Early evening summary
Kemi Badenoch has been criticised by Labour and the Lib Dems for suggesting that Keir Starmer was deliberately avoiding PMQs when he attended the Nato summit this week, and the G7 last week. The Lib Dems called her “Bungling Badenoch” and Ed Davey, their leader, said Badenoch seemed to be suggesting it was now Tory policy to prioritise PMQs ahead of attending major international summits. (See 11.59am and 4.09pm.) Badenoch said Starmer did not like answering questions and could easily have moved PMQs to Thursday if he had wanted to. (See 3.59pm.)
Poorer working age people expected to see their incomes fall in real terms by end of decade, Resolution Foundation says
The Resolution Foundation thinktank has also published a major report today – its living standards outlook 2025.
It says, overall, working-age people will be just 1% better off by the end of the decade.
The headline outlook for living standards is, at best, disappointing. In our central scenario, the typical annual real income of non-pensioners grows over the five years after 2024-25 but only slightly (1 per cent overall growth, or a cash increase of around £300 in total) – and our outlook for 2025-26 specifically remains poor with income flat (0 per cent growth).
But poorer working-age peope will be worse off, it says.
The outlook for the lower-income half of the non-pensioner population is even worse. In our central case, the average real incomes of this group would be 1 per cent (£200) lower in 2029-30 than in 2024-25. This compares to 1 per cent growth for the top half. The only projected year where the bottom half outperforms the top half is 2026-27, when the real value of basic benefit adequacy rises given lagged uprating plus the first of the planned above-inflation boosts. Coupled with net real income hits over the past five years, these projections would leave the bottom half worse off at the end of the 2020s than in 2019-20 (by 2 per cent) while the higher-income half would be slightly better off (by 1 per cent).
Updated
Welfare bill cuts could lead to 500,000 people losing out by more than £8,000, IFS says
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a new report today on the proposals to cut sickness and disability benefits in the UC and Pip bill. Many thinktanks have already published reports on the impact of these measures, but this analysis contains some new material, and is a bit more long term than some of the other ones.
It contains findings that might be welcomed both by supporters of the bill, and its opponents.
Supporters of the bill argue that the current system is unsustainable, and the IFS says that eventually the measures could save £11bn a year.
The long-run legacy of these reforms is far greater. The reform package will still be being rolled out well into the 2030s. Based on 2029–30 claimant numbers, we expect the three main reforms could save £10bn per year when fully rolled out. Adding in the removal of UCHE [universal credit health element] for under-22s, the proposed additional premium for those with the most severe disabilities and the scrapping of the work capability assessment brings the savings to as much as £11bn per year, equivalent to 17% of pre-reform expected health-related working-age benefit expenditure in 2029–30. If the number of applicants for health-related benefits continues to grow past 2029–30, both spending on health-related benefits and the savings from these reforms could be even bigger than these figures.
But bigger-than-expected savings for the taxpayer means bigger-than-expected losses for claimants, and the IFS says in the long term this could lead to 500,000 people losing more than £8,000. That figure is a mix of existing claimants who will find their payments cut, and future claimants who will lose because they will receive less than they would have got under the old system. The IFS says:
These savings – and again, this is after the reforms are fully rolled out – come from 3.2 million claimants of health-related benefits losing an average of £4,000 per year and 5 million individuals, largely without an assessed disability, gaining £410 per year on average. For some, the losses will be much greater: perhaps as many as half a million will see their incomes fall by more than £8,000.
The IFS also says the changes involve a significant redistribution within the welfare system.
The way that this package of reforms is designed means that their full effect will not be felt for many years to come. But when that full effect is in place, the legacy of these policies is a huge change to the shape of benefits in the UK. Support for health conditions, which – unlike unemployment support – has gradually increased in real terms over recent decades (Waters, 2025), will fall significantly. Some people who would have received health-related support under the current system will not, and most people who continue to receive some will receive less. These reforms will go at least some way to slowing the rapid increase in spending on health-related benefits since the pandemic. And it is likely that that will increase employment – perhaps in the low six figures.
In contrast, the support for people without health conditions will be increased. The introduction of an unemployment insurance – a significant contributory benefit against the backdrop of our predominantly means-tested system – will represent a meaningful increase in the protection the system provides against job loss. This is bolstered by the increase in the UC standard allowance.
Badenoch confirms Tories would repeal parts of employment rights bill
In her speech to the BCC Kemi Badenoch confirmed that a Consevative goverment would repeal parts of the employment rights bill. She said:
I have said we will remove Labour’s red tape.
We will remove the ability to strike with zero warning, something businesses cannot prepare for.
We will remove the trade union ‘right to roam’ in business premises.
We will remove the new ‘Fair Work Agency’, another quango, that is designed to hound British businesses, even when no employee has raised a complaint.
How did we get to a point where a government felt it could impose these measures on business?
We have forgotten a fundamental truth that every pound spent by government, every benefit paid – it all comes from the makers.
John Major condemns ‘callous’ aid cuts and growing national self-interest
John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, would probably be horrified to be described as a typical Guardian reader. But his politics have evolved a bit since he left office in 1997 and, judging by Peter Walker’s report, many Guardian readers would heartily agree with most, if not all, of what he had to say about the state of the world in a speech today.
Here is Peter’s report.
And here is the full text.
