Latest news with #AngelaRayner
Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Times
Islamophobia definition could have chilling effect, says peer
The government's new Islamophobia definition could stop experts warning about Islamist influence in Britain, a former anti-extremism tsar has warned. Lord Walney said that a review being carried out by Angela Rayner's department should drop the term Islamophobia, or risk 'protecting a religion from criticism' rather than protecting individuals. Ministers launched a 'working group' in February aimed at forming an official definition of what is meant by Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred within six months. The group was created because incidents of hate crime in England and Wales aimed at Muslims were at an all-time high, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) said. Rayner has been warned that using the term Islamophobia rather than anti-Muslim hate risked efforts to expose malign influence from countries such as Iran being branded as Islamophobia. The Times previously revealed that Iran had developed a 'sophisticated network' across the UK to actively promote propaganda and 'plant seeds of suspicion' against the British government. Walney, a Labour peer who wrote a government review into political violence and disruption, said the government did not need to 'scrap the whole thing' because 'prejudice against Muslims absolutely exists in this country, and we should be alive to it'. He said: 'But by dropping the term Islamophobia you could send a clear message that this is not about protecting a religion from criticism.' Walney said that a previous definition adopted by the Labour Party in the Corbyn years specifically said that referring to Pakistani grooming gangs or 'the idea that there are Islamist organisations in the UK that seek to infiltrate British communities' would have been counted as Islamophobia. The government confirmed that was no longer its position and it made it clear that it would uphold free speech in the terms of reference for the review. But Walney said: 'Where really significant worry remains is that the legal framework, or certainly how it is being interpreted at the moment across the country — when no definition exists — is having a significant chilling effect on freedom of speech.' He also warned that it would be 'toxically damaging for Labour' if the government was seen 'as furthering a process which can be in any way seen to perpetuate or extend that culture' that led to the cover-up of grooming gangs. Rayner's department has been accused by the Conservatives of carrying out the review in secret, because although certain groups would be invited to respond to a consultation on any definition, the public would not be asked to do so. It is also facing a potential legal challenge from the Free Speech Union if the definition is deemed too wide. One group that has been asked to contribute is the National Secular Society, which said any definition would 'not protect Muslims' but would threaten freedom of speech. Stephen Evans, the society's chief executive, said: 'Anti-Muslim bigotry is a genuine issue which threatens the rights and wellbeing of individuals, as well as wider community cohesion. However, attempting to protect Muslims by using an 'Islamophobia' definition is likely to fail, and may even have the opposite effect. 'Such a definition could fuel fears around 'two-tier justice', as well as demands for other 'religionphobia' definitions. It could also hinder free speech around Islam, including the ability to criticise aspects of Islam which may cause harm. 'We believe the government should rethink its approach, and instead tackle anti-Muslim bigotry by promoting and upholding the fundamental human rights we all share as individuals.' The MHCLG said: 'We are absolutely committed to defending freedom of speech and any proposed definition must be compatible with the right to freedom of speech and expression. 'The independent working group has been engaging extensively with a wide range of communities and will provide independent, evidence-based advice to ministers.'
