Such is the determination, it seems, of Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall to ignore the loud warnings and desperate pleas from their own MPs, charities and many of those set to be affected by the changes. Instead, the Government seems intent on pushing ahead with plans to cut or further restrict personal independence payments (PIP) – a lifeline for 3.6 million disabled people.
The changes are the result of a need for cost-cutting because of Reeves’s self-inflicted pressure to meet her own fiscal rules, and because the economic growth the Chancellor repeatedly promised shows no sign of materialising. In fact, UK growth forecasts are regularly being downgraded. At the same time, the cost of government borrowing has increased since Reeves’s Autumn Budget – partly as investors lose confidence in the UK economy.
But let’s be generous for a moment, and dedicate some time to the Government’s claims about what these changes will achieve. Downing Street insists that reforming PIP will help encourage people into work and that there is therefore a strong “moral case” for making disabled people worse off.
square ANDREW FISHER
What Rachel Reeves should do instead of cutting benefitsRead More
This might make sense in theory. In reality, there is very little evidence that cutting benefits boosts employment – a point made by group of concerned charities this weekend. This argument also misses the crucial fact that PIP is paid to disabled people regardless of whether they are in work, meaning many of those set to lose out will already have jobs. When this was put to Starmer on Saturday, he responded with a barrage of hot air. Perhaps the PM knows this argument is baseless.
Trying to address what makes Britain so sick will take time, though, and Reeves needs money now, so it seems the sick and disabled must suffer.
As I have written before, even the Tory architects of the triple-lock now admit it is completely unaffordable and should be ditched. Yet the Government remains committed to this absurd policy that hands more and more of taxpayers’ money each year to all pensioners, regardless of whether or not they have any need for it.
Do Government ministers think this is the change people voted for? Or that they will be rewarded for this act of cruelty? I doubt it. Voters wanted an end to the divisive, toxic approach of the last 14 years – an opportunity to hope and believe that something better was on the horizon. Labour promised that change, but increasingly it resembles more of what went before. As time goes by, Starmer and Reeves appear to be adopting Conservative policies and Conservative rhetoric even more fervently.
square ANNE MCELVOY
How Reeves unleashed a Labour revolt with a welfare cut too far
Read MoreAmong those who put their faith in Labour last summer were many disabled people who rely on benefits to stay afloat. After 14 years of being demonised and victimised by Tory governments, they dared to hope that change was coming. I speak to many of them on my LBC show. How do they feel now? In many cases, appalled, betrayed, and very, very afraid.
There are other options for Reeves to raise money, of course: a small wealth tax on the super rich, for example, or forcing global tech companies to pay their fair share of tax on UK profits. But that would require a real battle, and real bravery.
Taking pensioners’ fuel payments away, slashing foreign aid, cutting disability benefits: none of this was in the Labour manifesto. There is no real mandate for any of it. If ministers think they will be rewarded for this cross-Whitehall exercise in punching down, I suspect they will be disappointed.
Ben Kentish presents his LBC show from Monday to Friday at 10pm, and is former Westminster editor
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( There’s a new ‘nasty party’ in Downing Street )
Also on site :