Reeves says government will 'continue listening' to Labour rebels ahead of welfare bill vote on Tuesday
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has given an interview to local media during a visit near Burton-on-Trent today. Speaking to ITV Central, she confirmed that the government is listening to the welfare bill rebels ahead of offering them concessions. She said:
The system we inherited from the Conservatives is failing people and failing people badly. And there is a consensus across the Labour party that the system needs reform. But, of course, we’ve got to get this right.
So of course we’ve got to take people with us on this journey.
And over the next few days, we’ll continue listening ahead of the vote on Tuesday.
Everyone can see the system we’ve got today isn’t sustainable. It’s letting too many people down. And we’re determined as a Labour government based on our values to reform that system.
This is very similar to what Keir Starmer told MPs earlier. (See 11.38am.)
'Bungling Badenoch' under fire over her suggestion Starmer wrong to miss PMQs for Nato summit
The Liberal Democrats have issued this statement about Kemi Badenoch’s performance in the Commons earlier. (See 11.48am.) It is from Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader.
Bungling Badenoch strikes again. Her own MPs are now in open revolt over her deeply unserious leadership.
The Conservative party’s infighting seems terminal, more interested in cheap point scoring than focussing on the great challenges this country faces. Badenoch urgently needs to clarify if her party’s position is that the prime minister should not be attending major international summits.
Keir Starmer has also criticised Badenoch for what she said. (See 11.58am and 12.54pm.)
Badenoch defended her comments during a Q&A at the BCC conference a few minutes ago. (See 3.59pm.)
Updated
Badenoch defends attacking Starmer for missing PMQs while at summits, saying PMQs could have been moved to Thursday
Badenoch is now taking questions from the floor.
Q: [From GB News] Are you going to remove the whip from Mark Pritchard, the Conservative MP who criticised the tone of your question to Keir Starmer today? (See 12.41pm.)
Badenoch starts by saying, sarcastically, that she is sure everyone in the room wants to hear the answer to that.
She says she won’t remove the whip from Pritchard.
She goes on to defend implying that Starmer was dodging PMQs when he attended the G7 and Nato summits. She suggests he should have moved PMQs to Thursday.
I love answering questions. The prime minister does not.
It is perfectly possible to move PMQs to Thursday. There’s no reason why it has to be on Wednesday. You used to be on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But he doesn’t want to have PMQs, and the reason why is because he doesn’t like answering questions.
Anybody who’s ever watched PMQs will see that he doesn’t answer anything. He didn’t answer any of the questions that I asked him in the statement that he had.
She says it is her job to hold the government to account. And she claims that “me cosying up to the prime minister when I think he’s made mistakes is not the way for us to win back public trust”.
She says the Tories had to “show that we’re on the side of the people out there, not just having a cosy parliamentary session”.
At the BCC Kemi Badenoch has finished her speech, and is now doing a Q&A with Clive Myrie, the BBC presenter who is hosting the event.
Q: If you were in government, would you cut spending or raise taxes?
Badenoch says those are not the only choices available to government. She says she would look at measures to promote growth.
Q: Would you get rid of the employment rights bill?
Badenoch says when she was business secretary she rejected this legislation.
This bill was brought to me when I was business secretary by the usual suspects, and I said no to it. There is nothing in it that I believe is going to improve business in this country as far as I’m concerned.
Some Labour MPs who have signed the reasoned amendment that would kill the UC and Pip bill have been stressing today that they support Keir Starmer staying on as their leader and prime minister.
This is from Josh Fenton-Glynn.
This helps absolutely no one. My name is on the amendment and like others I am confident in our leader. He’s doing a good job cleaning up the Tory mess. It’s one policy that needs fixing and it sounds like our reasonable concerns are being listened to.
And this is from Allison Gardner, commenting on Fenton-Glynn’s tweet.
Agree. My name is also on the amendment and I too am confident in our leader. He inherited a country on its knees economically, broken public services and an uncertain global situation, and is handling it. This is one policy point in one bill we want reconsidering. That’s all.
Fenton-Glynn was commenting on a post featuring the Times’ splash this morning, headlined “Rebel MPs want regime change”.
This may be an example of what happens when people read a headline, but not the story.
The Times report starts:
Sir Keir Starmer’s most senior aide is facing mounting criticism from Labour MPs and ministers over the handling of welfare reforms, with some suggesting that the time has come for “regime change” in No 10.
But the story, which contains multiple comments from unnamed Labour sources, makes it clear the “regime change” being demanded would not involve Starmer being replaced.
While the rebels do not want to force Starmer’s resignation, one ringleader told The Times they hoped the revolt would lead to a clear-out of staff in Downing Street. The MP, who has led efforts to sign colleagues up to an amendment under which the welfare bill would fall, said forcing a change of prime minister was “not the agenda”.
The report says criticism is mostly aimed at Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff. (See 10.47am.)
Badenoch speaks at BCC conference
Kemi Badenoch is due to speak at the British Chambers of Commerce conference.
There is a live feed here.
On the subject of Kemi Badenoch, Tim Shipman, the Westminster long read maestro who has just joined the Spectator as political editor after a distinguished career at the Sunday Times, has written about her chances of remaining Tory leader in his column this week. Here is an extract.
