Green Paper Related Discussions

I think he’d throw his own mother under the bus for his career let alone reeves and Kendall especially as he’s not a fan of women anyway . He’s already thrown reeves under the bus once then it was Philip’s and cooper . I’m not expecting it but I wouldn’t be surprised either if that makes sense 🤞🙏

Wow he really didn’t believe in free speech or democracy. To me it seems as though he thinks he doesn’t have enough support to give backbenchers to right to abstain. What do you think ?

They must all be thinking this is the biggest chance yet to get rid of him . This is a real rollercoaster , thanks for posting fuzzy

breaking good news

The telegraph are saying he’s cancelled their right to abstain . Maybe he needs all the votes he can get

as an actress said to a bishop 😂

I almost feel as though he knows it won't go through, but rather than do yet another U turn, would rather save face by letting things continue. Then he can blame others.

PM will force opponents within party to back him or vote against the reforms

Sir Keir Starmer is set to clamp down on Labour rebels by forcing them to show up to next week’s vote on benefit cuts.

Backbenchers opposed to the Government’s sweeping welfare reforms said their permission to be absent from Parliament on July 1 has now been withdrawn.

More than 100 Labour MPs are understood to be prepared to revolt over the Prime Minister’s plans to bring down the benefits bill by £4.3 billion.

The plans mean that only the most disabled adults could claim Personal Independence Payments, while about 250,000 people are projected to be pushed into poverty.

When a Commons rebellion is deemed likely, MPs are often “slipped” – granted permission by their party whips not to attend – to ensure they do not vote legislation down.

But it is understood that the Government has taken the opposite approach and expects Labour MPs to show up and support the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.

The Government’s working majority in the Commons is 165, meaning that 83 MPs would need to oppose the cuts to force a parliamentary defeat.

One MP planned to attend an event at a school in their constituency on Jul 1 until they were informed they would no longer be able to do so.

“They have cancelled everyone’s slips that day,” they said. “I was meant to be at a thing at my local primary school.

“When I found out that was when the vote was going to be, I thought maybe I would vote against the Bill at its third reading rather than its second.

“But then they cancelled my slip and I thought, okay, that has made my decision for me.”

“Everyone I speak to, it’s not whether they’re going to support it, it’s whether they’re going to abstain or vote against,” they added.

“It’s the same with winter fuel and grooming gangs – it’s another hill we’re being marched up. There’s a repeated theme of a bunker mentality in No 10 and thinking they know best.”

A second MP was going to be on an overseas trip at the start of July, which has now been cancelled altogether on account of the vote.

“We had visas, we had flights, we had everything booked and we had to cancel it,” they said.

‘Fundamental concerns not addressed’

After weeks of reflecting on the issue, the MP said they had told their whip last week they could not vote for the Bill and added that the same was true of many of their colleagues.

“At the moment, I can’t see them getting it through in its current form. I’m not interested in trying to cause trouble.

“But they need to change the details of the Bill. It’s slightly different to the green paper, but the fundamental concerns that people have had haven’t really been addressed.

“There’s some positive stuff and some positive intentions, but the cliff-edge that this creates is just too sharp.”

More Government frontbenchers are said to be on “resignation watch” over the cuts after Vicky Foxcroft quit as a whip last week.

Vicky Foxcroft resigned as a Labour whip over the Government’s welfare cuts Credit: John Phillips/Getty Images

In a letter to Sir Keir, Ms Foxcroft, a former shadow minister for disabled people, said she could not support “reforms which include cuts to disabled people’s finances”.

One rebel said there were “clearly people on resignation watch”, but another downplayed the prospect of further resignations before MPs had tried to extract more concessions.

Last week, Sir Keir held a number of one-to-one meetings with those poised to vote against the cuts.

The meetings, which were first reported by Sky News, came days after a drop-in event for concerned MPs with Claire Reynolds, Sir Keir’s political director in Downing Street.

Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has also held a number of meetings with backbenchers in recent weeks aimed at easing their concerns over the Bill.

Ms Kendall believes that she has a strong argument to make and that at the heart of the reforms is a push to get long-term sick and disabled people back into work where possible.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/21/starmer-clamps-down-on-labour-welfare-rebels/#main-content

Hi @secretsquirrel1 - sorry for the delayed response as I've been celebrating my next door neighbour's 80th birthday this evening.

My comment was in relation to Disability Rights' interpretation of the 'severe conditions.'

I think it's a problem if something is intended to be amended in the Social Security Regulations, i.e. Amendments to the UC Regulations 2013, & the wording is open to interpretation when the meaning should be absolutely clear.

I'm of a different opinion to Disability Rights/suggesting that their emphasis was perhaps in the wrong place.

I do not see how the DWP, with no medical knowledge whatsoever, can say that a descriptor has to be 'constant.' I've treated a few people in my time, & even with a life long health condition, any descriptor just couldn't be constant all the time.

Now unfortunately with my own hereditary disorder, I know from personal experience, as do many of us, that you can have symptoms that will vary from day to day, & indeed even in the same day, as you also experience. My question would be 'how do the DWP intend to prove that a descriptor 'constantly' applies?' The short answer is, they simply can't from a medical perspective.

I do think the DWP are trying to rule out those with a health condition that 'may' improve (from what is the current medical understanding), even if they've had it for years, as this can sometimes happen, & those with a fluctuating condition, as perhaps they may not be seen to be so badly affected over a period of time, which couldn't feasibly be measured in days!

Those with a life long health condition that's unlikely to change, & who have satisfied one of the LCWRA descriptors, etc. should be considered for this 'severe conditions' criteria.

I try to write objectively from my background (I've also had to previously be objective when researching my own family's medical problems, which was very difficult, but absolutely necessary); I don't claim UC, rather PIP, & whilst I'd always like to reassure, I would not do so at the expense of standing back & looking at things. I hope it can be seen I have no axe to grind.

Hi chiaried,

wow happy birthday to your neighbour, I hope she enjoyed her day .

Apologies as with my brain fog it’s hard for me to retain information and sometimes understand. Like everything with this government nothing they say is clear . As rather than say our conditions must be constant they’re saying the symptoms must be in order to fit the descriptor . I can honestly say my legs hurt every single day , mostly that dull throbbing ache that even wakes me up . But at times when I need respite from it I take painkillers, so would that go against me/us ? So even though I score points on walking up to 50metres I struggle explaining it to assessors as they ignore when I say I wake up with leg pain so it’s there as I walk anyway regardless of how far . It’s supposed to be reliably and safely etc but in my case I find that confusing. I don’t think the descriptors are easy for pain and fatigue. As you say how can they prove a symptom is constant or not as the case may be . Will that be left up to the assessors opinion? I worry they’ll make the constant so stringent that few will pass and it’s even less fair on those with conditions that may be stable for a while then have flare ups . You still have that lifelong condition at the end of the day . Plus most of us probably have more than one condition so we have different symptoms every day. They should also take into consideration that our health conditions get worse as we age . I’ve had ME 35 years now and diagnosed almost 15 years ago , rather than improving it’s getting worse since Sunak and his talking vouchers . I really appreciate your views on this and thank you for taking the time to explain your understanding of what they mean.

It’s not my standards that the problem but my stomach after looking at him 😂