Winter fuel cut vote will test Sir Keir Starmer’s authority

Published

1 year ago

September 10, 2024

admin

Sir Keir Starmer warned during the election campaign of the need for “tough decisions”, but carefully avoided setting out where the axe would fall.

Now it’s clear who will be losing out – starting with most pensioners losing winter fuel payments worth up to £300 – unease is bubbling under the surface.

Politics live: Number 10 not ‘softening’ winter fuel payment cut

There is no doubt the government will win Tuesday’s vote as they have a huge majority of 174.

But the number of abstentions – or MPs who cannot face voting for it – especially if they number dozens, will test the prime minister’s authority and signal whether his backbenchers have the stomach for more of these cuts.

Over the summer, Labour MPs have seen their inboxes fill up with pensioners and their families angry that those who rely on the payments fear they will face a cold winter in hardship.

The benefit will be restricted, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in July, to those who claim pension credit, and no longer given to the 10 million people aged over 66 who don’t.

She told MPs at a meeting tonight that it was a difficult decision, and she “wasn’t immune to the arguments against it”, but that sticking to it was a question of economic credibility.

Government sources claimed she had won the argument that “‘no one likes it, but we have to do it”.

Pensioners, she said, could blame the Conservatives for leaving a financial black hole.

The problem is that 880,000 pensioners who are eligible for this top-up do not claim it, so they will lose out despite being the poorest – including some on just £13,000 a year.

The government has run a campaign aimed at increasing the uptake, but the payments will go straight away.

Campaigners – pensioners have vocal campaign groups on their side – also say the million or so people just above the threshold will also struggle.

Dozens of Labour MPs are weighing up whether they can vote for the measure, which will be a three-line whip. Some feel the £1.5bn saving will have a painful price.

MP for York Central Rachel Maskell, who told Sky News she would abstain, said the swift timing of the vote, and lack of assessment of its impact, has left many concerned – not just those on the left sceptical about Sir Keir’s leadership.

A House of Lords committee which scrutinises secondary legislation said it had been introduced without proper evidence of its impact.

A former member of the shadow cabinet, who will be reluctantly voting for the measure, told me he expected the chancellor to be forced to make changes in the run-up to the budget.

In an interview this weekend, Sir Keir stood firm, saying there would be no change in course – as well as further difficult decisions coming down the track.

He will head to Brighton in the morning in a big moment for an incoming Labour prime minister – addressing the Trades Union Congress (TUC) annual conference.

He will be braced for criticism, with major union leaders including Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, and head of the TUC, Paul Novak, piling the pressure on and saying he should U-turn.

Sir Keir knows the cut will get through parliament and has shown he can be ruthless, having withdrawn the party whip from MPs who voted to axe the two-child benefit cap.

But Labour MPs who back the measure through gritted teeth, and feel it’s had too high a price, will be harder to win over next time.

Politics

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

Published

2 hours ago

October 22, 2025

admin

Why are abuse survivors losing faith in the grooming gang inquiry?

The grooming gangs inquiry has been plunged into disarray this week before it has even started, as four survivors have quit the panel and two frontrunners for chairperson have withdrawn.

The inquiry was announced in June, but frustrations have grown over the pace of progress towards launching it, with pressure mounting on the government to appoint a chair and set out its terms of reference.

Survivors Fiona Goddard and Ellie-Ann Reynolds were first to stand down from their roles over concerns about who could head the inquiry and fears it may be “watered down” – something Sir Keir Starmer has denied, insisting that “injustice will have no place to hide”.

Both candidates shortlisted to lead the inquiry have now pulled out.

Here’s what we know about why panel members have quit and what the government has said in response.

Concerns over inquiry chairs

The resignations came after Sky News revealed the two shortlisted chairs for the inquiry were former police chief Jim Gamble and social worker Annie Hudson.

Ms Goddard was the first to resign from the survivors’ liaison panel, expressing deep reservations about the candidates: “One has a background in police and the other, a social worker. The very two services that contributed most to the cover-up of the national mass rape and trafficking of children.

“This is a disturbing conflict of interest, and I fear the lack of trust in services from years of failings and corruption will have a negative impact in survivor engagement with this inquiry.”

The other survivors who resigned also took issue with the shortlisted chairs in their statements.

Ms Hudson withdrew her candidacy on Tuesday, while Mr Gamble pulled out of the running on Wednesday.