Telegraph
11 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Reeves expected to extend stealth raid on income tax
Rachel Reeves is expected to freeze income tax thresholds in her autumn Budget to fill a £40 billion black hole. The Chancellor has been put under pressure by three policy U-turns by Sir Keir Starmer, which are set to increase public spending by about £4 billion later in the year. Some within the Labour Party believe she may not survive the year if she is forced to raise taxes and impose further cuts at the same time. The latest policy reversal, on benefit cuts, will mean the Government will save just half of the £5 billion it hoped to recoup from sickness and disability payments. But Ms Reeves has left herself with few options to raise funds. As well as committing not to increase the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT, nor to raise corporation tax, she has insisted she will not break Labour's fiscal rules. Freezing the threshold for the additional rate of income tax was one of the suggestions in a memo from Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, to Ms Reeves which was leaked to The Telegraph last month. The current freeze, which was due to be lifted in 2028, dragged seven million people into higher tax brackets last year, raising around £15 billion. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent think tank, said a further freeze in thresholds would be 'pretty high up the attractiveness scale' in this year's Budget. 'I think it's fairly likely, as a politically easy way to raise something of the order of £10 billion in additional revenue by the end of the Parliament,' he told The Telegraph. One Labour MP said the Chancellor was now 'in deep trouble' because she has already ruled out several of the easiest ways to raise revenue. 'It's hard to forgive her for where we are now. She locked herself in, foolishly, to a set of commitments that have become unsustainable,' the MP said. The Treasury was already facing a black hole of between £20 billion and £30 billion because of lower-than-expected growth forecasts, partly driven by Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs. The £4 billion cost of Sir Keir's U-turns is expected to be compounded by a revision to the Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) medium-term productivity forecast this summer and growth forecast this autumn, which could have an impact on revenues of between £7 billion and £8 billion. This week's decision to maintain benefit payments for existing claimants has cost the Treasury £2.5 billion, while the U-turn on winter fuel payments for pensioners cost a further £1.25 billion. Ms Reeves is facing backlash from Labour MPs over her proposal to cut benefits, which was designed to bring down the cost of welfare at the expense of thousands of claimants. Sir Keir, who watered down the measures to avoid the biggest rebellion of his career, insisted that his 'common sense' welfare reforms now strike 'the right balance'. But the situation leaves the Chancellor with little choice but to freeze income tax thresholds, which were due to rise in line with inflation from 2028. The policy would likely raise around £8 billion a year in tax receipts, but would cost a worker earning on an average salary thousands more in income tax by the end of the decade. Independent economists say a further freeze in the autumn is now all but certain, and that further increases on smaller taxes or a new raid on pensions could be required to make up the shortfall. Downing Street refused to rule out further tax rises on Friday, with a spokesman saying: 'As ever, as is a long-standing principle, tax decisions are set out at fiscal events.' However, Ms Reeves's team remains optimistic that good economic performance between now and the Budget will reduce the £105 billion cost of servicing government debt, which currently accounts for 8.2 per cent of public expenditure. The Bank of England is widely expected to cut interest rates at its next meeting on Aug 7, although gilt yields are not directly determined by the base rate. Treasury officials also hope that the cost of energy will continue to fall, although it is acknowledged that instability in the Middle East could drive up the price of crude oil once again. Ms Reeves is adamant that she will not break her fiscal rules – to increase public sector borrowing as a percentage of GDP or raise money on the markets to fund day-to-day spending – and believes that maintaining market stability should be the Government's primary goal. Balancing the books with a stealth tax on income has been a favoured policy lever of successive chancellors. The current freeze to 2028 was introduced by Sir Jeremy Hunt in his 2022 Budget. But the policy results in more people paying higher rates of income tax as their wages increase – an economic phenomenon known as fiscal drag. OBR figures show that in 2024-25, some £15.3 billion extra was due to be raised thanks to the frozen thresholds. In the same year, the OBR predicted that the total welfare bill was set to shoot up by £16.6 billion. Figures released on Thursday show that seven million people have been dragged into paying higher rates of income tax as a result of the stealth raid on wages. Frozen thresholds forced an extra 520,000 taxpayers into the 40p bracket in the last year, according to estimates by HMRC. It brings the total to just over seven million in 2025-26, a 60 per cent rise from the 4.4 million in 2021-22 when income tax thresholds were first frozen under the Tories. The number of 45p additional-rate taxpayers has more than doubled from 520,000 to 1.2 million over the same period. Last November, Ms Reeves told MPs she would not raise taxes again or increase borrowing and that the Government would need to 'live within the means we've set ourselves' for the remainder of the Parliament. 'We're not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing,' she told the Treasury select committee.
