many as half of us think the burgeoning bill is a consequence of people claiming welfare who otherwise shouldn't be. Just one third recognise it might have something to do with people being in poorer health. So it the undeserving's doing, then, the country says. Which is all well and good. But who thinks of themselves as undeserving? Most Britons agree welfare eligibility is not strict enough. But most say welfare is still not supportive enough. So not supportive to those in need, which according to us is the ageing, the disabled, and those on low incomes. People out of work, however? Now there's some nuance. As many think the out of work have too little support as too much support. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The government's strategy, in appreciably pursuing the out of work, has touched on those disabled and out of work. This is why voters are so unsympathetic to Labour right now. The government has emerged scathed and worn from this welfare battle, but still alive. Bound by fiscal rules set by the last lot, the Chancellor and Prime Minister have had to come down harder on a public exhausted from a cost of living crisis. And now, unwilling to counter treasury orthodoxy, Labour's new government has become the master of its demise. They are not reading the room. And they are not kidding anyone. The spending review just gone was one of the better received events for Labour of the last few months. At least, relatively speaking. The individual projects got the nod but the voters' verdict was the same: Who do you think you are kidding, Rachel Reeves? The assertion that the investment announced can be achieved within the current fiscal framework has fallen on deaf ears. Few in the public believe it. More than two-thirds of the country believe the decisions taken in the spending review cannot be achieved without further borrowing or changes to the tax regime – the two sacred songs of the last government. Voters don't want to see tax increases. But voters increasingly see them as inevitable. This Starmer-Reeves regime in saying one thing and convincing the public of the other is over. It's time to do things differently. [See more: Annus Horribilis] Related