Shadow cabinet members have seen private polling showing that the Conservatives could be wiped out in the 2029 general election. Badenoch’s personal satisfaction rating of -49 with Ipsos makes her the most unpopular leader of the opposition ever after six months. At this stage William Hague was on -30, Ed Miliband on -10 and Keir Starmer himself just above zero.
‘The polls are absolutely horrific,’ says a shadow minister. ‘Kemi’s personal polling is in Liz Truss territory. There is now no precedent for it. People say “Let Kemi be Kemi” but there are increasingly few don’t-knows and they are moving against us. We are being frozen out of the national conversation.’ Dozens of MPs believe that if she is still in charge next spring there might be very little left.
Shipman also says that Boris Johnson is mulling over a return to frontline politics and has a five-point plan for his comeback.
Multiple sources say Johnson has thought about his offer to the party and the country. ‘There is a five-point plan,’ says a former minister. This would include a mea culpa for the ‘Boriswave’ which saw net migration soar past 900,000 a year. ‘He would blame Priti [Patel],’ his home secretary, a source says. But many younger MPs see immigration as a deal-breaker for Johnson, and believe that Jenrick, who resigned from Rishi Sunak’s government over it, is the more credible replacement leader.
Badenoch suggests Tories would curb disability benefit payments for mental health conditions like anxiety
Kemi Badenoch has welcomed a thinktank report proposing that sickness benefits for people with behavioural and mental health conditions like anxiety should be drastically curtailed, with money invested instead in talking therapies.
In its report the Centre for Social Justice, a centre-right thinktank originally set up by Iain Duncan Smith, says:
Britain is facing a mental health and welfare crisis. Since the pandemic, spending on incapacity and disability benefits for working-age adults has surged by £20 billion, coinciding with a sharp increase in claims citing anxiety or depression. Meanwhile, outcomes have not improved, and thousands are missing out on all the financial, social and health benefits of work. The current system is failing both the taxpayer and those it is meant to support.
In this paper we propose a new course – one that moves away from passive welfare and towards active support. This update to the landmark Change the Prescription report builds on our earlier findings by calling on the government to target mental health benefits to those with the most severe conditions and reinvest savings to radically expand access to NHS Talking Therapies and community-based treatment.
CSJ modelling shows this approach would deliver savings of £7.4bn per year by 2029/30. We recommend £1bn of this be used to fund 1.5m additional Talking Therapies courses, a 44 per cent increase every year, empowering individuals with less severe conditions to both recover and return to work. In doing so, we can replace long-term dependency with genuine recovery and independence
In her speech to the BCC conference this afternoon, Badenoch is expected to say:
Britain needs real welfare reform if we’re to incentivise takers to become makers. By 2030, one in every four pounds raised through income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits – alone more than the entire UK defence budget – and that’s excluding all the other benefits. In an increasingly dangerous world, that is simply unsustainable.
We need a fundamental rethink about which conditions should qualify for long-term financial support. I was shocked to hear that the majority of new disability claims in this country are now for behavioural and mental health conditions like anxiety.
Research published today by the Centre for Social Justice today shows that by narrowing eligibility — focusing support on those with more severe conditions — we could save up to £9 billion a year from the welfare bill.
That is a serious amount of money we could save. But I know it won’t be easy. Under my leadership, the Conservative party will not shy away from confronting the tough questions that need answering and, more importantly, providing the solutions.
In October last year Badenoch was strongly criticised after releasing a report implying too much support is offered to people with conditions like autism.
Reform Warwickshire council head quits after five weeks, leaving 18-year-old in charge
A Reform UK councillor has resigned as leader of Warwickshire county council just five weeks after he was elected, leaving his 18-year-old deputy in the role, Daniel Lavelle reports.
Why timetable for welfare bill leaves very little time for amendments to be agreed
The timetable for the UC and Pip bill announced by Lucy Powell at business questions today (see 11.18am) has important consequences for the Labour MPs who want to see it amended. Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society, explains them here in a thread on Bluesky.
The Government cramming Committee, Report & 3rd Reading into 1 day the week after 2nd Reading (so much for intervals between stages...) means if they pull the Bill they will have 2 days of Commons business to fill. But of greater concern is that this timetable has important implications for...
...those Labour MPs who have signed the reasoned amendment. If the Govt promises concessions in advance of 2nd Reading those will only crystallise at Committee Stage on the 9 July. If they are not quite right, or what the MPs think they were signing up for there will be little time for making...
...changes. If normal procedures are followed the Government should table amendments at least one sitting week in advance - so by the end of Wed 2nd July, the day after 2nd Reading. Non Government MPs will be able to table their own amendments up to three sitting days beforehand - so by the end...
...of the sitting on Friday 4 July. But if MPs are not happy with the proposals made they will have to be resolved on the floor of the Chamber itself on the 9th. This is where the lack of time for reflection, taking advice, can get messy with amendments being proposed and voted...
...on almost in real time. The Bill will go to the House of Lords but it is a money bill so the Lords does not normally have a Committee and Report stage (it is “negatived” in parliamentary parlance) to amend the Bill. They debate it at 2nd Reading and then the remaining stages are a formality.
This underlines how important the Commons scrutiny is. There is no revising backstop for money bills.
Back to the welfare bill, and here is Frances Ryan’s Guardian column today on the subject, which is getting a lot of praise in the comments BTL.
