Connect with us

Politics

Keir Starmer ‘doom and gloom’ may go too far, some Labour MPs fear

Published

on

Keir Starmer 'doom and gloom' may go too far, some Labour MPs fear


EPA Keir Starmer standing behind the podium with the words "fixing the foundations" written onEPA

Sir Keir Starmer’s honeymoon is over.

The prime minister has spent the summer preparing the ground for unpopular and controversial spending and taxation decisions. He wants to persuade voters not to blame him, but the governments who came before. The Conservatives, he argues, left the country’s finances in such a mess that there’s going to be some pain in fixing them.

The message has been bleak – deliberately so. Ministers want to let the public know the next few months are not going to be a walk in the park. The government hasn’t ruled out increasing capital gains tax, inheritance tax and fuel duty in October’s Budget, arguing that difficult decisions are needed to “fix the foundations” of the British economy.

But might No 10 be going too far?

Advertisement

Privately, some Labour MPs think so.

“It’s a bit too doom and gloom,” said one, calling for more of a focus on the positive message the government has to sell.

Another agreed, contrasting the enthusiasm and energy of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (attended by several senior Labour figures) and the hard truths message from Sir Keir in the Downing Street garden a few days later. The razzmatazz versus the gloom.

There are some signs ministers might be thinking the same. In the next fortnight, the chancellor will focus more on Labour’s promises to grow the economy. Ministers are promising “the most packed legislative agenda in decades” to deliver changes to the housing market, energy market, railways and more.

Advertisement

There will also be a bill on “budget responsibility” – which will mean the government’s forecasters have to assess every major financial announcement in future.

PA Media Rachel Reeves standing in front of a red background with the words HM Treasury emblazoned onPA Media

Chancellor Rachel Reeves could raise some taxes in the upcoming Budget

But one decision in particular is proving controversial already: removing Winter Fuel Payments for millions of pensioners not on pension credit.

It’s a warning sign for the government that they can blame others for the need to make tough decisions – but they will ultimately have to deal with any opposition to the decisions they make.

The backlash has grown over the summer break, with charities and opposition parties leading the charge. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats want a vote on the change and a growing number of Labour MPs are privately worried about the decision and its political impact.

Advertisement

Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group for Ageing and Older People, told me: “This is not going to go away – the government cannot run away from it.”

There is an acceptance that a universal payment for all pensioners – including wealthy people – is hard to justify. The government is planning another campaign to encourage people who are eligible to sign up for pension credit as soon as possible.

But several Labour MPs I spoke to this week expected some mitigations to be announced in the coming weeks for those who are just above the pension credit threshold but still struggling.

Ideas being floated include support to people on certain council tax bands, as suggested by the personal finance expert Martin Lewis.

Advertisement

At the moment the Treasury isn’t budging. The chancellor writes today: “I know these are tough choices, especially on winter fuel. They were not the choices I wanted to make or expected to make, but they were the right choices to put our country on a firmer footing. Because by taking the tough decisions now to protect the public finances, we can begin the process of change.”

Some Labour MPs have been frustrated by a perceived lack of engagement from the department on the backlash they are seeing in their email inbox. The only hint at the moment is that councils in England will get cash to help people with the cost of living this winter – when the Household Support Fund is likely extended.

Let’s be really clear: these nerves in the Labour ranks are far less significant than the regicidal rebellions we’ve seen over the past few years among Conservative MPs.

Sir Keir has a thumping majority and can largely do what he wants in Parliament. The decision to remove the whip from seven MPs after the first rebellion – on the two-child cap for some benefits – has reduced the likelihood of another one over this issue.

Advertisement

The government also wants to announce the hard stuff now so that it feels like a distant memory by the time of the election. But that strategy isn’t without risks.

The Conservatives, despite being a massively depleted force in Parliament, have landed some blows over the summer. They’ve accused the government of prioritising pay deals over benefits for pensioners. There have also been several accusations of cronyism after people with links to the Labour party were given civil service jobs.

The risk for Sir Keir isn’t that his party turns against him but that some of these accusations start to stick.

Labour is doing everything it can to shape the political narrative for the coming months by arguing it has a big mess to clear up. But plenty of others will be trying to do the same, arguing that Labour is going too far or is exaggerating the problems with its economic inheritance.

Advertisement

Remember, there are choices involved in everything the government is doing. It is a choice to rule out putting up major taxes that would raise more money. It is a choice to rule out more borrowing. And it is a choice to focus spending on pay deals rather than winter fuel payments. It is up to ministers to persuade you they are making the right choices.

