Labour's new factions show how worried the party is
Some of the 2024 intake have begun to organise and collude to work out how exactly their party can cling onto power. Last Thursday saw the launch of the Living Standards Group – a caucus of 100 MPs, led by eight members of the new intake including the MP for Loughborough, Jeevun Sandher and the two co-chairs of the Labour Growth Group, Lola McEvoy and Chris Curtis. They have called on the government to refocus on more radical ideas to tackle the cost of living otherwise, they warn, Labour won't hold onto power in 2029.
This is an interesting moment for the arrival of another back-bench caucus. Keir Starmer is likely approaching his non-governmental colleagues with caution after more than 100 MPs staged a damaging rebellion against Liz Kendall's welfare bill, leading to yet another government U-turn. The Living Stanards Group insist that the timing of theor arrival was coincidental. But coming so shortly after a major defeat for the government, this is a prime moment to put pressure on the government.
Although a few welfare rebels are members, the aims of this cohort seem to be favourable to the government. Luke Murphy, one of the eight MPs involved in the leadership of the group said that its founding is a 'recognition that we need to work harder to make sure that we're generating new ideas which focus on the cost of living'. He added: 'we don't want people to turn away from mainstream parties. We want to demonstrate that Labour gets it'.
According to Sandher, the group's de facto leader, conversations around the formation of a group focused on raising living standards have been ongoing for some time. His idea was to form a coalition of MPs from across Labour's internal political spectrum to create a 'policy funnel' for ideas on how the government can fix the cost-of-living crisis – and fast. These ideas will follow three principals: they must be progressive and aimed at middle earners, they must enhance economic growth, and they must be fiscally neutral (e.g. they are not dependent on borrowing). The group will be governed by a board which the eight founding MPs will sit on, which will meet to discuss organisation, plans and ideas.
'We'll have a way for people to sign up to those ideas, publicly or privately and take it forward from there,' he said. The group will not take a collective position due to the 'ideological diversity' of the MPs involved (the letter was signed by members of the Labour Growth Group and of their friendly opponents who they have facetiously termed the 'vegetable lobby'). Although some of the 100's support is not that substantial – one MP texts: 'I just signed [the letter] cos I agreed with it'.
But what unites these MPs is a genuine anxiety that they may be out of a job come the next election. 'We've been in power for a year,' Murphy said, 'but families are still doing the maths on rent, groceries, energy bills and childcare, and for so many people, they just don't add up. We know that's not just bad luck.' The group, therefore, is aimed to keep the government's feet to the fire in fulfilling their promise to voters and chivvying it along in the process. 'Wherever people are thinking of putting their vote, living standards are at the core of most people's vote,' he said. Sandher agreed: 'If you're a young – and you go and get a degree – then you get to the major cities and you realise it's not really affordable and we're losing votes on both sides because of that,' he said, 'fixing that problem is clearly an electoral imperative.'
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Holding together a coalition of Labour MPs (a party which is notoriously fraught by factionalism) will be challenging, especially considering this group will not explicitly request MPs involved to publicly back their demands on government. But the arrival of the Living Standards Group clearly indicates that Labour MPs have woken up to the true depth of the electoral threats their party is facing – from the left and from the rights.
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
3 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Where did Britain go wrong?
Photo by. Britain isn't working – for different reasons, voters across the political spectrum affirm this view. You don't need to subscribe to the more dystopian accounts of the country's state to recognise its validity. Back in January 2008, BBC News ran an article charting how the average British person would soon be better off than their US counterpart for the first time since the 19th century. Today, UK GDP per capita at $54,950 is more than a third lower than the US's ($89,678). Here is one illustration of why, ever since the financial crisis, Britain has felt like a poorer country than it expected to be. A No 10 aide speaks of how 'we don't have the country of the 1990s' and of a 'profound living-standards crisis' that has endured beyond the inflation spike of 2022. But what was the moment that Britain took a wrong turn? This isn't merely an academic question but a highly political one. As Phil Tinline charts in his book The Death of Consensus (2022), successful leaders tell a story about the nightmares of the past as well as the dreams of the future. For my piece on Labour's 'summer of discontent' I featured some exclusive polling from More in Common on this question and the full results are worth exploring. Sixty per cent of voters believe that Britain is on the 'wrong track', while just 22 per cent believe it is on the right one (among 2024 Labour voters the split is 45 per cent to 41 per cent). Brexit is the most popular source of blame (29 per cent) followed by the Covid-19 pandemic (18 per cent), the election of Tony Blair (14 per cent) and the election of Margaret Thatcher (7 per cent). There are some revealing subsets: while 40 per cent of Labour voters and 41 per cent of young voters cite the EU referendum, 35 per cent of Reform voters and 26 per cent of Conservative voters cite Blair's election. The salience of Brexit is striking. By pursuing a trade deal with the EU, Keir Starmer showed that he is prepared to take political risks. Labour strategists point to his decision to meet European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen during the local election campaign as evidence that they are not chasing Reform's tail. But while the deal was well-received by the public, it has quickly faded from the political conversation (some in Labour believe Starmer should be doing far more to pin an unpopular Brexit on the populist Nigel Farage). If voters routinely complain that they do not know what Labour stands for, it is partly because the government has not been clear enough about who and what it blames for Britain's state – and the different course it would chart. As work begins on Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves' conference speeches, here is a question that should be at the heart of them. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: One year on, tensions still circle Britain's asylum-seeker hotels] Related
North Wales Live
33 minutes ago
- North Wales Live
DWP pension changes that could mean people retire later
