
Labour's plans on welfare show it to be the real nasty party
I've found it much harder to reach this conclusion for those in parties like the Conservatives, aka 'The Nasty Party', which have consistently taken steps to make life harder for society's most vulnerable.
From the two-child benefit cap to their disdain for minorities, the Tories have never failed to make life worse at every opportunity for the people they're supposed to represent.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer's Donald Trump pandering proves the UK's global influence is fading
When Robert Jenrick was immigration minister and ordered that colourful murals at an asylum centre for unaccompanied child migrants be painted over, he represented the very worst of a party and a political class which goes out of its way to be outright cruel to incredibly vulnerable children at a time of extraordinary distress.
It sickens me.
I wonder intensely then, what the motivations were for the hundreds of Labour MPs across the country who were elected last year and have done nothing since but continue the Tory legacy of cruelty and authoritarianism.
Did they get into politics just to vote to keep the two-child benefit cap – rape clause and all – within their first few weeks of power?
Did they get into politics just to strip vulnerable pensioners of their Winter Fuel Payments? Did they get into politics to trample the rights of trans people?
Maybe it was to make it even harder to exist day-to-day as a disabled person in this country? Or perhaps it was to proscribe non-violent activist groups that the government disagrees with as terrorist organisations? Did they get into politics to help enable the continued genocide of the Palestinian people?
The cynic in me knows that, for some of the more than 400 Labour MPs elected last July, their motivation will have been little more than proximity to power and a cushty salary.
To them, they'll just see it as any other job, and they won't care about the consequences of their actions on the people they are supposed to represent. For some, they were simply parachuted in to be yes men to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and presumably lack the capability for empathy to question if any of what they're doing might be wrong.
But I simply refuse to believe that is the case for the majority of them. I know that for so many Labour MPs, they'll have sought election because they genuinely wanted to improve people's lives. They'll have seen the harm of 14 years of Tory cruelty and austerity, and they will have wanted to change that.
So how on Earth can those MPs sleep at night now, a year on?
When it came to a vote on the two-child benefit cap, only seven then-Labour MPs voted against. Just nine Labour MPs voted against proscribing Palestine Action, and not a single one voted against the cuts to Winter Fuel Payments last year.
In each of these votes, a minority of Labour MPs took the coward's way out and abstained, but in each case several hundred Labour MPs voted in line with their right-wing government and voted for cruelty and authoritarianism.
READ MORE: Lisa Nandy aide 'drafted note saying BBC is institutionally antisemitic'
A number of these Labour MPs grew a spine more recently and took a stand against Starmer's brutal cuts to disability benefits – but clearly not used to the weight of having a backbone, the majority quickly bowed down and accepted measly concessions which do little more than kick the can down the road and create a two-tier system for disabled people who were approved for health-related benefits before versus after the changes will be implemented.
Just 49 Labour MPs voted against the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill last week at its second reading, and all eyes will be on their colleagues tomorrow when MPs vote after its final reading, before it goes to the House of Lords.
THE bill – even in its watered down state – would see Universal Credit payments slashed for disabled young people, blatantly discriminating on the basis of their age and disability.
It has been described as 'catastrophic' by grassroots disabled-led campaign Crips Against Cuts, and threatens to plunge a huge number of disabled people and their carers into poverty.
Some 126 Labour MPs signed a reasoned amendment essentially rebelling against the original version of the bill, including 12 Scottish Labour MPs, though notably they were not backed by Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar who enthusiastically offered his support to his London-based bosses.
Although this was significant as the largest-scale rebellion since the General Election, and one that ultimately forced the Government into making concessions, this means nearly 300 Labour MPs – including a majority of Scottish Labour MPs – still backed the Government's appalling reforms all the way through. And a majority of the 126 rebels backed down after measly concessions which will still enact immense harm on an incredibly vulnerable community.
These Labour MPs, who I'd really like to believe stood for election to improve the lives of their constituents, have consistently chosen to continue the unwaveringly cruel legacy of the Tories, which enacts abject harm on some of the most vulnerable people in this country. And even when they've managed to pluck up the courage to rebel, they still buckled at the very first hurdle.