And here is an extract.
Even if a few thousand long-term sick people get jobs as a result of the changes, it will pale in significance compared with the number pushed into penury: analysis by Trussell and WPI Economics shows nearly half a million people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship if the government goes ahead with the full cuts. “Tightening eligibility criteria” is a neat euphemism for withholding the money disabled people need to live.
Reform UK would be largest party in hung parliament, YouGov's first post-election MRP poll suggests
Reform UK would be the largest party in the House of Commons, but without a majority, according to a major poll published by YouGov today.
It is the first MRP poll produced by YouGov since the election. MRP (multi-level regression and post-stratification) is a form of ultra-detailed polling that produces projections for every constituency. In the past MRP polls have often, but not always, proved more reliable than conventional polls, and YouGov claims its MRP poll was most accurate in terms of seats in the 2024 general election.
Here is a YouGov chart with figures from the poll. Reform UK would have the most seats, followed by Labour, then the Lib Dems, with the Tories in fourth place. Neither the two main rightwing parties, nor the combined liberal/left/nationalist parties would have enough MPs to form a majority government.
And this is what the electoral map of Britain would look like if this result were to apply.
A result like this would lead to a hung parliament. In his write-up for YouGov, Patrick English says:
Across all model simulations, Reform UK are the largest party in the parliament in around 99%, with the small remainder of simulations pointing toward Labour being largest. A hung parliament is also by far the most likely outcome, according to our data and models, if an election were on the cards right now, happening in around 97% of simulations.
According to our central projection, no realistic two-party government or coalition would reach the 326 seats required for a mathematical House of Commons majority. Combining the Reform and Conservative total figures leaves us at a total of 317 – the same number of seats which the Conservatives alone won under Theresa May back in 2017.
Back then, the Conservatives relied on a confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party in order to govern. In our central projection, a Reform-Conservative coalition would need to do something similar.
But the DUP had 10 seats after the 2017 election. Now they only have five.
Keir Starmer does not have to call a general election for another four years and this poll may turn out to be useless as a guide to who will be in power in the next parliament. If MRP polls had been around before the Falklands War, they would have shown the SLP/Liberal Alliance on course to win the vast majority of seats in the Commons. In the event, just over a year later, the Alliance won only 23.
But that does not mean that the Reform UK bubble will inevitably deflate. Traditional party political allegiances have weakened and, with decent, reliable annual increases in living standards a distant memory for many voters, the electorate seems more volatile than at any time in recent political history. This outcome may look unlikely, but it is not inconceivable.
Updated
Starmer says UK and its allies considering reimposing snapback sanctions on Iran for non-compliance with nuclear conditions
During his Commons statement Keir Starmer said that Britain and its allies are discussing snapback sanctions on Iran, under the terms of the 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
He was responding to a question from the former Tory PM Rishi Sunak, who asked:
The Iranian regime has long presented a threat to the United Kingdom. As the prime minister and I have both experienced, our security services have foiled almost 20 Iranian-backed plots here at home.
The prospect of a regime like this having nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and so I welcome the US and Israeli action. Does the prime minister agree with me that we and our European allies should now trigger snapback sanctions unless Tehran admits the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and allows them to fully verify that all efforts to enrich enhanced uranium have ceased?
Starmer replied:
On snapback – I thank him for raising this. That is a consideration that we are discussing with allies. I do think that it has to be part of the pressure that we apply.
Exactly when and how snapback is applied will obviously be a question of discussion, but he’s absolutely right to say that is the very discussion we should be having at the moment, and I thank him.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing a No 10 spokesperson refused to say if Keir Starmer had full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who is being blamed by some Labour MPs for the welfare bill crisis. (See 10.47am.) Asked about this, the spokesperson said:
We would never comment on members of Downing Street staff. The prime minister is fully focused on the job in hand.
This does not necessarily mean very much. A spokesperson will often say ‘we never comment on X’ simply as a means of closing down a line of inquiry. Starmer may or may not have concerns about McSweeney, but if he had lost confidence in him, the chief of staff would be out. And he’s not.
11% annual rise in number of children and young people with EHCPs for special needs, figures show
Richard Adams is the Guardian’s education editor.
The number of children and young people with special needs requiring support through an education, health and care plan (EHCP) continues to increase rapidly, according to the latest figures released by the government in England.
Nearly 100,000 new EHCPs - statutory documents that detail support agreed by councils, schools and families - were issued last year. That took the total active EHCPs up to the age of 25 to 638,700 by the start of 2025, a year-on-year rise of 11% and three times the number active in 2017.
For EHCPs citing speech and language difficulties specifically, the year-on-year increase was 18%.
The increases will stoke fears that local authority budgets will come under greater strains despite the government’s announcement last week that councils will be able to keep the estimated £5bn debts off their balance sheets for another two years as it tries to find a solution.
Georgina Smerald, policy and research manager at Sense, the charity representing disabled people with complex needs, said:
Our failing specialist education system means that, every single day, disabled children are being denied their basic right to access education and get the best start in life.
Jane Harris, chief executive of Speech and Language UK, said:
The dramatic 18% rise in children needing EHCPs for speech and language challenges shows the system is at breaking point. Schools are doing the right thing by asking for more support because speech, language and communication skills are the bedrock of a child’s ability to thrive and succeed. But teachers aren’t being given the tools to support these children.
