Lord Blunkett: Sir Keir Starmer faces no-confidence vote if he's defeated over welfare
The former Labour work and pensions secretary said the Prime Minister should delay next week's crunch vote on a £5 billion package of benefit cuts until the autumn to allow more time to reach a compromise with mutinous MPs.
Lord Blunkett last night suggested the PM had failed to focus on the peril the Government is in because he has spent so much time abroad.
And he warned that losing the vote could trigger a crisis for the Government. The Labour grandee told LBC: 'If they lost it, they'd have to go for a vote of confidence, I think.
'But the embarrassment of that one year in leaves you with two problems. One is you've been humiliated, and the second is you've still got the problem. The welfare issue has not gone away. So, solving the problem, not taking the hit, is the sensible solution.'
Urging a delay in the vote, he added: 'Keir Starmer, for very understandable reasons, has been diverted on to the international agenda. I think he now needs to come back from Holland and be absolutely focused on this.'
His intervention came as the PM opened the door to concessions to welfare rebels yesterday – and defended his leadership on the issue.
A rattled-looking Sir Keir bridled at suggestions he had failed to read the mood of Labour MPs, of whom more than 120 have signed a 'fatal' amendment designed to kill off the welfare cuts when they are put to a vote in the Commons next Tuesday.
Speaking at the Nato summit in The Hague, he said he was finding it 'tough going', but his landslide election victory last year showed he was capable of 'reading the room'.
'Are there plenty of people and noises off?' he said. 'Yes, of course, there always are. But the important thing is to focus on the change we want to bring about.'
Pressure from Labour whips and Cabinet ministers has made no impact on the revolt, with the number of rebels continuing to rise in recent days.
Sir Keir yesterday insisted the vote will go ahead, despite rumours it will be postponed to avoid humiliation.
However, the PM appeared to hint at concessions. 'You won't find many people who don't want reform,' he said. 'So we are on the same page. The question is how is that reform being carried out?'
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner also hinted at concessions last night, telling ITV's Peston show: 'Discussions are ongoing around making sure the reforms we bring in support people into work who need that.'
If I can work, so can rest of Britain, says amputee peer
By Political Editor
Many sickness benefit claimants should 'get off their backsides' and find a job, according to a Tory peer who lost his hands and feet to sepsis.
Former MP Craig Mackinlay said yesterday many receiving the benefits did not have 'traditional full disability issues' and should be able to do some work.
Lord Mackinlay told media company Talk that he has three roles – he works as a chartered accountant one day a week and is director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – and commutes daily.
'I have got four [prosthetic limbs] and I go to work every single day of the week,' he said. 'If I can do it, for heaven's sake, Britain, get off your backsides.'
Lord Mackinlay criticised the system for assessing entitlement to sickness and disability benefits, suggesting it was too easy to get the 'golden ticket' of a lifetime on handouts, with 'all sorts of conditions' from alcoholism to obesity covered.
'We are being taken for absolute fools,' he added.
In 2023, Lord Mackinlay was placed in an induced coma for 16 days due to sepsis and recovered despite being given only a 5 per cent chance of survival.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner to put 'BANTER POLICE' in your office: Watch what you say by the water cooler! Workers' rights Bill pressures firms to spy on 'inappropriate' conversations
has been accused of plotting to censor workplace banter by deploying a network of spies in businesses across the country. Under new laws drawn up by the Deputy Prime Minister, firms will be pressured into bankrolling 'diversity officers', whose jobs would include protecting staff from the content of overheard conversations. Last night, the Tories warned that the so-called 'banter police' would have a 'chilling effect' on businesses already struggling under the weight of high taxes and excess regulation under Labour. Under Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill, employers must try to protect their staff from harassment by third parties. It means, for example, that a worker could take an employer to tribunal if they feel jokes or banter they overhear was offensive on grounds such as race, sex or religion if their bosses didn't do 'all they could' to prevent it. That is likely to lead to firms taking on more diversity officers to monitor what people are saying to help them prove they had taken sufficient steps to protect their workers. The Bill fails to stipulate any ring fence allowing the expression of opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters – which the Tories said they would have insisted upon. Ms Rayner's legislation also paves the way to greater unionisation in the workplace, which companies fear will take Britain back to the dark days of the 1970s, making it more burdensome to employ workers and leaving the firms vulnerable to ruinous strikes. The Bill requires bosses to give trade union representatives time off for matters 'relating to equality in the workplace' – further adding to costs, and to the number of potential busybodies monitoring speech. Ms Rayner's political opponents point out that she has received thousands of pounds in donations from unions which will benefit from the legislation. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: 'Employers are already bleeding out because of Labour's war on business, and this will make matters much worse. Pressuring private firms to hire diversity officers to pursue woke agendas has so far gone under the radar – but it will be the final nail in the coffin for many. 