I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror. They talk of 'difficult choices' but it's always difficult choices for the working classes and never for the millionaires who continue to hoard immense wealth in this country. They have the full powers of a government with an overwhelming majority in an independent country, and this is how they choose to use them.
Simply put, the 'nasty party' is no longer the domain solely of the Tories. It's not even just shared between them and Reform. A year into government, this right-wing Labour Party is nasty through and through.
Hashtags

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


The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Britain remains trapped in poor economic policy
Randeep Ramesh certainly tackles a worthwhile and complex modern economic policy conundrum (Labour could find the money it wants without raising taxes. This is austerity by amnesia, 29 June). But his opinion that the Bank of England should simply hand over the cash proceeds from quantitative tightening (QT) and that central bank independence is somehow partly responsible for Britain's economic woes, are misguided. Central bank independence was hard-won and has largely proven a resounding success in the developed world for more than 30 years. Allowing a central bank to hand over substantial moneys from QT revenues to the Treasury would be a recipe for disaster, against the spirit if not the letter of the law, as well as a dangerous precedent. More broadly, there is merit in Ramesh's push to coordinate fiscal and monetary policy better. Neither the Treasury nor the Bank are immune to criticism in their failures to act earlier to stave off the inevitable post-Covid inflation spike by raising rates more quickly in late 2021-early 2022, before the Ukraine war. Equally, the Treasury may have acted in a more nuanced fashion in removing the government-led stimulus NewmanLondon A big thank you to Randeep Ramesh for explaining the implications of quantitative easing (QE) and QT. This insane orthodoxy simply gives public money to banks and the City. In 2007-08, the then Bank governor, Mervyn King, pontificated about 'moral hazards' for banks with regard to their risky behaviour, but then it was the public purse that took the hit from the crash and has been picking up the tab ever since. It is a parasitic system geared to the benefit of the City and the oligarchy. Gordon Brown's granting of independence to the Bank was a mistake, driven by his anxiety to reassure the City that Labour was not a threat. Running the economy is profoundly political and ideological, and the notion that only state technocrats can be trusted with monetary policy is nonsense. Rachel Reeves is making the same mistake by trying to fit her spending to Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) predictions. The creation of the OBR was simply a George Osborne wheeze to help justify his disastrous austerity policy, which Reeves is in danger of WoodKidlington, Oxfordshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.


The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘No plans' for watch towers outside House of Lords as new security fence erected
Parliament has 'no plans' to erect watch towers at the front of the House of Lords, the authorities have said. The administration was responding to a question by a former Home Office minister about the possible installation of observation posts to provide security personnel with a 'clear view' over a new metal fence, which has recently gone up to protect the site. The long length of high metal railing has provoked controversy at Westminster with concerns it 'cuts off sightlines' to potential attackers. Scotland Yard recently denied claims made in Parliament that police felt the barrier was 'dangerous' and said it had been erected 'in full consultation' with the force, including firearms and counter-terror experts. Peers previously heard the fence was put up as part of moves to improve security along the historic estate's western boundary, separating Old Palace Yard from St Margaret Street and Abingdon Street. In a written parliamentary question, Tory frontbencher Lord Blencathra, who has previously held a series of ministerial roles including at the Home Office, had asked 'whether there are plans to erect observation towers in front of Peers' Entrance to provide security officers a clear view of St Margaret Street over the security fence'. In reply, Lords senior deputy speaker Lord Gardiner of Kimble said: 'There are no plans to erect observation towers in front of the Peers' Entrance. 'The design of the Abingdon Street fence components was undertaken to carefully balance security requirements and heritage considerations, whilst maintaining necessary lines of sight for the security personnel working in this area, including at nearby entrances.' In a separate written question, Lord Blencathra also challenged the authorities over 'the justification for the difference in style and design' between the bars installed and those surrounding the House of Commons. In response, Lord Gardiner said: 'Where possible, the newly installed fence along the west front of the Palace of Westminster has been designed to be sympathetic to the existing fences, while also meeting different and specific requirements. 'The primary driver of the difference is that the fence along the west front has been designed to be completely removeable to accommodate the variety of access needs to Old Palace Yard.' He added: 'This meant it was not possible to match exactly the fence at Cromwell Green.' Meanwhile, Conservative former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean has pressed the parliamentary authorities over 'the cost per metre of the security fence' and the total cost of the project. In rejecting his request, Lord Gardiner said: 'In publishing the costs of a security asset, an adversary would be provided with information about the level of and efficacy of the mitigation we have in place. 'For these reasons, the costs of the newly installed Abingdon Street fence are not in the public domain. 'The fence is not 'off the shelf' and incorporates security measures specifically designed to keep out a wide range of hostile actors.' But, he added: 'In order to balance transparency with security, the House of Lords Finance Committee will undertake an enhanced programme of scrutiny of both costs and performance of security works, on a quarterly basis.' Lord Forsyth has previously complained of being stonewalled about the bill for a new front door to the Lords on security grounds, which was subsequently revealed to have cost nearly £10 million – far in excess of the original estimate – and also not work. A former public spending watchdog has been asked to investigate the Peers' Entrance project which has been branded 'a scandalous waste of public money'.

