The DWP confirms that draconian ‘savings’ are coming down the track. Are we a nation that will repair hospitals, but not help a nurse with long Covid?
In the days after the budget, the headlines were dominated by talk of Rachel Reeves’s “tax and spend” bonanza. The message was clear: austerity is officially over. When there was concern about squeezed incomes, it was solely for workers. As the Mail front page put it: “Reeves’ £40bn tax bombshell for Britain’s strivers”. Almost a week later, there has still barely been a word about the policy set to hit the group long scapegoated as Britain’s skivers: the billions of pounds’ worth of benefit cuts for disabled people.
Making up just a couple of lines in a 77-minute speech, you’d have been forgiven for dozing past Reeves’ blink-and-you’d-miss-it bombshell. With a record number of Britons off work with long-term illness, the government will need to “reduce the benefits bill”, she said, before noting ministers had “inherited” the Conservatives’ plans to reform the work capability assessment (WCA). That plan, let’s not forget, was to take up to £4,900 a year each from 450,000 people who are too sick or disabled to work – a move that the Resolution Foundation says would “degrade living standards” for families already on some of the lowest incomes in the country.
…
Much like when George Osborne aimed to cut the disability benefits bill by a fifth, “welfare reform” based on arbitrary cost-cutting says the quiet part out loud: benefits won’t be awarded based on who needs them – just on what they cost. It is social security by spreadsheet, severing the social contract that promises the state will be there in times of sickness and disability, and adding a footnote that says, “but only if we can afford it”. That last week’s budget revealed huge investment for infrastructure at the same time as disability benefit cuts exposes how even the affordability argument is largely fabricated. There is money to fix hospital buildings but not to feed a nurse bedbound with long Covid.
The financial impact of such “reform” on those relying on benefits is well established but the psychological toll should not be underestimated. Since gaining power, Labour has drip-fed the rightwing press sound bites and op-eds on potential benefit cuts, leaving news outlets to speculate wildly for clicks. The budget’s half-announcement has only added to the confusion and fear, issuing vague dog whistles of “fraud” and high “benefit bills” while forcing millions of people to wait months to find out if they will lose the money they need to live.
THE Labour leadership faced demands today to tax the rich instead of inflicting more painful spending cuts in its Budget on Wednesday.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has warned that her fiscal announcement will involve “difficult decisions” because of a £22 billion “black hole” left by the Tories in the nation’s finances, which has since led her to talk of finding £40-50bn in spending cuts and tax rises.
Today Labour MP Richard Burgon presented a 50,000-strong petition in Parliament calling for wealth taxes as an alternative.
…
The petition calls for a 2 per cent wealth tax on assets over £10 million, which could raise £24bn a year.
It also suggested equalising capital gains tax with income tax rates and ending state subsidies for fossil fuel giants, which could raise another £21bn.
Ms Reeves stated that the upcoming Budget will focus on “strivers,” invoking the rhetoric of austerity architect George Osborne, though a speech by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer today stressed Labour would raise taxes to invest in public services.
Labour MP John McDonnell tweeted: “Simple request to whoever is now running Labour’s communications strategy, drop the ‘strivers’ language as it inevitably has led in the past to reference to ‘skivers’ prefacing attacks on welfare benefit claimants and cuts in social security support.”
Over 120 charities under the End Child Poverty Coalition have called on the Chancellor to use the Budget to finally ditch the two-child benefit cap.
The coalition says that doing so would lift 300,000 children out of poverty.
Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Keir Starmer explains that he feels no shame or guilt benefitting personally from gifts from the rich and powerful while insisting on policies of severe austerity causing suffering and death.
MP Rosie Duffield says she is quitting Labour over leader Keir Starmer’s “cruel” policies and “hypocrisy” over his acceptance of gifts.
In her resignation letter, published by the Sunday Times, the Canterbury MP lambasts the prime minister for accepting gifts worth tens of thousands of pounds while scrapping the winter fuel payment and keeping the two-child benefit cap.
In the letter she said the “revelations” since the change of government in July had been “staggering and increasingly outrageous”.
“I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.”
…
Dear Sir Keir,
Usually letters like this begin, “It is with a heavy heart…” Mine has been increasingly heavy and conflicted and has longed for a degree of relief.
I can no longer stay a Labour MP under your management of the party, and this letter is my notice that I wish to resign the Labour Party whip with immediate effect.
Although many “last straws” have led to my decision, my reason for leaving now is the programme of policies you seem determined to stick to, however unpopular they are with the electorate and your own MPs.
You repeat often that you will make the “tough decisions” and that the country is “all in this together”. But those decisions do not directly affect any one of us in Parliament. They are cruel and unnecessary, and affect hundreds of thousands of our poorest, most vulnerable constituents.
This is not what I was elected to do. It is not even wise politics, and it certainly is not “the politics of service”.
I did not vote for you to lead our party for reasons I won’t describe in detail here. But, as someone elevated immediately to a shadow cabinet position without following the usual path of honing your political skills on the backbenches, you had very little previous political footprint. It was therefore unclear what your political passions, drive or direction might be as the leader of the Labour Party, a large movement of people united by a desire for social justice and support for those most in need.
You also made the choice not to speak up once about the Labour Party’s problems with antisemitism during your time in the shadow cabinet, leaving that to backbenchers, including new MPs such as me.
Since you took office as Leader of the Opposition you have used various heavy-handed management tactics but have never shown what most experienced backbenchers would recognise as true or inspiring leadership.
