How does an ex-criminal get off benefits?
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments.
Regarding the government's wish to reform the welfare system and get people back into work (Metro, Fri).
I had a chance meeting with an unemployed 50-year-old while waiting to play at my bridge club.
Up to the age of 40 his life had been precarious – intermittent work, drugs and crime. During that time he had spent seven years in jail.
Over the past ten years, he has been clean but cannot find work because of his record. He survives on benefits as he has been assessed as having mental health problems. Having talked to him for more than an hour, he admitted to having no mental health issues.
He lives with his drug-addict brother who he has to fund.
What a situation. He has been written off by society since the age of 40. Is there no forgiveness? No wonder the government has a problem with benefits. Pat de Burca, Colchester
Martin (MetroTalk, Thu) wonders why Israel has destroyed the infrastructure of nextdoor Gaza while being able to undertake far more precision attacks in Iran.
The answer is straightforward. Israel and Hamas are at war and Hamas concentrates its forces in and beneath hospitals, schools and in refugee camps.
If these terrorists/freedom fighters (depending on your point of view) emerged into the open, they would be killed swiftly by Israeli forces.
The collateral damage is immense but this is war and many thousands of Hamas personnel, including the leadership, have been killed by such bombing. The completely unverified figures of 'civilian' casualties provided by Hamas include all their own war dead and significantly reduce the civilian casualty figures.
If Israel wanted to commit genocide, two million Palestinians would now be dead. Instead, they will be rebuilding and working in Gaza in the future, just without Hamas. It was the same in Germany and Japan after World War II.
In Iran, Israel attacked military and nuclear structures and similarly decapitated the leadership, but these were not based in schools and hospitals.
There is no 'moral obligation' to criticise Israel in a free society such as Britain and you can attend the pro-Palestinian hate marches in London every weekend if you wish to.
However, don't fool yourself that you are somehow a more principled or moral person if you do so. Chris Shepherd, London
The best way to ensure Iran is no longer a threat to Israel and the West and stops building nuclear weapons is to get rid of its oppressive and fanatical regime.
Although Israel and Donald Trump have hinted at this, it looks as though the regime will hang on to power, supported by Vladimir Putin, to the detriment of its people and the wider world.
The West should do everything within its power to support the overthrow of this regime and bring about a democracy.
This would not only bring peace to the Middle East but free the people of Iran, most of whom want to see an end to the regime. Julie, Bath
William (MetroTalk, Fri) describes having to push though a crowd of out-of-control schoolkids to get off a train while their teacher did nothing to control them.
People should always let others off the train before trying to board. More Trending
I am sick of the disgusting behaviour of so many people who try to board or make it impossible for people to exit the train. There is plenty of time to let people off before people try to board. I always stand to the side, giving exiters a clear path off the train and let them exit before I enter, yet I am hardly ever given the same courtesy by the self-centred louts I encounter. Dave, Shoreham
Jee (MetroTalk, Fri) complains that the majority of the 6,000 respondents who said they agreed to the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street does not represent the views of most Londoners.
What it does highlight is the apathy of Londoners, who can't be bothered to express their views and complain only when opinion goes another way.