There are plenty of other challenges around the corner for the government too. How to stop small boats crossing the channel. How to reduce NHS waiting lists. How to balance the needs of businesses and unions when new workers’ rights legislation is passed. Fixing problems in the court and prison systems. I’m sure most people reading this would have something else to add to the list.

It won’t be an easy few months for the new government. But some in Labour ranks are hoping they can do more to balance the gloom – with some optimism.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Met police faces service cuts without more cash, says chief

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC Sir Mark RowleyBBC

The boss of the UK’s largest police force has warned it faces “eye-watering cuts” to services unless ministers increase its funding.

Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told the BBC he was “deeply troubled” by talks so far on its annual settlement for next year.

He added that the force was in a “precarious position” because previously used options to “prop up” its budget had run out.

The government has said it plans to increase the overall policing budget next year – although allocations by force are still to be negotiated.

The Met’s budget for this year is just over £3.5bn, a 3.5% increase from 2023/24, comprising £2.6bn from central government and £956m from local taxes.

Advertisement

Sir Mark said conversations over its funding allocation from next April – which would normally be expected to be announced in December or January – were still “ongoing” with the government and City Hall.

But, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Political Thinking with Nick Robinson, he said he was “deeply troubled by the situation we appear to be heading towards”.

Policing a global capital such as London came with an “extra set of challenges”, he said, adding that per person was lower than in other cities such as New York and Sydney.

He said that the “cumulative effect of decisions over the last decade or so” had put the force in a “more and more precarious position”, and some of its buildings would be “unusable” in a few years without further investment.

Advertisement

“Some of the things that successive [police] commissioners and mayors have used to balance the books – like selling police stations and using reserves – all of those things have run out,” he added.

“The chancellor has been very clear – it’s a difficult public sector context.”

‘Tough choices’

“You add all those things together, and you get a dramatic change in budgets of a scale that’s never going to be absorbed by efficiencies, and is going to require some pretty eye-watering cuts to sort of to the services we provide to London.”

Advertisement

He added that he was not going to get into detail at this stage on the “tough choices” the force would face without an increase in resources.

But he said he planned to specific “10 or 20 things we’re going to do differently” before Christmas.

He added that the implications for policing in the capital would “become more public” in the coming weeks.

The budget for the Home Office is set to shrink by 3.3% next year in real terms, with the bulk of this coming from assumed savings on asylum support.

Advertisement

At last month’s Budget, the government said it planned to “increase the core government grant for police forces,” although it did not specify whether this would be in cash terms or taking account of inflation.

Before the election, Labour also said it also planned to save £360m through more efficient purchasing of police equipment, which it promised to spend on extra community support officers.

Thin, red banner promoting the Politics Essential newsletter with text saying, “Get the latest political analysis and big moments, delivered straight to your inbox every weekday”. There is also an image of the Houses of Parliament.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Bid to soften change rejected by Treasury

Published

on

Bid to soften change rejected by Treasury

A bid by the department for rural affairs to soften changes to inheritance tax for farms – possibly by exempting some older farmers – has been rejected by the Treasury.

The Treasury said there would be no change or mitigations to the policy, which will see an end to inheritance tax exemption for some farms.

From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an effective inheritance tax rate of 20% – half the usual rate of 40%.

BBC Newsnight understands that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which represents the interests of farmers in government, believes it was not properly consulted over the change.

Advertisement

The department was informed about the policy the night before it was announced in the Budget.

The move has been branded “disastrous” by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), with some farmers warning it would decimate the countryside.

Defra suggested softening the policy to exempt some older people, possibly those over the age of 80.

The April 2026 start for the policy means they may not have time to make use of existing rules to skip inheritance tax by passing on an asset seven years before death.

Advertisement

But this suggestion has been dismissed by the Treasury, which said it had taken “a fair and balanced approach”.

Since its introduction in 1984, agricultural property relief (APR) has allowed small family farms – including land used for crops or rearing animals, as well as farm buildings, cottages and houses – to be exempt from inheritance tax.

The Treasury said 40% of APR had been going to “the 7% wealthiest claimants”, and that it had “made a difficult decision to ensure the relief is fiscally sustainable”.

It put this against a backdrop of “public services crumbling [and] a £22bn fiscal hole inherited from the previous government”.

Advertisement

“Around 500 claims each year will be impacted and farm-owning couples can pass on up to £3m without paying any inheritance tax – this is a fair and balanced approach,” a spokesperson added.