You have never regularly engaged with your own backbench MPs, many of whom have been in Parliament far longer than you, and some of whom served in the previous Labour government.
You have chosen neither to seek our individual political opinions, nor learn about our constituency experiences, nor our specific or collective areas of political knowledge. We clearly have nothing you deem to be of value.
Your promotion of those with no proven political skills and no previous parliamentary experience but who happen to be related to those close to you, or even each other, is frankly embarrassing.
In particular, the recent treatment of Diane Abbott, now Mother of the House, was deeply shameful and led to comments from voters across the political spectrum. A woman of her political stature and place in history is deserving of respect and support, regardless of political differences.
As Prime Minister, your managerial and technocratic approach, and lack of basic politics and political instincts, have come crashing down on us as a party after we worked so hard, promised so much, and waited a long fourteen years to be mandated by the British public to return to power.
Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous. I cannot put into words how angry I and my colleagues are at your total lack of understanding about how you have made us all appear.
How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate’s sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?! The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale. I am so ashamed of what you and your inner circle have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party.
Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp — this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister.
Forcing a vote to make many older people iller and colder while you and your favourite colleagues enjoy free family trips to events most people would have to save hard for — why are you not showing even the slightest bit of embarrassment or remorse?
I now have no confidence in your commitment to deliver the so-called “change” you promised during the General Election campaign and the changes we have been striving for as a political party for over a decade.
My values are those of a democratic socialist Labour Party and I have been elected three times to act on those values on behalf of my constituents. Canterbury made history when its voters elected their first woman, and only non-Conservative, MP since the seat was created in the thirteenth century.
My constituents elected an independent-minded MP who vowed to put constituency before party, and to keep tackling the issues that most affect us here — Brexit fallout, funding for our universities, our desperately struggling East Kent NHS, dire housing situation, repeated sewage pollution and protecting our vital green spaces.
I am confident that I can continue to do so as an independent MP guided by my core Labour values.
Sadly, the Labour Party has never shown any interest in my wonderful constituency in the seven years that I have been in Parliament. But I am proud of my community and will continue to serve them to the best of my ability.
My constituents care deeply about social issues such as child poverty and helping those who cannot help themselves. I will continue to uphold those values as I pledged to do when I first stood before them for election in 2017.
As someone who joined a trade union in my first job, at seventeen, Labour has always been my natural political home. I was elected as a single mum, a former teaching assistant in receipt of tax credits. The Labour Party was formed to speak for those of us without a voice, and I stood for election partly because I saw decisions about the lives of those like me being made in Westminster by only the most privileged few. Right now, I cannot look my constituents in the eye and tell them that anything has changed. I hope to be able to return to the party in the future, when it again resembles the party I love, putting the needs of the many before the greed of the few.
Yours sincerely,
Rosie Duffield MP
Keir Starmer explains that he feels no shame or guilt benefitting personally from gifts from the rich and powerful while insisting on policies of severe austerity causing suffering and death.
Osborne– who was chancellor under David Cameron’s government and was instrumental in bringing about austerity – said that the cuts announced by Reeves on Monday were “almost identical in structure and form” to those he made in 2010, when he announced £6.2bn worth of cuts.
…
“I don’t think there was anything she announced that I would have violently disagreed with or not done myself.
“In fact, it was almost identical in structure and form to what I did in the first couple of months that I was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
“So, you know, ‘Continuity Osborne.”
Sharing a clip from the podcast on social media, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn said: “No comment.”
Environmental campaigners warn that Ratcliffe’s controversial ‘Project One’ will bring ‘US-scale plastic production to Europe.’
Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s pro-Brexit billionaire, hit the headlines this week with news that the government is providing a €700m guarantee for him to build the biggest petrochemical plant in Europe in 30 years. The plant will turbocharge the production of plastic.
Left Foot Forward takes a look at who Ratcliffe is, and how his controversial ‘Project One’ that will bring ‘US-scale plastic production to Europe’ is recieving significant financial guarantees from the Tory government.
Ratcliffe’s story is one of capitalist meritocracy, of someone who grew up on a council estate in Failsworth, Manchester, and went on to become the wealthiest man in Britain. He studied chemical engineering at Birmingham University and gained an MBA from London Business School in 1980. Having worked as a chemical engineer, in May 1998 he founded Ineos. The multinational is one of the largest chemical producers in the world and plays a significant role in the oil and gas market. According to the 2023 Sunday Times Rich List, the company’s owner, Ratlcliffe, is worth £27.9bn.
…
This week, it was announced that the government is providing a €700m guarantee for Ratcliffe to build a huge petrochemical plant in Europe. The site will import fracked shale gas from the US to provide the ethane which will produce 1450 kilotons of ethylene – the building block of plastic – a year.
The plant is being constructed by Ineos in the Belgian city of Antwerp. Environmental campaigners have described the petrochemical plant as a ‘carbon bomb,’ warning that it will turbocharge plastic production on a scale not seen before in Europe, at a time when countries are hoping to negotiate a binding global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. The ‘Project One’ plant has faced a long-running legal battle by environmental groups. In the summer of 2023, the building of Ratcliffe’s €3bn plant was halted after a landmark court victory by the NGOs. A new legal challenge argues that the true impact of the development on people, nature and the climate has not been considered.
“There is a huge problem of plastic pollution from nurdles already in Antwerp and the Netherlands. This plant will bring US-scale plastic production to Europe,” said Jeroen Dagevos, of the Plastic Soup Foundation, one of the NGOs challenging Project One.