'Innocent office banter will be spied on by wokerati thought police. These banter tsars will have a chilling effect in workplaces. 'We can already see in Rayner's own Whitehall department how taxpayers are footing the bill for this divisive political agenda. With her personally bankrolled by the unions, this is clearly a grubby deal that feathers both nests.' The number of employment tribunal claims relating to 'banter' in the workplace rose by 45 per cent in 2021 alone, and bosses fear the new legislations will cause this to spiral even faster. The changes would be a boon for outfits such as Inclusive Employers, which offers 'banter workplace training'. It states: 'Banter, when unchecked, can escalate into harmful behaviour, including bullying, harassment, and discrimination... Harmless banter can quickly cross the line and lead to more serious issues.' The new laws will also roll back moves by the last Conservative government to stop Whitehall spending taxpayers' money on 'diversity, equality and inclusion' initiatives. Central to the plans are the repeal of Tory trade union laws which will reduce the threshold for strike action and make union funding of the Labour Party automatic. It will also end zero-hours contracts, strengthen redundancy and flexible working rights and allow companies to be taken to employment tribunals even if the employees concerned do not want to sue. The laws will make it far easier for unions to infiltrate workplaces and to operate even if just 2 per cent of the staff join. The Bill says: 'Introducing explicit protections from third-party harassment will ensure that victims can be confident that they have recourse to legal redress if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them'. A government spokesman said: 'The Employment Rights Bill will not affect anyone's right to lawful free speech, which this Government stands firmly behind. 'Upsetting remarks do not fall within the definition of harassment. 'We are strengthening workplace protections to tackle harassment and protect employees from intimidating and hostile abuse as well as sexual harassment.' A government source added: 'Courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of each case, including the rights to free expression.'
Daily Mail
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Even poorest OAPs face paying income tax in new stealth raid on state pension - in Labour plans that could come as early as next year
Labour was last night accused of betrayal after it was revealed that everyone on the full state pension will be forced to pay income tax as early as next year – even if they have no other income. Millions of Britain's poorest pensioners face being dragged into an 'old-age tax trap' as Chancellor Rachel Reeves desperately attempts to fill a growing black hole in the public finances. The extraordinary prospect, which threatens to spark a 'grey revolt' among furious older voters, arises because the personal allowance – the level at which income becomes taxable – is stuck at £12,570 at least until 2028. But the state pension, which pays 12.9 million men and women over the age of 66 up to £11,973 a year, is on track to breach that limit before then because of higher-than-expected growth in wages – especially in the public sector. Under the triple-lock system, the state pension increases by the rate of inflation, annual earnings growth or 2.5 per cent – whichever is the highest. If average earnings continue to grow at their current rate of 5.2 per cent, next year's state pension will rise above the income tax threshold for the first time since it was introduced more than a century ago. This will force pensioners who rely entirely on the state pension to pay the basic tax rate of 20 per cent on any amount above the personal allowance limit. The exact figure will be confirmed later this year. The hardest hit will be those who retired after 2016 and have paid a full 35 years of National Insurance contributions. Last night Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, a campaign group for pensioners, accused Labour of a 'mean approach' and betraying the triple lock pledge it made at last year's election. 'If triple lock increases start being taxed it obviously is a betrayal because Labour promised to keep the triple lock at the existing formula for the whole of this Parliament. It's a rather sneaky way round of undermining the triple lock.' It comes days after Ms Reeves was seen openly crying while sitting next to Keir Starmer in the House of Commons. An extraordinary Government U-turn over welfare reform last week, in the face of a Labour backbench rebellion, has blown a £5 billion black hole in the Chancellor's financial plans. Combined with weak economic performance, Ms Reeves may have to impose further punishing tax hikes, possibly as high as £30 billion, later this year. Mr Reed accused the Treasury of an 'anti-pensioner approach'. He said pensions minister Torsten Bell called for the triple lock to be phased out when he ran the Resolution Foundation think-tank. Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride last night told The Mail on Sunday: 'Labour have shown where their priorities lie. Last winter, they deprived millions of vulnerable pensioners of their winter fuel payments. 'Next year they will start taxing people who rely on the state pension as their only income in retirement.' He added: 'At the election last year the Conservatives promised to protect the state pension from being dragged into tax – Labour chose not to match that commitment. 'They claim to be protecting pensioners through the triple lock, but this stealth tax will erode its value.' It is thought the pensioner 'tax trap' could hit Labour at the polls. More than 126,000 older people signed a petition urging Ms Reeves to stop pensioners reliant on the state pension being dragged back into the tax system.
