Discontent is said to be brewing among Labour backbenchers. (Image: Getty)
Sir Keir Starmer faces a growing rebellion among Labour backbenchers over his government’s Winter Fuel Payment raid and refusal – thus far – to scrap the Two Child Benefit Cap.
Telegraph journalist Suzanne Moore, who attended the party conference in Liverpool this week, said the “draconian discipline” Sir Keir has enforced means backbenchers without influence are left feeling “pretty demoralised”.
Labour figures are also concerned at increasingly being whipped to support policies they feel are at odds with the party’s core principles.
Rosie Duffield, a Labour MP who has been a vocal proponent of lifting the benefit cap told the outlet: “Every member of the cabinet has stood up at some point and made a comment against the two child limit.
“And suddenly we are in government and we don’t have the money to do anything about it? It’s so fundamental to who we are! This is one of the things that makes you think, why am I in the Labour Party? What’s the purpose of the Labour Party?”, she added.
Ms Duffield claimed the Prime Minister “just doesn’t engage,” adding that it’s often said Sir Keir is “not actually interested in politics”.
The policy, which limits child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in most families, has come under fire for apparently exacerbating child poverty, a situation that Sir Keir has been urged to address.
Fears in Labour HQ of a major rebellion against the recent vote to cut the Winter Fuel Payment didn’t materialise, with the plan passing through Parliament easily.
However, “scores of MPs abstained in silent protest”, The Guardian reports, fearing that the move would condemn vulnerable pensioners to a cold, hard winter.
Ms Moore said there was “no mistaking an undercurrent of disappointment from many” who gathered in Merseyside this week to see Sir Keir’s first conference address since winning power in July.
Sir Keir gave his first speech to the party conference as Prime Minister this week. (Image: Getty)
“The new backbenchers are finding their way, not quite sure of their place, full of high ideals but in some ways already compromised,” she wrote.
“Does anyone really become a Labour MP to cut the winter fuel allowance? Of course there was going to be a rebellion on this and of course it would be ignored. Such is the power of a big majority.”
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, sparked a furious backlash in July when she announcedplans to limit winter fuel payments of up to £300 to only those on pension credit.
Labour have blamed cuts on having to tackle the £22 billion black hole in the public finances they claim the previous Conservative government left them, which the Tories deny.
The rule change, which will see some 10 million pensioners lose out on the payment, is expected to save the treasury around £1.3billion in the first year.
SEE MORE :
Keir Starmer’s mask has just dropped with his astonishing take on Sue Gray’s £170k salary
Keir Starmer was asked by a BBC journalist about Sue Gray (Image: PA)
Of all the things that should be up for discussion, politics and those involved in it are the most obvious candidates for dissection in a democratic society.
But apparently the Prime Minister disagrees. Sir Keir made an astonishing remark when asked about the fury being aimed at Sue Gray, his Chief of Staff.
The row centres on her salary of £170,000. It was widely commented, given it is £3,000 more than Sir Keir’s salary after Ms Gray’s pay rise was leaked against the backdrop of pensioners losing the Winter Fuel Payment.
Sir Keir was asked by a BBC journalist whether he’d sack those leaking information about Ms Gray, or sack Ms Gray herself. He could have reverted to Drear Starmer type and issued a bland statement about there being “no plans” to dismiss anyone over this. Instead, he said the following.
“I’m not going to discuss individual members of staff, whoever they are, any name of the staff you could have put to me in this interview, and I’d have the same answer to you.
“I don’t believe that my staff should be the subject of public debate like this, and I’m not going to play any part in it.”
Sue Gray has found herself at the centre of a furore (Image: PA)
He doesn’t believe that his staff should be the subject of public debate? Seriously? Ms Gray is the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff. She’s not an entry-level civil servant nervously shuffling around Whitehall on her first day. She’s working at the centre of power in a supposedly open and free society.
Perhaps we should take his words more literally than that. Perhaps he’s fine with the notion of those in high-profile political roles being the subject of debate, just as long as they’re not his people.
He certainly seemed to agree that the salaries of those employed by Boris Johnson should be fair game for criticism when he tweeted of the then-PM’s Chief Adviser in 2021: “£40,000 per year pay rise for Dominic Cummings. £3.50 per week for NHS nurses. The mask has slipped.”
That’s remarkably similar, is it not, to complaining about Ms Grays’ pay while pensioners are losing out on £100 to £300 designed to keep them warm in our most brutal months?
It’s possible that three years ago he thought it was OK to enter into debate about the Prime Minister’s staff in a public forum and that now, for some reason, he doesn’t.
People do change their minds and this shouldn’t be held against them. But it should be treated with scepticism when that person just so happens to change his mind whenever it seems to suit his interests. Hard-left Labour campaigners know this better than any of us.
Keir Starmer slammed Dominic Cummings’ salary (Image: X/Keir Starmer)
The arrogance of this bureaucratic bore’s claim that a taxpayer-funded salary isn’t up for debate is astonishing, but it shouldn’t be surprising. This is not a man who has shown himself amenable to the free speech values so necessary to sustain a democratic society.
This is the same Sir Keir who has scrapped the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which intended to ensure that universities uphold free speech principles rather than caving to mobs of unthinking, hysterical students who think that debate is dangerous.
It might be considered to be slightly flawed to have the Government enforce by law free speech values, but it was to be a reliable bulwark against bullies who don’t care about such values and are intent on banning speakers they dislike.
If it’s a choice between state intervention to ensure students hear a range of opinions and caving to morons too scared to read a book and you opt for the latter, I know which side you’re on. And this, on the island that produced John Milton, John Stuart Mill and George Orwell.
All of this is quite the fall for Sir Keir, a man who took on McDonald’s when they tried to shut down two critics with a libel lawsuit. It appears as though he’s on the other side now.