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
As Rayner and McSweeney sealed £3bn U-turn, Reeves looked at tractors 140 miles away
Rachel Reeves was looking at tractors when a new £3 billion black hole was blown in the public finances. Thursday was a hi-vis day for the Chancellor, who sported a fluorescent green waistcoat for her visits first to a nursery supplier and then JCB World Headquarters in Rocester, Staffordshire. The business tour was an attempt to drum up interest in the Government's new trade strategy. However, 140 miles south, a huge about-turn on a welfare cuts package that Ms Reeves had personally demanded was being bartered away in her absence. Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir Starmer's chief of staff who masterminded Labour's huge general election victory, was one of the three figures present to negotiate the new terms. That was notable – the softly-spoken Irishman had been the target of vicious briefings from rebels, some of whom darkly muttered about ousting him in a 'regime change'. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, was the most senior elected figure in the room. As the most prominent Left-winger in the Cabinet, and privately a critic of the welfare cuts when they were first adopted, she was deemed best placed to win rebels over. The third member of the Government's negotiating team was Sir Alan Campbell, a Labour MP since Tony Blair's 1997 victory, who is now Sir Keir's number-cruncher as Chief Whip. Ms Reeves's absence was eye-catching. Would it not have been wise to have the person in charge of the nation's finances in the negotiations as billions of pounds were being bandied around? Apparently not. Treasury sources have waved away the idea that she was out of the loop. Ms Reeves was kept abreast of negotiations by Mr McSweeney personally, taking calls and texts as she toured the nursery manufacturers and construction companies of Middle England. Negotiations between the rebel leaders, who threatened to vote down flagship welfare legislation next Tuesday, and the three Government figures hand-picked to offer concessions did not happen in Downing Street. Instead, it took place in the Palace of Westminster to avoid drawing attention to what had snowballed into the biggest rebellion of Sir Keir Starmer's year-old premiership. 'It was somewhere on the parliamentary estate where you would not expect it to happen,' said a source tapped into rebel strategy. But the location had symbolism, too. This was the home turf not of ministers, but MPs. A total of 127 Labour backbenchers had publicly attached their names to an amendment to effectively kill off the cuts to disability benefit payments. It was enough to comfortably overturn Sir Keir's vast Commons majority, and No 10 knew it. So it was the Government that came, cap in hand, to the rebels – and not the other way round. The rebels were headed by three Labour MPs – Dame Meg Hillier, Debbie Abrahams and Helen Hayes. Each of them leads a Commons select committee, respectively scrutinising the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education. These were not your usual Left-wing parliamentary agitators but moderate, highly respected Labour MPs. The profiles of the masterminds behind the amendment reflected the core strength of the rebellion, and how widely across the Labour backbenches it reached. Meetings had taken place on Wednesday too, but came to a head around lunchtime on Thursday. Critics were said to be pushing for moderate tweaks – perhaps a change in exactly how the new points system would work for recipients of the personal independence payments (Pip). Cuts to Pip, which gives money to people with disabilities to cover the extra costs brought about by their condition, was at the heart of the stand-off. However, the rebels went much further. The rebels insisted central parts of the package, which the Prime Minister had defended as recently as Wednesday and dismissed criticisms as 'noises off', had to go. The Government team, so exposed by the size of a rebellion that had caught them off guard, was left with little power to argue back. And so there was celebration from the three committee heads, whose actions were driven by a sincere concern about the 800,000 disabled people who would lose out under the initial plan. 