We all need to get involved in creating harmonious communities. Michael Fuller, London
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump could bomb Iran again
President Trump has already warned Tehran that he'll be back if Iran tries to revive and advance its nuclear programme, following the strikes by B-2 stealth bombers. Judging by the comments of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Trump may find himself with this dilemma sooner than he thinks. Iran could return to enriching uranium in 'a matter of months', according to Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA's director-general, in an interview with CBS News at the weekend. However, a number of questions need to be asked before the B-2s take off again from their Whiteman Air Force base in Missouri. Trump hopes that the combination of twelve days of Israeli air raids and the one-off attack by seven B-2s each armed with 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) will persuade the Tehran regime to give up any ambitions of building a bomb and focus all efforts on a long-term diplomatic deal to bring the nuclear nightmare to an end. The chances are slim. The survival of the Islamic Republic under the leadership of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei largely depends on its often-stated position which is that Iran has the right to enrich uranium and it will never give that up, however many 'western' bombs fall. The IAEA chief clearly believes that, despite serious damage to the three main nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, Iran still has sufficient stocks of unharmed gas centrifuges secreted away to continue the process of enriching its stock of 400 kilos of 60-per-cent-grade uranium, potentially to reach the 90-per-cent level required for a bomb. Grossi's assessment unfavourably, for Trump that is, echoes the sombre report leaked from the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency soon after the B-2 bombing of the three nuclear sites which claimed the strikes had only set back Iran's nuclear programme by a few months. There are important nuances here. There can be little doubt that the 14 MOPs dropped through ventilation shafts to reach a long way down towards the deeply buried nuclear plants caused a lot more damage than the DIA seemed to be implying. Furthermore, and crucially, the bombings did destroy (or obliterate in Trump's language) the metal conversion facility at Isfahan whose role was to transform enriched uranium gas into dense metal, a process known as metallisation, which is one of the key last stages of forging the explosive core of a bomb. CIA director John Ratcliffe reportedly told a classified congressional hearing that the destruction of the sole metal-conversion plant would put back Iran's suspected nuclear bomb programme by years. So, whether the 400 kilos of highly-enriched uranium Iran developed are buried under rubble at Isfahan or one of the other sites, or have been removed to an unknown bunker (depending on which report you believe), the destruction of the metal-conversion plant is a plus for Trump's obliteration mantra; and possibly a reason for the US president to hold back the B-2s for a second go for the moment. The other big question: what will Israel do? That's not to say he won't be tempted to launch another bombing raid if Tehran refuses to cooperate on the offered diplomatic path. Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, told the BBC that the US would have to rule out any further strikes if diplomatic negotiations were to be resumed. Trump isn't going to fall for that one. Trump knows that he won't face any trouble from Congress if he decides to bomb again. Attempts by the Democrats to obligate the president to seek authority from Congress before pursuing more attacks on Iran were thwarted by the Republican-majority Senate in a 53-47 vote. The other big question: what will Israel do? Mossad and the rest of the Israeli intelligence apparatus will be keeping the closest eye and ear on what Iran does next after seeing its prized nuclear facilities hammered by nearly two weeks of targeted strikes. Last week, Israel Katz, the Israeli defence minister, ordered the military to draw up an 'enforcement plan' against Iran, including maintaining air superiority over the country and taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent progress in Tehran's nuclear programme. 'Operation Rising Lion [codename for the Israel Defence Forces' twelve days of attacks] was just the preview of a new Israeli policy,' Katz wrote on X. So, Operation Rising Lion has been granted longevity. That has to mean further attacks on nuclear sites and against nuclear scientists in the future, whether Trump and the B-2s are going to be involved or not.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The rebellions against Starmer are only just beginning