There are divisions in government over the change.

Some ministers believe it will only have an impact on relatively wealthy farmers – a couple using all their inheritance tax benefits will be able to pass on a £3m farm tax free. Any inheritance tax charge on farms can be paid over 10 years.

But other ministers believe the chancellor is in danger of undermining Labour’s relations with rural Britain while raising a relatively small amount of money.

Advertisement

The change could raise around £560m.

Some sources in government have expressed concerns that the chancellor is creating unnecessary grief over a change that is not, in relative terms, a huge money spinner.

There are concerns that the change – which has proved controversial among farmers since its announcement – could become “totemic” in rural Britain.

The NFU warned it would “snatch away the next generation’s ability to carry on producing British food” and see farmers forced to sell land to pay the tax.

Advertisement

A rally to protest against the plan will be held in Whitehall next Tuesday.

There is also a dispute around the figures used to calculate the changes.

Farmers leaders have been told by Defra that the figures come from the Treasury and not their department.

Tom Bradshaw, the president of the NFU, said that Defra figures showed the changes would have an impact on 66% of estates.

Advertisement

The Treasury said the figure was 28%.

Clive Bailey, founder of the Farming Forum which is also organising a protest in central London next week, said on Thursday that any change to the new rules “would be a step forward”.

Mr Bailey, who farms in Staffordshire, said the suggested exemption should cover people much younger than 80.

Compared with the wider population, farming sees “a lot of people who should have retired already still working”, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Advertisement

He called the inheritance rules “so poorly thought out”.

The cost of running a viable farm exceeded £1m, he said, arguing that the government needed to sit down “with real family farmers or agricultural economists”.

“We’re not special, but the economic circumstances of farming are very different to other industries.”

A Defra spokesperson said:

Advertisement

“With public services crumbling and a £22bn fiscal hole inherited from the previous government, we have made the difficult decision to reform Agricultural Property Relief in a balanced and fair way.

“All ministers support the policy and it will not change.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Council tax bills could rise by 5% after Labour keeps cap in place | Tax and spending

Published

on

Keir Starmer dodges question during PMQs about whether he is keeping cap on council tax – video

Labour has confirmed council tax rises will be kept at the 5% cap next year, which could mean a rise of £100 for the average family’s bills.

The prime minister’s press secretary said on Wednesday that the threshold by which local authorities can increase bills would “remain the same”. Hours earlier Keir Starmer had dodged a question from Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, at prime minister’s questions about whether he would keep the cap on council tax.

Speaking in the Commons, he said MPs “will know what the arrangements are”. Later on Wednesday, his press secretary said: “The threshold remains the same.”

In the Commons, Badenoch replied: “I think the house would have heard that the prime minister could neither confirm nor deny whether the cap on council tax was being raised.”

Advertisement

A 5% rise would be almost three times above current levels of inflation, which in October fell to 1.7% – the first time it had been below 2% since 2021.

Keir Starmer dodges question during PMQs about whether he is keeping cap on council tax – video

Government statistics show the average band D council tax set by local authorities in England for 2024-25 was £2,171, which represented an increase of £106 or 5.1% on the previous year. For those in the most expensive band H households, last year’s £4,342 bill will increase by £217.

Starmer accused the Tories of leaving local authorities in an “absolutely catastrophic state” after Badenoch pressed the prime minister about the government’s funding plans for cash-strapped councils in England.

The Conservatives cited responses to written parliamentary questions in which ministers said estimated core spending power (CSP) for local government will increase from £64.7bn in 2024-25 to £68.4 bn in 2025-26, with the party adding that the budget was not providing enough new funding to cover this.

Advertisement

Ministers have said the CSP is subject to data changes and final figures will be published as part of the 2025-26 local government finance settlement.

Increases have been capped at 2.99% in recent years, while an extra 2% increase is permitted for councils with social care responsibilities. Councils are able to put up tax rates by up to 5% but would require government permission or a referendum for any bigger increases.

With one in four councils saying in a Local Government Association survey that they were “likely” to need emergency support to stave off bankruptcy in the next two years, increases in council taxes seem likely.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

More than half of general election candidates faced abuse

Published

on

More than half of general election candidates faced abuse

More than half of the candidates standing in this year’s general election faced abuse, according to a report by the Electoral Commission.

The watchdog said a third of election candidates reported they were intimidated or made to feel unsafe at least once, and more than one in 10 (13%) reported serious threats, abuse or intimidation.

