Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory

 

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”.

Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill

 

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.

Universal Credit - mitigation of the two-child limit: Key Details

 The Scottish Government has released draft regulations for a new two-child limit mitigation payment to be implemented for Universal Credit claimants in Scotland. This payment aims to offset the UK government's two-child limit policy, which restricts benefit payments for families with more than two children. The mitigation will provide a monthly payment equivalent to the Universal Credit child element for each eligible child beyond the first two. Applications for this payment will open on March 2nd, 2026, and will be managed by Social Security Scotland. 
Key Details:

    Mitigation Payment:
    The Scottish Government will provide a monthly payment equal to the Universal Credit child element (currently £292.81) for each third and subsequent child in a family impacted by the two-child limit, according to the Scottish Government. 

Application:
Families in Scotland eligible for Universal Credit but not receiving the child element for all their children due to the two-child limit will be able to apply to Social Security Scotland starting March 2nd, 2026. 
National Delivery:
The scheme will be administered nationally by Social Security Scotland, ensuring equal support for all eligible families across Scotland, regardless of location. 
Purpose:
The primary goal of the mitigation payment is to reduce child poverty in Scotland by providing additional financial support to families with more than two children. 
Evidence Base:
The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation to gather feedback on the proposed implementation of the mitigation payment, ensuring a strong evidence base for the legislation. 

To Members of the UK Parliament—A Call to Conscience: Parliament’s Role in Preventing a Humanitarian Crisis

To Members of the UK Parliament:

If you vote to pass the proposed PIP cuts, and sick and disabled people begin to die as a result of losing their lifeline benefits, know this: a formal complaint will be filed with the International Criminal Court. The charge? Democidal policy by neglect—state-sanctioned abandonment of the vulnerable.

I will also be reaching out to The Honourable Louise Arbour, a fellow Montrealer and one of the world’s most respected jurists. As former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, she made history by indicting Slobodan Milošević for crimes against humanity. She later served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her legacy is one of fearless accountability.

As for me, I’ve been called “an iconic figure in Canadian disability history” by a University of Ottawa law professor. I do not make this statement lightly. I make it because I know what’s at stake.

History is watching. So is international law.

---

A Prayer for the Vulnerable in the UK

Merciful and Just God,

Today, we lift up the poor, sick, and disabled in the United Kingdom—those who stand on the precipice of hardship and despair. We ask for protection over the most fragile among us, for their lives are precious, and their dignity sacred.

Let justice prevail where injustice threatens. Stir the hearts of those in power, that they may see, truly see, the suffering of those their decisions affect. May compassion overcome indifference, and wisdom guide policy, so that no life is lost to neglect.

For those who bear the weight of illness and poverty, grant resilience. For those who fight for their rights, grant strength. For the advocates and allies who refuse to look away, grant perseverance.

And if the world grows cold, may love remain steadfast. May communities rise, hands extended in solidarity, refusing to let any be forgotten. Let humanity triumph where hope seems dim.

In unwavering faith, we pray.

Amen.

---

Subject: Russ Vought’s Dismissal of Austerity-Related Deaths Ignores Reality

 

Subject: The Reality of Austerity and Public Health Consequences

Russ Vought’s claim that fears of benefit cuts leading to deaths are “totally ridiculous” dismisses well-documented evidence from the UK. Studies have shown that austerity measures implemented after 2010 contributed to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Research estimates 190,000 excess deaths over a decade due to reductions in welfare benefits, healthcare funding, and other public services. Another study suggests the number may be closer to 335,000 between 2010 and 2019. These deaths were linked to increased poverty, worsening health outcomes, and reduced access to essential services—clear consequences of austerity-driven policies.

Ignoring this evidence is dangerous. If similar measures were introduced in the U.S., we would likely see similar devastation among low-income and marginalized communities. Economic policy cannot be divorced from public health. Austerity is not merely about balancing budgets—it has direct, measurable impacts on life expectancy, well-being, and societal stability.

Dismissing concerns about benefit-related deaths is not a defense of responsible governance, it is an attempt to evade accountability. The historical evidence is clear: austerity can kill. The real question is whether policymakers are willing to acknowledge this reality—or continue pretending it doesn’t exist.

---

President Trump's Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities

 

Throughout his political career, former President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his remarks and policies regarding people with disabilities. His actions and statements have sparked controversy, raising concerns among disability rights advocates.

One of the most widely discussed incidents occurred during his 2016 presidential campaign when Trump appeared to mock Serge Kovaleski, a journalist with a disability. Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects joint movement, was imitated by Trump in a speech, an act that was widely condemned as insensitive and disrespectful.

Beyond this incident, Trump's administration pursued policies that disability rights advocates found troubling. His efforts to cut Medicaid funding posed a significant threat to individuals with disabilities who rely on the program for healthcare and support services. Additionally, his administration sought to roll back diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, which could negatively impact protections for disabled individuals in workplaces and public spaces.

Further reports suggest that Trump has expressed deeply troubling views on disability in private conversations. According to Fred C. Trump III, the former president allegedly stated that people with severe disabilities "should just die," a remark that has been widely condemned as cruel and dangerous. Such statements reinforce harmful stigmas and undermine efforts to promote inclusion and support for disabled individuals.

Despite these controversies, disability rights advocates continue to push for policies that protect and empower individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, remains a cornerstone of disability rights in the United States, ensuring equal access and opportunities for millions of Americans.

In conclusion, Trump's attitudes and policies toward people with disabilities have been a source of significant concern. His remarks and policy decisions have drawn criticism from advocates who emphasize the importance of dignity, inclusion, and support for disabled individuals in society.

---