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street To rebel is to wage war. Specifically, if you go back to the Latin, it means to wage war again – the conquered rising up against their conquerors, insurgents who refuse to let grievances go. Etymology is probably not front of mind for Keir Starmer as the vote on his government's highly contentious welfare reform bill looms today (1 July). Last week, 126 Labour MPs – nearly a third of the parliamentary party, easily enough to defeat the government – put their names to a wrecking amendment. A stand-off ensued, and eventually it was the government that blinked. In an attempt to win over the backbenchers, concessions were hastily offered, concessions that will leave Rachel Reeves with a £3bn hole to fill in. But that still may not be enough. Around 50 rebels are thought to be holding firm – including, somewhat ironically, one who was until very recently a Labour whip. Assuming the numbers are accurate (which, given how this disaster seems to have caught Downing Street by surprise, isn't worth counting on), a government with a majority of 156 should be able to ram its reforms through with a revolt of this size. But what happens next? Rebellions are not just humiliating for the prime ministers who suffer them. As the derivation suggests, they are rarely a one-time thing. For MPs mulling over whether to defy the whips and vote with their conscience or be well-behaved little backbenchers who might get a promotion one day, the data shows rebelling gets easier with practice. Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart from the University of Nottingham analysed rebellions in the 2001 parliament under Tony Blair and found a worrying trend of MPs who had previously been obedient getting a taste for revolt. Matt Bevington from UK In A Changing Europe pointed out that, once Theresa May had lost one vote on Brexit, the situation spiralled: her government suffered ten defeats on Brexit votes in nine months. As well as altering the psyche of the backbench MP, big rebellions – whether they succeed or not – automatically reflect the party leader in a way that is uncomfortably revealing. When David Cameron lost a vote in 2015 regarding the rules around a future EU referendum, it wasn't just his personal authority that took a blow. Cameron, who had just won a slim majority earlier that year, lost by 27 votes when 37 of his own MPs joined Labour in opposing the government. Both the scale of the rebellion and the willingness of Labour to work with the Tory Eurosceptics should have sent red lights flashing on No 10's dashboard. It signalled that the government could not count on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party in its coming fight over the EU, regardless of the broadly pro-Brussels sensibilities of the Labour MPs and members – a lesson that proved inescapably true during the referendum campaign itself. Theresa May's premiership after the 2017 election was essentially one rebellion after another, each sapping at her authority and backing her further into a Brexit corner. The parliamentary arithmetic of pragmatists in government attempting to work out something the EU might actually accept, hard-Brexiteer Tory rebels willing to brook no compromise and opposition MPs intent on being as obstructive as possible meant there was a majority against every conceivable option but no majority for any of them. May was eventually chewed up and spat out by her government's own contradictions. May, of course, had the excuse that she didn't have a majority to work with. Rishi Sunak did, having inherited the 'stonking' electoral triumph won by Boris Johnson. He ended up equally trapped between his backbenchers and reality, suffering a humiliating rebellion when 61 of his MPs backed an amendment condemning the Rwanda bill for not being tough enough. The fact that Sunak went on to win the vote didn't matter. His authority – already fragile after failing to win a leadership contest in his own right – never recovered. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe That's the thing about rebellions: once MPs realise they have the numbers to force the government into positions it would rather avoid, they rarely forget it. Starmer is now facing down a revolt of a similar size to those who challenged Sunak with the Rwanda amendment, but at the start of the parliament (which celebrates its first birthday on Friday) rather than the end of it. It is delusional to imagine the 126 MPs who managed to extract major concessions from the government over the welfare cuts will settle down and play nice for the next four years. They've learned a powerful lesson from all this. How has a government with a seemingly unassailable majority got into such trouble early on? The issue is partly one of substance: asking Labour MPs to vote for measures that seem tailor-made to antagonise the Labour base and go against Labour principles was always going to be a brutal struggle. And there are major issues of party management. Labour MPs talk openly of feeling disregarded and ignored, patronised by the leadership and taken for granted. Keir Starmer clearly hasn't done enough to get to know his 400-odd foot soldiers and win them over. This has been bubbling over for some time – perhaps since he withdrew the whip from seven rebels 18 days into office. There's another issue. Backbenchers with rebellion on the mind talk of being unwilling to have a vote cutting disability benefits on their record. That record is very easy to find: online on the official parliamentary website, or via They Work For You, where you can look up your MP and see a helpful summary of how they've voted on a range of topical issues – like, for example, disability benefits. There is no allowance made for 'the whip told me to' – and nor should there be. Transparency in politics is undoubtedly positive. It is good that voters can see how the people elected to represent them are getting on with that job. But in the days before the internet, MPs didn't have to worry about constituents marking (or, at least, being able to mark) them on every vote. They had more leeway to back an unpopular measure for the sake of keeping the government running smoothly. They Work For You is run by the mySociety