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: Humiliating U-turns. Broken promises. A Prime Minister deemed so weak that he can't even control his own party. As Sir Keir Starmer marks his first anniversary, voters issue their damning verdict
As Labour limps to the end of its first year in office, the marks are in and the verdict is brutal. My latest poll finds that based on what they have seen so far, nearly four in ten voters would give Keir Starmer an F for 'fail'. Among the rest, the average grade is a C minus. Even Labour voters can only bring themselves to award a C plus. It's not just that many disapprove of the Government's agenda. Half the electorate, including nearly as many 2024 Labour voters, say they don't understand what it is. This is hardly surprising, given the start they made. We can imagine Keir Starmer's first meeting with his senior officials a year ago this week. 'Congratulations, Prime Minister,' opens Sir Humphrey. 'Might we discuss your early priorities for government? I assume you'll want to focus on economic growth and improving public services.' 'All in good time,' says Starmer. 'First, cut the winter fuel allowance. Then find a way to make it more expensive to employ people. Oh, and make farmers pay inheritance tax.' 'I see,' Sir Humphrey replies hesitantly, casting a nervous glance at a puzzled colleague. 'Anything else, Prime Minister?' 'Yes. Give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. And rent them back.' If the scene seems fanciful, it's probably because it exaggerates the sense of purpose with which Labour assumed power. A series of U-turns – a feature of Starmer's administration since the early days but now so abundant it's hard to keep up with them – has only added to the sense of incoherence and confusion. Broken promises to the 'Waspi women'; Sue Gray's brief tenure as No 10 chief of staff; reversals on winter fuel, the grooming gangs inquiry, and whether excessive immigration is or is not turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' – these combine to show a Government with little sense of direction. Starmer's colossal turnaround on welfare reform compounds the damage, for three crucial reasons – both political and practical. First, even at its most moderate, the Labour Party has never fully shaken voters' suspicions that it is too soft on welfare and can't be trusted with taxpayers' money. The backbench rebellion and the Government's retreat in the face of it show these doubts to be well founded. Second, Starmer's climbdowns will cost real money: some £4.5 billion, according to ministers' own figures. That means (even) higher taxes or (even) more borrowing, or probably both, at a time when Britain needs neither. It also makes it harder to hit the new Nato target of spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence within ten years – a policy which most voters support, as does (so he currently says) the Prime Minister. Third, while an occasional pivot can show a government that listens and learns, a succession of them erodes confidence and credibility. 'We need somebody strong at the head of our country to go head-to-head with Trump, but he can't even keep control of his own party,' as a woman put it in one of my recent focus groups. 'What's he going to do on other policies?' asked another. 'When he makes hard decisions and gets challenged, he just seems to flip.' In a dangerous world, people want a leader they can rely on. Despite all this, a fair but dwindling chunk of voters still gives Labour the benefit of the doubt. They argue that 12 months isn't long to correct the mistakes of 14 years. But listening to those who turned out for the party, it's clear that many are struggling to look on the bright side. Few see any tangible signs that Starmer's team has started to turn things around. As one of the party's previous backers told us, 'There's no noticeable change that says, "Labour's in, this has happened".' If the Government lacks a sense of purpose, many feel the same is just as true for the Conservatives. More are starting to notice Kemi Badenoch and to like what they see. But the party has yet to break through and her overall grade from voters was a D. They recognise her conundrum: how to be visible and relevant without claiming to have all the answers so soon after being booted out of office. One answer is to show a proper understanding of what they got wrong and what is needed to put it right. Another is to rediscover what one former voter called their 'North Star', the guiding principles that animated and united the Tories when they were at their best. Nigel Farage tops the grade table for the year – the only leader to get an A from his own voters, and a B overall. He has picked up the extra marks by being visible, getting people talking, articulating people's frustration and turning it into local election votes. People see that his party is branching out beyond immigration to talk about energy, industry, welfare, policing and more. But Reform-curious voters wonder about the practicality of some of their ideas – such as reopening Welsh coal mines, or charging non-doms a £250,000 fee in lieu of tax and sharing the proceeds among low-paid workers – and note the party's expensive plan to drop the two-child benefit cap. Some acknowledge Farage's need to win over voters from all sides, but many will want something firmer when choosing the next government. 'Be a bit more grown-up, tone it down. You've got my attention now. Win me over,' one potential supporter said. Attention brings scrutiny. This year was just the mocks. As the final exams approach, the questions will get harder.
