Labour whip quits over Starmer’s benefits cuts

[IwantToRetire]

Vicky Foxcroft dramatically quit as a government whip and called on the prime minister to “support more disabled people into work” instead.

In a letter to the prime minister, she said she could not vote for reforms that “include cuts to disabled people's finances”.

She said she understood “the need to address the ever-increasing welfare bill in these difficult economic times”, but she added: “I have always believed this could and should be done by supporting more disabled people into work.

“I do not believe that cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit should be part of the solution.”

The prime minister has faced a backlash from some Labour MPs over proposals to reform the welfare system, expected to save up to £5 billion a year.

Party whips warned backbenchers they would be ruled out of government jobs and could lose the Labour whip if they rejected the plans.

Legislation introduced into Parliament on Wednesday includes a tightening of the criteria for PIP, the main disability payment in England.

Ministers also want to cut the sickness-related element of Universal Credit and delay access to it, so only those aged 22 and over can claim it.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-whip-quits-over-starmer-200106931.html

Bet she feels a wonderful sense of relief this morning!

Good for her for putting her principles above climbing the ministerial / political ladder.

I have now said this so often but still find it hard to grasp that a "Labour" Government seems to think making cuts should only happen to those already badly off.

Why cant they just raise income tax for the super rich?

Apparently a 2% increase could raise as much as £160 billion.

Evidently the "super rich" will all bugger off to pastures new if they do that, thus "ruining the economy" or some such bullshit.

Personally I doubt it but as I'm not even ordinarily rich, I suppose I wouldn't know anything about it.

Maybe it should be compulsory that any time a benefit is cut the civil service department that recommended it take the equal % pay cut to their salary.

I knew they were coming after us next but knowing it doesn't make it any easier to bear.
I guess all the endless "benefit bashing" of the last 15 years is to blame in many ways. I don't think the Labour Party would have dared to do this if they didn't believe many people would agree with it.

Ha! I'd like to see that.

Of course. They ( the Government, and the media) in tandem, prime the general public, over time. All those stories about those people getting free cars, and the like, for things like feeling a bit anxious, and all those type of articles, so when the Government announce cuts, there is little resistance from anyone, other than the people who will be affected. They pulled the same stunt years ago, when they went to town on single Mothers. Nothing has changed, disabled people are just the latest scapegoats, along with refugees, asylum seekers, etc. It works, everytime.

Why is this on the feminism board?

Probably because it will be disproportionately women who are affected. Especially carers of disabled children.

Yes 100%

Good for her for resigning I think these cuts are awful. Disabled people disproportionately already much more likely to be living in poverty.

Because feminism is a political analysis of the world, and as a feminist I want to hear what other feminists have to say.

Why are you on a feminist board if you dont think feminists have a right to comment on or analyse issues - or maybe you think feminists have nothing of value to say!

Why are you on a feminist board if you dont think feminists have a right to comment on or analyse issues - or maybe you think feminists have nothing of value to say!

There was no reference in the post or the following comments to impact on women or feminism. Why on earth are you being so aggressive?

I am not being "aggressive". I am genuinely puzzled.

And the whole point of starting a thread is not for the OP to tell anyone else what the issue is, but to let those who want to contribute add their views. If they want.

We have a social insurance scheme where everyone celebrates when our contributions are cut(under the Tories); moans like hell when they rise (recent events); but we also want an expanding number of benefits, whilst the number of claimants increases (and thanks to an ageing population will continue to increase).

Basically, we all need to pay in more if we want to get more, or even the same amount, out. I'm a strong believer in a universal, social insurance model, progressively paid for- but it does need to be paid for.

I'd be happy with a sales tax on takeaway coffee and food.
There are places springing up all the time so they must be raking it in.