project, whose aim is to use the internet to empower citizens to take a more active role in democracy. It launched in 2003 – the same year a staggering 139 Labour MPs voted against the Blair government, opposing the invasion of Iraq. No one is suggesting the Brexit hardliners of the May era or Sunak's Rwanda challengers made decisions purely on the basis of ensuring their profiles gave the correct impression for the voters they cared most about. But it's hard to imagine this didn't feature at all in their thinking. As he heads towards his one-year anniversary in government this Friday, Starmer should be aware that the same will feature in the thinking of the 126 MPs who signed last week's letter, whatever happens with the welfare vote today. If you put your principles first by rebelling once, the temptation is there to rebel again. The clue's in the name. [See also: A humbling week for Keir Starmer] Related
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
I'm disabled and Rachel Reeves is my MP - cutting Pip won't get me back to work
'We believe if you can work, you should work,' declared Chancellor Rachel Reeves three months ago, as she went through a raft of welfare reforms in her spring statement. That was part of the reasoning for major cuts to benefits, including Universal Credit and the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) for disabled people. By making those measures less generous, the state would save money and people would be incentivised to find work – or so the government argued. But back in the Chancellor's constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, Anastasia Tempest was watching on in frustration. Anastasia, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, had been searching for work for some time and was being supported in that effort by a local organisation called Pathways to Progress. But around the same time Reeves was giving her speech in Westminster, Pathways to Progress was closing its doors permanently. It had lost its government funding. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. Anastasia told Metro: 'They're cutting back on access to work. 'That's a very good scheme and there needs to be more support, because there isn't a lot of support. And the support that was there has either been cut or eradicated altogether.' The initial measures announced by the Department for Work and Pensions in March were watered down last week as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced a significant rebellion from Labour backbenchers. Most significantly, everyone currently on Pip will continue to receive the same level of payment, with the changes to eligibility only applying to new claimants from November next year. However, a government assessment of the changes published today revealed 150,000 people would still be pushed into poverty under the altered measures. Charlotte Gill, Head of Campaigns and Public Affairs at the MS Society, says: 'We're appalled that the government are choosing to rush through this reckless and harmful bill. 'It's outrageous that MPs are being asked to vote for dramatic welfare changes, without having time to properly scrutinise their impact.' Facing a rebellion of more than 120 backbench Labour MPs, Keir Starmer announced a range of concessions to the bill ahead of a debate and vote today. All current Pip recipients will stay on the system without any changes The changes to eligibility – including the requirement for recipients to get at least four points from a single activity in their assessment in order to qualify – will only apply to those who claim after November 2026 200,000 people with the most severe, lifelong conditions will not be called for a University Credit reassessment Current recipients of the UC health element and some new claimants who have 12 months or less to live will see their income rise at least in line with inflation until 2029/30 Anastasia said she doesn't like seeing Pip being 'abused' and accepts it can be misused. She said: 'I do think it's really good if somebody with a disability or some kind of health condition can work, even if it's a little bit, it can be quite healthy. 'I mean, it's a difficult one, because Pip shouldn't be used for people not to work.' But she said the Chancellor could find alternative ways to find money: 'I have met Rachel Reeves on Zoom. I spoke to her once a couple of years ago. 'If I was to speak to her again, I would ask, go after the billionaires.' Anastasia continued: 'Why people with disabilities? Pip is often misunderstood, it's not means tested, and I think it's good that it's not means tested because it's related to having a disability. More Trending 'Nobody, nobody wants to be disabled. Nobody would choose to be disabled. You know, I don't choose to have cerebral palsy. 'I think some people think, I mean, I've read stuff, they think you receive a lot of money if you have a disability. That's nonsense.' Today, MPs will vote for the first time on the welfare cuts when the Universal Credit (UC) and PIP Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons. The proposed legislation is expected to pass following the government concessions, but the PM is still likely to see one of his biggest MP rebellions just days ahead of his first anniversary in the job. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Benefit cuts will push 150,000 people into poverty despite U-turn, government admits MORE: I dehydrate myself so I don't have to use public disabled toilets MORE: All of Keir Starmer's welfare cut U-turns 'will cost £4,500,000,000'