The figures show that more than 400 young people each day approached their council for special needs support last year.
Tim Oliver, chair of the County Councils Network, said:
Today’s new figures once again demonstrate a system in desperate need of reform. It does not work for anyone: families are facing increasing waits for support, schools do not have the capacity and resources whilst councils are building up unmanageable deficits, having spent colossal sums on support over the last decade.
Updated
Starmer says Badenoch will 'never' become PM
I have beefed up the post at 11.48am with more quotes from Kemi Badenoch’s diatribe against Keir Starmer at the start of this session.
The statement is still going on, and Starmer has now repeatedly criticised her for what she said, particularly the suggestion that he was using the G7 and Nato summits to duck PMQs.
(Badenoch was not seriously suggesting that Starmer should have missed both summits, but in using the language she did – “evaded PMQs for two weeks” – she was disaparaging the meetings, and implying they did not matter much.)
In response to a question from Bradley Thomas (Con), Starmer said that Badenoch was “sliding into irrelevance”. When Labour’s Frank McNally said it was clear Badenoch should never represent the country abroad, Starmer replied:
You shouldn’t worry too much about the leader of the opposition representing our country. She never will. If she did, the chair at the Nato summit would have a little sticky note on it, 'I’m busy at PMQs’.
Tory MP Mark Pritchard criticises Badenoch for tone of her response to Starmer's G7/Nato statement
The Conservative MP Mark Pritchard started his question to Keir Starmer by criticsing his party leader, Kemi Badenoch, for the tone of her response to his statement. (See 11.48am.)
Pritchard said:
As far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. And who knows, I may get the whip withdrawn for saying that. But so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. So can I thank the prime minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.
Starmer defends US decision to bomb Iran, saying it was 'about time' someone acted to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons
The independent MP Ayoub Khan said that the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary to be mayor of New York showed that people will no longer support hypocritical and disingenuous politicians.
He said that although all MPs agreed Iran should not have nuclear weapons, the attack on Iran by Israel and the US did not engage the Caroline principle, the test under international law allowing a pre-emptive military attack. He asked if Starmer agreed, and if he would say he supported the attack.
Starmer replied:
If we all agree that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, it’s about time we did something about it. And what happened on Saturday night was a big step towards alleviating that threat, and that is really important.
I think we now need to complete on that, and the way to compete on that is with the talks that are needed to get Iran back to the table to make sure it’s irreversible and that it can be verified.
Updated
Back in the Commons Julian Lewis (Con) asked if Starmer thought that President Trump’s “love affair with Vladimir Putin is beginning to cool”.
Starmer did not directly reply, but he said it was important that Nato was united last night.
Green co-leader Carla Denyer says welfare bill 'fatally flawed', and it should be replaced with new bill in autumn
The Green party says the UC and Pip bill is “fatally flawed”. It says the government should cancel next week’s debate and bring back a new bill in the autumn.
In a statement Carla Denyer, the party’s co-leader, said:
Labour’s welfare reform Bill is fatally flawed. No amount of backroom deal-making over the weekend will change that. Keir Starmer should pull it, consult with disabled people over the summer and come back with something workable and supportable in the autumn
Starmer does not rule out Labour MP's call for wealth tax, but restates commitment not to raise taxes for 'working people'
The Labour MP Clive Efford asked Starmer if it was reasonable to expect the government to improve public services “within the current tax envelope”. He went on:
Hasn’t the time come for us to review how we tax wealth, as opposed to work, to make sure that those people who can bear the heaviest load?
In response, Starmer said the government had explained how it would fund the plan to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. He added:
[Efford] will know that we made a commitment in our manifesto in relation to not raising tax on working people, and we will keep to that commitment.
Technically, that is not a no to a wealth tax, although Starmer did not sound as if he were embracing the idea.
Updated
Starmer rejects Tory claim Mauritius would get advance notice of attack launched from Diego Garcia under Chagos deal
In her response to Starmer, Badenoch suggested that, if the US were to use its based on Diego Garcia to launch an attack on a country like Iran, the UK would have to notify Mauritius first under the terms of the government’s Chagos Islands deal.
In response, Starmer said this was not true. He said:
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse her. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty.
Updated
Liberal Democrats call for vote on welfare bill to be postponed to allow time for rethink
Unlike Badenoch, Davey also responds to Keir Starmer’s opening comment about welfare. (See 11.38am.) He says:
I’m glad the prime minister signalled retreat on his welfare plans and hope that he will now listen to everyone, and not just his back benches.
Earlier this morning the Liberal Democrats issued a statement calling for the vote on the welfare bill to be postponed. It included this statement from Davey saying:
The government needs to pull this bill and go back to the drawing board. Even the prime minister’s own backbenchers can see the damage these cuts will do by leaving some of the most vulnerable without support and putting thousands of unpaid carers in impossible situations.
The Conservatives made a complete mess of our welfare system, but the way to bring the benefits bill down is not through cutting support for disabled people and those who care for them. It is by tackling the crisis in our NHS and social care, to get millions of people off waiting lists and back to work.
Family carers do tremendous work in often the most challenging of circumstances, taking huge pressures off our health services and helping loved ones. Taking support away from our nation’s carers is the worst kind of false economy.