Safeguards were tightened following the murders of MPs Jo Cox in 2016 and Sir David Amess in 2021 and anyone convicted of intimidation offences relating to elections can be banned from holding elected office for five years.

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said some of the incidents seen during the July campaign were “clearly unacceptable”.

Advertisement

There were reports of abuse from candidates including slashing tyres, throwing milkshakes and targeting candidates’ families.

The 2024 general election was the first where all 4,515 candidates were offered basic security and had access to a named police officer during the campaign and guidance on respectful campaigning was updated.

Despite this, a survey responded to by 717 candidates found nearly half (46%) reported harassment, intimidation or threats in person as they knocked on doors asking people to vote for them, and a quarter (23%) at a campaign event.

And there is also a growing issue with online abuse, reported by two-thirds of candidates who responded, and the watchdog is also calling for improved online protections.

Advertisement

The Electoral Commission is calling for tougher penalties for criminal acts, tighter political party membership rules, including potential deselection, and a review of whether to bring in secure campaigning zones.

The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, said these “crucial improvements” must be put in place ahead of the 2026 Welsh and Scottish elections, and the next UK general election.

He said: “The level of harassment and intimidation faced by candidates is particularly concerning, and requires urgent and coordinated action.

“Those standing for public office should not be subjected to abuse.

Advertisement

“It is deterring some people from standing to be candidates, and inhibiting how some engage with voters – both of which risk weakening our robust democratic debate.”

In particular, Mr Rangarajan said he was concerned at unacceptable levels of intimidation and harassment directed at women and candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Women were twice as likely to report serious abuse as men, with one in five (20%) women compared to one in 10 (11%) men.

Ethnic minorities were more than three times likely to report serious abuse as white people, with 34% reporting this compared to 11% of white people.

Advertisement

Abuse and intimidation can have a significant impact on candidates’ campaign activity, the report added, with 66% of female respondents saying they avoided campaigning alone due to a fear of abuse.

The commission also spoke to four women who had campaigned to become an MP during the general election about their experience, and also took written evidence from MPs and political parties.

They reported a clear feeling they were targeted because of their gender and they were also were more likely than male candidates to report being touched, hugged, or kissed against their will.

One English woman aged 45-54 years old, reported how “full-on” and “really abusive males” would swear at her, which made her stop knocking on doors to speak to people face-to-face.

Advertisement

Instead, she said she would only post leaflets and her husband did most of the door-knocking because “as a male he had a better rapport”.

She added: “I still think that it’s incredibly sad because they obviously don’t respond to a female wanting to put themselves forward.”

Another English woman in the same age bracket reported being touched against her will and threats of harm, amongst other abuse, and said she thought “women bear the brunt of this because we’re perceived as an easier target to convince not to [run]”.

There was also a perception that there was “no point” reporting abuse to the police, and only one in five (21%) of the cases of abuse logged with the watchdog were reported to the police.

Advertisement

The Electoral Commission report focused on July’s general election for the section related to abuse of candidates, but the wider report on findings on voting and online systems also took in findings from the May 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales, as well as local and mayoral elections in England.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

P&O Ferries spent £47m on mass layoffs amid financial woes, accounts show | P&O Ferries

Published

on

P&O Ferries spent more than £47m on sacking hundreds of UK seafarers in 2022, according to its long overdue accounts that will be published in the coming days.

The filings, which the Guardian has seen, confirm the financial cost of the company’s actions two and a half years ago when it outraged the public and parliament by dismissing 786 mainly British ferry workers – and then largely replacing them with low-cost agency staff from countries including India, the Philippines and Malaysia.

The scandal re-emerged last month when the prime minister, Keir Starmer, rebuked his transport secretary, Louise Haigh, after she referred to the ferry operator as a “rogue operator”. DP World, P&O’s Dubai-based owner, had reportedly threatened to pull out of a £1bn investment in the UK on the back of the comments.

P&O had always argued it had been forced into the sackings in order to save the company. The long-awaited accounts, which are almost 11 months late, illustrate the dire financial condition of the business.

Advertisement

The document outlines how P&O has been “in breach of covenants with respect to its external debt”, and was forced to increase its overdraft facility with its parent company DP World to £365m, up from £295m. The company also sold off one of its vessels in order to raise a further £77m in financing.

A spokesperson for P&O Ferries said: “Our 2022 financial accounts show the challenges faced by the business at that time and why the business needed to transform into a competitive operator with a sustainable long-term future.

“P&O Ferries has taken steps to adjust to new market conditions, matching our capacity to demand and adopting a more flexible operating model that enables us to better serve our customers.”