Western Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
UK will take more measures against Israel if no Gaza ceasefire soon
Speaking at the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary admitted the impact of Government measures taken against Israel after a joint statement from the UK, France and Germany, was 'not sufficient'. The statement, released in May by the Prime Minister, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian premier Mark Carney, condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 'egregious' actions in Gaza and called for a halt to its military offensive and an end to restrictions on humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary was asked by committee member Labour MP Alex Ballinger: 'If we do not get the ceasefire we're all praying for in the coming weeks…' 'No, we have to get the ceasefire,' Mr Lammy interjected. 'But if that is not the case and we see the abomination that you've described and the intolerable continuation of the situation in Gaza, will the Government go further to take measures against Israel?' Mr Ballinger asked. 'Yes, yes we will,' the Foreign Secretary replied. Mr Lammy defended the UK Government's actions against Israel, citing the suspension of arms sales to the country and sanctions against Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. He also highlighted the UK's support for the Palestinian Authority and the signing of a memorandum of understanding with its prime minister Mohammad Mustafa. 'I am very, very comfortable that you would be hard pressed to find another G7 partner that's doing more than this country has done,' he added. Mr Lammy told the meeting Britain would oppose plans reportedly set out by by Israel's defence minister Israel Katz to move Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of the city of Rafah. Smoke rises to the sky following an Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel (Leo Correa/AP) Labour MP Uma Kumaran said of the reported plan: 'They're calling it a so-called humanitarian transit area but there's no schools there, there's no medical provisions there, there are no other facilities, and there are plans for forced screening. 'Katz wants international partners to be involved in that. Will Britain oppose this and can you guarantee us in this committee that no British companies or NGOs will be involved in those plans?' Mr Lammy said: 'We've been very clear that we don't support the aid foundation that has been set up, it's not doing a good job, too many people are close to starvation, too many people have lost their lives.' He added that his understanding was that there had been better conversations between the UN agency system and Israel over the last few days, saying: 'So I'm surprised at the statements that I've seen from Mr Katz over the last 24 hours. 'And as I've indicated, they run contra to the proximity to a ceasefire that I thought we were heading towards, so I wonder if there's some politicking going on for those within the government that for some reason stand opposed to this.' Pressed on whether Britain would be opposing any such plans, he said: 'Yes.' At the meeting, Mr Lammy suggested Britain, France and Germany could snap back sanctions on Iran unless the country gets 'serious' about stepping back from its nuclear ambitions. The Foreign Secretary said: 'Iran faces even more pressure in the coming weeks because the E3 can snap back on our sanctions, and it's not just our sanctions, it's actually a UN mechanism that would impose dramatic sanctions on Iran across nearly every single front in its economy. 'So they have a choice to make. It's a choice for them to make. 'I'm very clear about the choice they should make, but I'm also clear that the UK has a decision to make that could lead to far greater pain for the Iranian regime unless they get serious about the international desire to see them step back from their nuclear ambitions at this time.'