Sweeping changes to both state and private pensions, overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), have been announced. The modifications form part of extensive reforms to the pensions sector by the Labour government. Among the most significant alterations is the prospect of a substantial rise in the state pension age, which could force people to postpone their retirement. Last week, the government revealed a wide-ranging review of the UK pensions system. An independent commission has been formed to examine a series of controversial matters and put forward recommendations for reform. The Government plans to increase the State Pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028, affecting those born on or after 6 April 1960. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here. There are proposals for a further rise, lifting the State Pension age from 67 to 68 between 2044 and 2046, though this timeline could be brought forward, reports Birmingham Live. "A faster increase is definitely on the cards," says Rachel Vahey, the head of public policy at investment platform AJ Bell. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox The Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank caused a stir when it suggested that the State Pension Age may need to climb to 69 by 2049 and 74 by 2069 if the triple lock safeguarding its value remains in place. Australian employers are presently obliged to pay 11.5% of workers' salaries into their pensions, with this figure set to rise to 12% in 2025. In comparison, whilst the overall minimum contribution in the UK sits at 8%, employers need only provide 3%. Pension firms and sector specialists have repeatedly lobbied for this amount to be raised to 12%. Nigel Peaple, director of policy and advocacy at the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, has continually maintained the minimum pension contribution should rise from the current 8% of earnings to 12%. He said: "To minimise the impact on savers and employers, the increases should happen gradually, as they did in Australia, with employers paying more so that, by about 10 years from now, both employers and employees would pay the same. "This approach of a 50/50 split between employers and employees would strike a fair balance; it would involve higher contributions for employers compared to the current UK rules but much lower ones than traditional UK pensions in which the employer usually paid around two thirds of the cost." One concept attracting attention is the "sidecar savings" method. There are different ways to structure a "sidecar account". Two proposed models are the dual account and integrated plan frameworks. Within the dual account structure, the worker keeps a workplace pension whilst simultaneously joining a separate savings account via a savings provider. The saver sets a savings ceiling for the sidecar account, and the savings provider directs the employer to contribute to this sidecar until the limit is reached. Once the threshold is achieved, any extra funds are channelled into the pension alongside the standard pension contributions. Should funds be withdrawn from the sidecar, the individual recommences saving into it until the cap is attained once more. In the in-plan model, employees opt to save via their employer. Employers then remit the total sum contributed by an employee to both a workplace pension and an emergency savings account to a pension provider. The pension provider allocates the contribution between the pension pot and the emergency savings account. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, remarked: "Australia, New Zealand, the US, Singapore and South Africa all permit citizens to leverage their pension savings to buy a first home. "Some have suggested we consider, carefully, similar approaches in some circumstances here in the UK." This week, the government announced its dedication to "committed to both monitoring and narrowing" the gender pensions gap. Recent Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) figures have revealed that the gender pension gap has escalated to a "stark" 48%. The figures, unveiled as the government declared a 'revival' of the Pensions Commission amid concerns about undersaving, showed that in 2020 to 2022, women aged 55 to 59 had a median wealth of £81,000 compared to £156,000 for men. Approximately 20% of self-employed individuals are contributing to a private pension, with many pointing to the Lifetime ISA as a potential solution. There's talk that ministers may tweak the rules to let over-40s open a Lifetime ISA and boost its appeal by cutting the 25% withdrawal charge. Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis at Hargreaves Lansdown, commented: "The 25% government bonus acts in the same way as basic-rate tax relief, and any income can be taken tax-free." She added, "There is also the ability to access money early if needed, subject to a 25% exit charge."
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Starmer's late payment crackdown is pointless
They face higher National Insurance charges, increased business rates, crippling energy costs, and if they hire anyone: crushing employment rights. Still, never mind about any of that. The Prime Minister has today come up with a plan to finally show that he is on the side of small businesses and entrepreneurs. He will crack down on late payments. There is just one catch. This policy is completely pointless – and won't do anything to undo all the damage his government has already done. The accounts departments of major companies will have to get their act together. Under the planned legislation, firms will have to pay suppliers within 30 days of getting an invoice, and there will be spot checks and fines to ensure compliance. 'From builders and electricians to freelance designers and manufacturers – too many hardworking people are being forced to spend precious hours chasing payments instead of doing what they do best – growing their businesses,' according to Sir Keir. In fairness, it is a worthy enough idea in itself. Big companies often try to improve their cashflow by delaying payment to smaller suppliers for as long as possible, and that can make it hard for them to stay afloat. It would be helpful for everyone if bills were paid promptly. Even better, it won't cost the government any money. Instead, all the extra costs will be shouldered by the giants of the FTSE-100. But there are two big flaws in the plan. First, it won't undo all the damage done elsewhere. Since taking office, the government has launched a whole series of measures that could have been specifically designed to make life harder for small businesses. The increase in NI, and especially lowering the threshold at which it has to be paid, may raise revenue, but it hits micro-companies very hard. Business rates reliefs have been phased out, pushing up tax bills for pubs, restaurants and shops. And of course extra employment rights are especially daunting for small entrepreneurs who can't afford HR departments and lawyers to navigate them. It is hardly surprising that more than 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office. Next, it creates yet another layer of bureaucracy. Spot checks, enforcement and fines may sound tough in principle. But presumably the government will have to hire lots of inspectors, most of whom will be working from home, and all of whom will need pension rights, diversity managers and perhaps four-day weeks as well. It is hard to believe that anyone could look at the state of the British economy right now and decide what it really needs is another group of compliance officials issuing fines. But that seems to be Sir Keir's only answer. In reality, clamping down on late payments is completely pointless – and won't do anything to help the economy.