In a letter to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood explaining his decision, Mr Gamble said it was “clear that a lack of confidence due to my previous occupation exists among some” and that he did not want to proceed without a consensus among the victims.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that candidates to chair that inquiry have withdrawn. This is an extremely sensitive topic, and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.”

Speaking to Sky News after Mr Gamble’s resignation, Ms Reynolds said: “The minute that we found out their former employment, it raised red flags.”

She claimed they represented “the very institutions that have failed us” and that their views would not have been “unbiased” or “impartial”.

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Sir Keir said his government “will find the right person to chair the inquiry”, but did not mention names.

Ms Reynolds and other victims have called for a judge to chair the inquiry, but Sir Keir said he ruled that out because it would require all ongoing criminal proceedings to finish before the inquiry could begin, leading to lengthy delays.

“We’ve waited years for the truth,” Ms Reynolds said. “The timing really doesn’t matter. As long as we know that it’s going to be done properly and impartially… we would be able to wait to ensure that that’s done.”

The full statutory inquiry into how cases of child sexual exploitation have been handled across England and Wales was announced by Sir Keir after an audit by Baroness Louise Casey found children had been failed by the systems in place to protect them.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said Baroness Casey would be working in support of the inquiry.

Claims about poor treatment of survivors

Ms Reynolds said survivors were “kept in the dark” and “treated with contempt and ignored” when they asked about Home Office meetings and decisions. She said it was made clear that “speaking openly would jeopardise our place on the panel”.

She told Sky News that victims were “gaslit” and “manipulated” during the process and they had “very little faith in authorities and systems”.

Similarly, Ms Goddard claimed a “toxic, fearful environment” had been created for survivors on the panel, with “condescending and controlling language” used towards them.

Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips has said she “regrets” resignations from the inquiry and that it was “always sad when victims feel that they can’t take part in a process”.

On Wednesday, Sir Keir said: “I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views, I accept that.”

He added that the door was open for people to return to the inquiry panel if they wished.

Fears of ‘diluted’ inquiry

The survivors say they fear the inquiry could be diluted, suggesting the Home Office could broaden its scope beyond group-based sexual abuse and push for it to have a regional focus rather than being truly national.

Ms Goddard said the survivors had “repeatedly faced suggestions from officials to expand this inquiry” and that it risked being “watered down”.

Ms Reynolds said the “final turning point” in her decision to quit the panel was the “push to widen the remit of the National Inquiry in ways that downplay the racial and religious motivations behind our abuse”.

Ms Phillips said allegations that the inquiry is being diluted or intentionally delayed were “false” and that it would “remain laser-focused on grooming gangs”.

Ms Goddard claimed this amounted to the minister calling her “a liar” and said she should apologise and resign.

Ms Reynolds also said she believed Ms Phillips was “unfit for the role”.

During PMQs on Wednesday, Sir Keir defended the safeguarding minister, saying she and Baroness Casey were the “right people” to take the inquiry forward.

He insisted the inquiry “is not and will never be watered down” and that “its scope will not change”.

“It will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders, and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry,” he said.

‘They should start again’

The father of a grooming gang victim says the government “should start again” with the national inquiry.

Marlon West, whose daughter Scarlett was a victim of sexual exploitation in Manchester, told Sky News that public “faith” has been “lost”.

He described Ms Phillips in parliament this week as “unprofessional” and “defensive rather than listening to what survivors are saying.”

“I doubt she will resign but she has lost any kind of faith from the public, and more importantly with survivors and families.

He wants to see an inquiry with family members included alongside survivors on the panel.

“Not that I want to go on it, if I’m honest,” he said, “but it’s the families who are dealing with the services, not so much the survivors.

“It’s really important that they get family perspective. I think they should start again.”

Government denies ‘watered down’ approach

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood responded to the resignations saying the scope of the inquiry “will not change” and that it will leave “no hiding place” for those involved in the scandal.

In an article for The Times, she vowed the probe “will never be watered down on my watch” – and said it will focus on how “some of the most vulnerable people in this country” were abused “at the hands of predatory monsters”.

The home secretary also insisted the inquiry will be “robust and rigorous” – with the power to compel witnesses, and examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders.

Speaking to Times Radio on Wednesday, Ms Goddard said the Home Secretary’s statement was “reassuring” but reiterated that Ms Phillips should resign.