'Major concessions' had been won, a senior rebel source told The Telegraph on Thursday evening, adding: 'We wanted to unite around something better. We are getting there.' As news of the victory spread, the full scale of the concessions began to leak. Gone was the plan to cut Pip from existing claimants, meaning 370,000 disabled people would keep their payments in full. Those currently receiving the health top-up to Universal Credit would also be spared. The U-turn also allowed the rebels to reassure constituents that current claimants would not lose out, after MP inboxes had flooded with concerns from residents. There were other concessions too, such as speeding up the new £1 billion fund to help people get back into work and a promise to properly consult with disability charities before the new system kicks in. In a sign of how scrambled negotiations had been, Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary who put the initial package together, sent a letter out to Labour MPs explaining the new deal at 12.27am. Formal government communications issued after midnight are usually a tell-tale sign that all is not going to plan. The rebels had won. The Iron Chancellor's tab But Ms Reeves now has to pick up a tab. The promise that current Pip and Universal Credit recipients will remain untouched is a costly one. The rollback of the benefits cuts has created an estimated £3 billion dent in original savings of £4.6 billion savings from the original package. Given it was Ms Reeves herself who insisted that the cuts were announced before her spring statement in March to help balance the books, it is hard to not read the climbdown as a Treasury defeat. The Chancellor is already facing an incredibly tough autumn Budget. Worsening economic forecasts and increased government debt interest payments mean she is at risk of missing her promises to control borrowing. But No 10's newly-found penchant for U-turns is making her task much harder. The recent reversal on the winter fuel payment cut lost her £1.5 billion. Sir Keir has also hinted at lifting the two-child benefit cap, which would cost another £3.5 billion. The 'Iron Chancellor' has staked her credibility by sticking to her fiscal rules. A determination not to break them could well mean substantial tax rises are coming, clashing with another of her past positions – that she would not impose more tax rises before the general election. Reeves in 'deep trouble' Those in the Chancellor's inner circle insist there are still a 'huge number of moving pieces' between now and the autumn Budget, including new growth and productivity forecasts, energy price changes and interest rate decisions from the Bank of England. Officials widely expect the Bank to cut rates in the coming weeks, in line with external forecasts, which would reduce the cost of borrowing for the Treasury. The Office for Budget Responsibility's (OBR) latest forecast predicts that debt interest payments will exceed £100 billion in this financial year – accounting for more than eight per cent of total public spending. But polling shows that two thirds of Labour MPs oppose the party's fiscal rules, and see breaking them and borrowing more as the best solution to the Chancellor's dilemma. 'It's hard to forgive her for where we are now,' said one MP. 'She chose to target the poorest.' There are few MPs now openly discussing Ms Reeves leaving the Government, but most are calling for a 'reset' in Downing Street, and for Sir Keir to consider his political strategy more carefully. One rebel said simply that based on the economic statistics alone, the Chancellor is in 'deep trouble'. Dr Simon Opher, another of the rebels, said: 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip. 'The Bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' On Friday, some rebels were vowing to continue the fight. Members of the Socialist Campaign Group, made up of a few dozen Left-wingers, plan to vote against the welfare legislation on Tuesday. Exact numbers remain to be seen. But government insiders and decisive rebel leaders are confident enough critics will support the new package that the legislation will comfortably pass. The Chancellor is left to clean up the mess. She could yet still dig herself out of this growing fiscal hole come autumn – but it may well be the public that ends up paying.