Ed Davey says it is 'astonishing' Tories now seem to be saying PM should not attend G7 or Nato summits
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, starts his response by saying he finds it is “astonishing” that it now seems to be Conservative policy for the PM to not attend G7 and Nato summits.
Starmer says Badenoch's response to his statement shows how 'irrelevant' and 'unserious' Tories are
Starmer is responding to Badenoch.
He says the UK is living in a more volatile time than before, with conflicts evolving in a dangerous way. He goes on:
There’s never been a more important time to work with our ally and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious.
To suggest, at a time like this, that the prime minister attending the G7 Summit and the Nato Summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious.
He says what happened at the Nato summit was historic. He says he is proud of being able to play a part in that outcome. It has made the world safer, he says.
For the leader of the opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and the party opposite [have become]. They used to once be serious about these issues. They used to be capable of cross-party consensus, and all of that is slipping away.
Badenoch accuses Starmer of 'weak' leadership, and claims 'no one cares what he thinks'
Kemi Badenoch is responding to Starmer’s statement. She opened with a damning dismissal of him.
[Starmer] has evaded prime minister’s questions for two weeks, only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news. This is a weak statement from a weak prime minister, which can be characterised in two words – noises off.
In his statement, the prime minister said, we urged Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire. He said,we are using every diplomatic lever to support this effort. What diplomatic levers are they? The same levers he’s using with his backbench rebels? Is he just asking them to please play nice?
Let’s be honest, nobody cares what this prime minister thinks, and why should they when he doesn’t even know what he thinks, and clearly, no one cares what he thinks, because he was not involved. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence, and now we are on the sidelines.
UPDATE: And Badenoch ended by saying:
The prime minister may have finally returned to this house after a fortnight away, but in truth he is all at sea. Irrelevant on the world stage, impotent in the face of rising illegal immigration, and now with 126 of his own MPs all openly undermining his authority, his government is incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever-expanding welfare bill.
There is no way we are going to be able to pay for our defence. This is a government that is paralysed by its own legal advice, paralysed by its rebellious backbenchers, and paralysed by the fear of being found out for having no real vision for this country.
Updated
Starmer is now talking about the G7 and Nato summits (which did not cover welfare reform).
At the start of the statement Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, said that because Starmer was talking about two summits, he would allow more leeway than usual to MPs asking questions.
Normally, in a statement like this on foreign policy, MPs would not be allowed to ask about welfare.
But Starmer’s decision to make a statement about welfare at the opening may open the door to MPs who do want to ask him about the UC and Pip bill.
This is what Starmer said at the opening of his statement explaining why he was shoehorning Pip into his statement. He said:
This Labour government is focused on delivering security for the British people, national security, economic security and social security.
Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill, saying reforms must comply with 'Labour values of fairness'
Keir Starmer starts his statement by talking about welfare reform – which is not the subject of the statement, but he says the main statement covers “security”, and he says he wants to start talking about social security.
He goes on:
On social security, I recognise there is a consensus across the house on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can.
At the moment, they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither.
I know colleagues across the house are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I.
We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness.
That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.
Powell tells MPs government wants welfare bill to clear all its Commons stages within next two weeks
This is what Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, told MPs when she confirmed that the second reading of the UC and Pip bill will go ahead on Tuesday. (See 10.41am.)
As well as confirming that the government is open to concessions on the bill (bills are “often amended at committee”), she said that the government wants the bill to clear the Commons by mid July ('“remaining stages … the following week”).
That is unusually quick for a major bill. But the government has said the bill needs to become law by November for the benefit changes to be implemented in time for the 2026-27 financial year.
Powell said:
The universal credit and personal independent payment bill second reading will take place next Tuesday, and the committee and remaining stages of that bill will be on the floor of the house the following week.
I want to reassure colleagues that we take parliamentary scrutiny and process of bills extremely seriously, and that’s what our parliamentary democracy is all about. Bills are introduced, principles are considered at second reading, the details receive robust debate and discussion, and are often amended at committee stage before we consider third reading.
As the house would expect, the government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill’s passage, as we are doing intensively with the universal credit and personal independent payment bill.
I am sure the whole house, though, can agree that our welfare system needs reform, too many people are consigned to benefits for life without support to work and to get on.
Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory
Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is being blamed by many Labour MPs for No 10 now being in the situation where, with less than a week to go before the vote on the welfare bill, the government does not yet have the votes to get it through.
In a long read on McSweeney’s role in the crisis, written by Jim Pickard, George Parker and Anna Gross, the Financial Times quotes a “Labour veteran” saying:
Everyone is selling shares in Morgan. People are starting to put their heads above the parapet and say maybe he’s not the Messiah after all.
The article says McSweeney is accused of ignoring the views of the parliamentary party and being too obsessed with fighting Labour’s left. It says:
Another MP said McSweeney’s role in the government seemed to be to “shield” Starmer from uncomfortable truths, including on his welfare reforms.
“Other people in Number 10 were saying he didn’t have the numbers for this and he wouldn’t get it through parliament. The chief whip has been warning them about this for months. But they had their fingers in their ears,” they said. “It’s extraordinarily arrogant and complacent.”