However, the accounts make a nod to the damage to the brand with travellers after the 2022 layoffs, when the company’s lack of consultation before the sackings led to the ferry operator being accused of breaking employment law.

Advertisement

A Guardian and ITV News investigation revealed in March this year that the new staff were earning as little as £4.87 an hour, when the company had previously suggested the lowest pay rate was £5.15 an hour after the sackings. P&O later admitted to parliament that the Guardian and ITV’s figure was correct.

The ferry operator had used a loophole, exempting seafarers from minimum wage legislation, in order to pay its staff below the UK and French minimum wage rates. However, that option was closed off in March this year, when the French government implemented a law aimed at preventing the exploitation of cross-Channel workers.

The P&O accounts also said that a civil investigation by a government agency into the company’s conduct during the 2022 sackings was “ongoing”, but remained at the “information gathering stage”, although the company’s directors appear to be confident that no action will be taken.

skip past newsletter promotion
Advertisement

The Insolvency Service would need to show that any action it proposed to take was in the public interest and just and equitable,” the accounts said.

Advertisement

“That threshold is high, and the directors consider that the threshold would not be met in this case.”

Overall, P&O’s pre-tax losses fell to £246m during 2022, down from £375m the previous year. Despite the challenging year, revenues rose by £84m to £919m.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Legalisation of assisted dying may force NHS cuts, Wes Streeting warns | Politics

Published

on

Civil servants are looking at the extra costs which assisted dying would put on the NHS amid a warning from Wes Streeting that some services may be cut to fund expanded end-of-life care.

The health secretary has asked officials at the Department of Health and Social Care to analyse the potential “implications” for NHS services if the right to die is legalised in England and Wales.

Their work is underway amid an increasing focus on how the NHS would cope with helping what the MP spearheading the push for assisted dying believes would be hundreds of people a year who have just six months or less to live to end their life early.

DHSC officials have already begun examining the costs of the practicalities involved, which could involve expanding the services provided by hospitals or district nurses, for example.

Advertisement

The disclosure comes after Streeting made clear his view that legalisation could force the health service to make difficult decisions about funding some existing services.

“There would be resource implications for doing it. And those choices would come at the expense of other choices”, he told Times Radio earlier on Wednesday.

Asked if he would have to find the money to fund an extension of palliative care from elsewhere in the NHS budget, Streeting replied: “Yep. To govern is to choose. If parliament decides to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment.

“And we’d have to work through those implications.”

Advertisement

Later on Wednesday, speaking to the media at the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Streeting again highlighted his belief that legalisation could put pressure on the NHS budget.

“I’ve asked my department to look at the cost” of providing more end-of-life care, he said.

“Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward.

“That work is now under way, so I can’t give you a precise figure today. I’ve asked the department to look at the cost of implementing the bill as it is currently laid before parliament.”

Advertisement

Pressed on what services might lose funding for enhanced palliative care, he declined to specify any. But, he added: “There are choices and trade-offs. Any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities.”

Streeting – who plans to vote against assisted dying – also voiced his fear that it might see some people with a terminal diagnosis choosing to end their lives early as a way of saving the NHS money.

“You do touch on the slippery slope argument, which is the potential for cost savings if people choose to opt for assisted dying rather than stay in the care of the care providers or the NHS,” he said in answer to a question.

skip past newsletter promotion
Advertisement

“I think that is a chilling slippery slope argument, and I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money, whether that’s relatives or the NHS. I think that’s one of the issues MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.”

MPs weighing up their stance on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill should not necessarily vote against it because of that potential competition for resources within the NHS, and should consider all the arguments about assisted dying, he added.

Advertisement

But, referencing the tightness of public finances, he again stressed the potential dilemmas facing the NHS if legalisation happens, saying: “We do need to be in the business of making choices.”

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Streeting said the NHS could ramp up the palliative care system in order for it to take on the responsibilities assisted dying would entail. He has previously stated that palliative care was not “where it needs to be to give people a real choice”.

Streeting plans to vote against Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s bill when it comes before parliament on 29 November, in what will be the first House of Commons vote on the issue since 2015.

Downing Street would not be drawn into saying whether the health secretary was right to raise the spectre of assisted dying law coming at the expense of other NHS services.

Advertisement

Asked about Streeting’s remarks, Dave Pares said: “Ultimately, this is a matter for parliament to decide and that is why it is going to be a free vote, and parliament will debate the principles and merits of assisted dying and the issues surrounding the bill.”

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com