Scotsman
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
The gentleman strictly is for U-turning
I watch Sir Keir Starmer regularly U-turn, so I think he'd do well on Strictly. Waltz? Tango? Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, 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... He U-turned on the winter fuel allowance for pensioners (which I welcome) and I have no doubt with more than 120 of his own MPs set to wreck his proposals to cut benefits to the vulnerable and disabled, he is on course for another, though he will no doubt dress it up as something else. Angela Rayner, allegedly working class Labour, defended this legislation but she will have more than egg on her face when these cruel cuts are ditched because she has already ditched her street cred as flag bearer for socialism. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She always had a walk-on part, a token role following in the footsteps of her predecessor, Two Jags Prescott – remember him? What has not been ditched is the two-child benefit cap, which prevents claiming for any 'additional' child. There are folk I know who will complain that these folk should only have two children. Well don't punish the children and we actually we need, especially in Scotland, to increase our young population. We are top heavy with the elderly and as we grow older and for longer, which is a good thing, we require additional help in the health and care sectors. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I know myself, now in my eighties, that I attend the GP and the pharmacy increasingly. Without enough young people, then the workforce shrinks, tax take drops and we don't have enough tax to pay for our NHS and the care sector, let alone people to staff our hospitals. So we need children. Another U-turn would be for the UK government to reverse its ridiculously restrictive immigration and visa policies. Sir Keir Starmer has refused to moderate these to plug gaps in Scotland's workforce. Last but certainly not least there are those additional National Insurance levies on employers. I said these would impact on food costs as these charges would be passed down the food chain from the growers, the transporters, the packagers, to the supermarket shelf, to our trolleys. I take no pleasure in saying 'ah telt ye'. SNP MSP for Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale
The Guardian
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Third U-turn in a month leaves Keir Starmer diminished
After his third U-turn this month, Keir Starmer will hope he has done enough to avoid a humiliating first Commons defeat as prime minister on Tuesday, even if he is now a diminished figure in front of his party and the country. Over Wednesday night and Thursday, Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and his deputy, Angela Rayner, sat down with leading rebels and agreed a series of changes to the government's welfare bill that ministers hope will be enough to get it over the line. Those changes are likely to be significant enough to win over the support of dozens of moderates who had signed an amendment that would have put the bill on hold indefinitely. But they have damaged the prime minister's reputation for embracing tough reforms, and his chancellor's reputation for fiscal probity. Stephen Kinnock, the health minister, said on Friday: 'Keir Starmer is a prime minister who doesn't put change and reform into the too-difficult box. He actually runs towards it and says: 'Right, how do we fix it?' And I'm sure that that's what will be foremost in people's minds on Tuesday.' Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebels, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'We're going to see some of the fine detail of this on Monday. We're expecting a written ministerial statement from the government, so we will get more detail then. But I think, in my view, we got as much as we can get in the time frame involved.' But others have spotted weakness. Helen Whately, the Conservative spokesperson on work and pensions, said: 'This is another humiliating U-turn forced upon Keir Starmer … The latest 'deal' with Labour rebels sounds a lot like a two-tier benefits system, more likely to encourage anyone already on benefits to stay there rather than get into work.' For the prime minister, this is the third time he has reversed course in recent weeks in the face of pressure from outside. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Earlier this month his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced she was undoing most of the cuts to winter fuel payments after a sustained political backlash. Just over a week ago, the prime minister told reporters on the way to the G7 in Canada he was dropping his opposition to a national inquiry into grooming gangs after one was recommended by Louise Casey. This week's decision to change key parts of the welfare bill could prove the most expensive of all three. Ministers will now limit their cuts so they only apply to new claimants and have also promised to lift the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. Along with promises to increase spending on back-to-work schemes and to redesign the entire system of Personal Independence Payments (Pips), the Resolution Foundation estimates the entire U-turn could end up costing £3bn. Reeves will set out the full costs of the package, and how she intends to pay for them, at the budget in the autumn. Asked about the cost of the U-turn on Friday, Kinnock would only say: 'Matters of the budget are for the chancellor, and she will be bringing forward a budget in the autumn.' But it is not just the cost of the immediate changes that Reeves will have to measure. Now she and the prime minister have developed a reputation for changing course in the face of backbench resistance, the chancellor is likely to come under heavy pressure over other issues Labour MPs care deeply about. Hillier said on Friday the prime minister would now have to listen more carefully to his parliamentary colleagues. 'There is huge talent, experience and knowledge in parliament, and it's important it's better listened to. And I think that message has landed.' Top of many Labour MPs' wishlist is an end to the two-child benefit cap. Starmer agrees on the importance of removing that cap altogether, but doing so would cost as much as £3.6bn a year by the end of the parliament. This is why, as the government's spending commitments grow, ministers are refusing to rule out tax rises this autumn. As Starmer has found out this week, angering nearly a third of your MPs is a costly business.