Others see in Number 10’s determinedness to press ahead with next week’s House of Commons vote on the welfare bill a sign of McSweeney’s desire to still confront Labour’s denuded leftwing. One MP from the 2024 election intake said it seemed as though McSweeney was “spoiling for a fight” with the left of the party over the welfare reforms, which was a “very stupid thing to do”.
The Times’ splash story also quotes unnamed MPs criticising McSweeney. It says:
Other MPs in last year’s intake conceded many of the rebels were united by their dislike of senior advisers in No 10. “What links everyone on that list is that they reject Morgan’s way of doing politics,” one said.
Ministers blamed McSweeney and [Rachel] Reeves for “shambolic” political management. “Rachel’s responsible for imposing an arbitrary cuts agenda on Liz’s welfare reform agenda,” one said. “Morgan is responsible for shambolic political management. He was warned that this would happen and ignored it. He has completely failed to do his job.”
Asked about the criticism of McSweeney from unnamed Labour figures quoted in the press, Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, told broadcasters this morning that he was not interested in SW1 “gossip”. He said it was for the prime minister to choose his team in No 10. But he also said that McSweeney was part of a team that delivered Labour “an historic victory only last July, against expectations”.
Updated
Commons leader Lucy Powell tells MPs government still planning for welfare bill vote to happen on Tuesday
Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, has told MPs that the government is still planning for the vote on the second reading of the UC and Pip bill go to ahead on Tuesday night next week.
Government won't be using threats to win round rebels on welfare bill, Alexander says
Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, told Times Radio this morning that the government would not be using threats to get rebel MPs to support it on the welfare bills.
There have been reports saying some backbenchers were being told that, if they did not vote for the bill, they would never be considered for promotion to minister. Last year seven backbenchers faced an ever more severe punishment, suspension from the parliamentary party, for defying the whip in a parliamentary vote, although the size of the likely rebellion on the welfare bill has not made this a plausible strategy this time for No 10.
Alexander said:
I expect that there’ll be conversations with colleagues in the course of the coming day as to exactly how to make sure that this legislation progresses. ...
I don’t think anyone has ever in human history been insulted into agreement. The fact is that our conversations that need to happen. I’m not coming on to your programme to threaten people or cajole people.
UK's largest bioethanol plant says it may have to close due to US-UK trade deal removing tariffs on imports
The UK’s largest bioethanol plant says it will stop production by mid-September unless the government acts, following the recent trade deal with the United States, PA Media reports. PA says:
Hull-based Vivergo Fuels said that, given “the strategic importance of a domestic ethanol supply”, the government has committed to formal negotiations to reach a “sustainable solution”.
But the firm, which is owned by Associated British Foods (ABF), said today that it is simultaneously beginning consultation with staff to wind down the plant, which employs more than 160 people, due to the uncertain situation.
The government described the company’s announcement as “disappointing”, coming as it had entered into negotiations with Vivergo about financial support on Wednesday …
Last month, Vivergo wrote to the wheat farmers who supply it, telling them it will have to close unless there is quick government intervention.
It said the removal of a 19% tariff on US ethanol imports, which formed part of the recent UK-US trade deal, was the “final blow”.
Updated
Starmer says government 'shouldn't try to run businesses' as he explains his vision of partnership
In his final answer Starmer explained how he thought government and business should work together.
A true partnership is not two people or two bodies trying to do the same thing. It’s two people or bodies realising they bring different things to the table.
Government shouldn’t try to run businesses. It’s done that in the past and it doesn’t work particularly well.
So business should run business. Government should partner business by creating the conditions which makes it easier for businesses to run their businesses.
In response to a question about devolution, Starmer says Labour was originally “a bit wary” about metro mayors. But now he thinks they work really well.
Starmer insists he does undertand concerns businesses have about employment rights bill
Q: Do you get the concerns of business about the employment rights bill [which will increase costs for firms because it imposes high standards, particularly in relation to people doing casual work]?
Starmer says he does understand their concerns. They don’t hold back when they speak to him.
But he says a secure workforce is good for business. And he says many good businesses are already doing the things mandated in the bill.
Starmer says tariffs now likely to be feature of global trade for some time to come
At the BCC conference Keir Starmer has finished his speech. He is now taking questions. Clive Myrie, the broadcaster, is chairing the session and he starts by. asking about Iran.
Q: How worried should we be about what is happening in Iran?
Starmer says people should be concerned. But he says happily there is a ceasefire now.
I think I’m right in saying that the impact of international affairs on us domestically has never been so direct as it is at the moment.
He cites the Ukraine war, and its impact on oil prices, as an example.
He says the world has become more unstable.
And it is not just defence, he says. On trade, the situation has changed too, he says. He says the era of tariffs, introduced by President Trump, won’t end soon.
Whatever we think of tariffs, they are undoubtedly an attempt to change the way the world economy is run, and we have to recognise that.
I don’t think we’re going to be going back in a few weeks or months to how it was before this administration [President Trump’s in the US] came in. We’re in for a different future. We need to think through what that means.
The Commons authorities have confirmed that Keir Starmer will make a statement to MPs about the G7 and Nato summits at about 11.30am.
Starmer says government launching trade strategy
Starmer says the government is today launching its trade strategy.
Here is our overnight story about it, by Kiran Stacey and Jasper Jolly.
Here is the Department for Business and Trade’s news release about the strategy. And this is how DBT sums it up.
The strategy will make the UK the most connected nation in the world and secure billions worth of opportunities for businesses, helping deliver the economic growth needed to put money in people’s pockets, strengthen local economies, create jobs, and raise living standards.
It takes a more agile and targeted approach than the previous government’s, focusing on quicker, more practical deals that deliver faster benefits to UK businesses. It strengthens trade defences, expands export finance - especially for smaller firms - and aligns trade policy with national priorities like green growth and services. It’s a smarter, more responsive plan for a changing global economy.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
What we want to do is push not just for traditional trade agreements, but also for smaller deals that we can make quicker, at pace – whether that’s a digital trade agreement with Brazil, Thailand or Kenya; clean energy co-operation with the Philippines and Mexico, professional qualification recognition all around the world.
But perhaps most importantly, in this uncertain and challenging world, we will also give ourselves new powers on trade defence. To make sure that if your businesses are threatened by practices like dumping, that we have the right powers to defend you.
Updated
Starmer urges business to talk up opportunities, saying it's time to stop doing 'that British understatement thing'
Starmer says the government has stablised the economy, and is now moving to a new phase, where it is focusing on investment.
He says he wants Britain to be the best place in the world for enterprise. He goes on:
I do believe we’ve got to stop doing that British understatement thing – we do it all the time, including me – because, believe you me, this is a great moment to get on the phone to the world and say, ‘Take another look at Britain.’
He recalls talking recently to the boss of Nvidia, who told him that Britain was in a “Goldilocks” position on AI.
Updated
Starmer starts by praising the contribution to the country made by business.
None of the investment made by the government would be possible “without your contribution”, he says. “And I say thank you.”
Starmer does not spell it out directly, but he seems to be referring, at least in part, to the fact that business are now paying a lot more to the government in tax as a result in the rise in employer national insurance.
Keir Starmer speaks at BCC conference
Keir Starmer is now speaking at the British Chambers of Commerce conference.
There is a live feed at the top of the blog.
Trade minister Douglas Alexander says Labour’s welfare bill rebels ‘trying to do their job well’ as No 10 considers concessions
Good morning. Irresistible force meets immovable object and … it turns out that the object is movable after all. Until yesterday afternoon, in public at least, ministers were insisting that they were fully committed to the welfare cuts in the universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (Pip) bill – even though it has no chance of passing in its current form because so many Labour MPs have signed a reasoned amendment to kill it.
But last night it emerged that ministers are now looking at major concessions in a bid to get it through. Jessica Elgot, Kiran Stacey, Aletha Adu and Pippa Crerar have the details here.
This is how their story starts.
Number 10 is preparing to offer concessions to Labour MPs amid a major rebellion over the government’s planned welfare cuts.
Downing Street is understood to be considering watering down changes to the eligibility for disability benefits which had been significantly tightened by the reforms in the bill.More than 120 MPs are poised to rebel against the government next Tuesday and there remains division at the top of government over how to stem the growing anger.
Concessions under consideration include changes to the points needed for eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip), a benefit paid to those both in and out of work.
MPs also want to see changes made to other reforms affecting the health top-up for universal credit which applies to those who cannot work.
Archie Bland has more on this in his First Edition briefing.
Bland says: “Up until now, Downing Street appears to have been divided on the right way forward, with one source saying: ‘There is a camp for pulling it, a camp for concession and a small but insane camp for ploughing on.’ Reeves is understood to be particularly opposed to pulling the vote.”
This morning Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, has been on the interview round. While he did not announce any concessions, his tone could not have been more different from ministers, including Keir Starmer, speaking on this topic over the past few days. He was complimentary about the rebels, describing them as acting in good faith and implying their concerns were reasonable. And he said the government was listening.
He told Sky News:
The first thing that strikes you when you read the reasoned amendment [to block the bill, now signed by 126 Labour MPs] is the degree of commonality on the principles. Everyone agrees welfare needs reform and that the system was broken. Everyone recognises you’re trying to take people off benefit and into work, because that’s better for them and also better for our fiscal position. And everyone recognises that we need to protect the most vulnerable.
Where there is, honestly, some disagreement at the moment, is on the issue of ‘how do you give implementation to those principles?’ … The effect of what’s happened with this reasoned amendment being tabled is that that’s brought forward the discussion of how to give implementation to those principles.
So given the high level of agreement on the principles, the discussions over the coming days will really be about the implementation of those principles.
Alexander also said the rebels were, in effect, only doing their jobs as Labour MPs.
It’s right to recognise these issues touch very deeply the Labour party’s sense of itself and the rights and responsibilities of members of parliament.
What I see is everyone trying to do their job well, ministers trying to be open with parliament as to the ambitions that we have, members of parliament being clear as to their responsibility to scrutinise this legislation and get it right.
And that’s the character of the conversation that’s taking place between ministers and members of parliament in the hours and days ahead.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the British Chambers of Commerce Global annual conference in London. Graeme Wearden is covering the BCC conference on his business live blog.
But I will be monitoring the political speeches here too.
9.30am: The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly criminal court statistics.
After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, leader of the Commons, takes questions from MPs on next week’s business.
After 11.30am: Starmer is expected to make a statement to MPs about the G7 and Nato summits.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
3.25pm: Kemi Badenoch speaks at the BCC conference.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
