Good morning. It is quite easy for politicians to declare that they will cut the welfare bill by X amount – but much harder when they have to explain exactly who will lose out. This is summed up by a good anecdote about a former chancellor (Ken Clarke, according to some versions, but it could have been any of them), who gave this reply when asked for cuts that would save £1bn:
So, do you want one million people to lose £1,000 each, or 10 million people to lose £100 each?
Today is giving a speech to launch a policy document, Welfare That Works, explaining how the Tories would cut welfare by £36bn. That's 36 million people losing £1,000 each, according to the logic of our notional chancellor, although of course it is not quite as simple as that. All of these cuts are ones that the Conservative party has proposed already, but what we are getting today is a bit more detail about how some of them would be implemented in practice, and a big overall argument defending them.
Here is a page from the document summarising where the cuts would fall.
I will post more on the detail in the document later.
According to extracts from her speech released in advance, Badenoch will say that she is publishing these proposals now so that voters do not get any "nasty surprises" if they elect a Tory government.
It is too late to work out what you think once you're in government. If you want to change this country, you need to know exactly what you want to do and how you're going to do it …
We're telling people what we are going to do now so that there will be no nasty surprises from us such as cutting your winter fuel payment, the jobs tax or the family farm tax once we get into government.
Badenoch will also claim that spending on working-age benefits is "crushing our economy". More than a third of her proposed savings would come from cuts to sickness and disability benefits, and Badenoch will claim there is a "fundamental difference" between Conservative and Labour thinking on this issue. She will say:
Labour MPs think cutting welfare is always cruel. They believe the kindest thing you can do for someone who is struggling is to tell them it's okay not to look after themselves. That there's nothing wrong with a life of dependency. And if you don't think very hard about it, I can see why you might believe that is kind. Of course, there are people who genuinely cannot work. People with serious illnesses and disabilities. People who need time to recover. We must have a safety net for those people.
But the reality is that millions of people can and do contribute to our economy to their families to their communities even when they face serious challenges. Double amputees run marathons. People who are housebound do wonderful creative work from home. People with autism run some of the biggest tech companies in the world.
If you tell a young person that their ADHD means they are defective and will never amount to anything, that mindset is likely to be more destructive to their future than the condition itself. That is what our welfare system is currently doing. Conservatives believe in a system that looks at people through the lens of what they can do, not what they cannot.
In fact, this is a misleading caricature of Labour thinking on welfare; the government is about to publish a report from Alan Milburn that will be 100% dedicated to making the system more focused on what young people "can do, not what they cannot". But, as is often the case with Badenoch's rhetoric, it crystalises an argument and makes for a good headline.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Andy Burnham chairs a political cabinet.
10.30am: Kemi Badenoch gives a speech on her plan to cut benefits by £36bn.
11am: Michael Marra gives what is being billed as his first major speech since becoming Scottish Labour leader.
11.30am: Alex Norris, the justice secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
I'm afraid we are no longer able to have comments open below the line every day on this blog. If you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com. You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints.
Here are pictures of some of the ministers arriving for cabinet this morning.
was giving interviews this morning in part to publicise an announcement from the Department for Education beefing up guidance on mobile phones in schools in England. As the BBC reports, schools are already supposed to be phone-free, but in many places this just means they operate a "not seen, not heard" policy, allowing pupils to retain their phones in their bags.
The new guidance, which will come into force in September next year, will require schools to adopt a tougher approach. The said:
Schools should be a place that provides a clear break from those pressures, protecting the school day as a time to learn, connect and engage with others.
While most schools set out that phones should be not seen and not heard, only 16% of secondary pupils say phone rules are followed all of the time, and with the rapid increase in technology take-up and emerging evidence, pupils, schools and parents need more clarity.
Some schools are already putting stronger whole-school approaches into practice through lockable pouches, collection at the start of the day, secure storage or prohibiting phones onsite altogether.
The strengthened guidance will build on this leadership, giving every school clearer backing to keep phones inaccessible and helping parents and pupils understand what a truly phone-free school day means.
, the shadow education secretary, welcomed the announcement, saying that "this sudden outbreak of common sense is welcome" and that a proper ban on smartphones in schools was what the Conservatives had been calling for.
, the Lib Dem schools spokesperson, said the new guidance was "a positive step", but that the government should ensure schools had the funding to implement it properly.
The US military has reportedly evacuated aircraft from a second airbase in Britain after a threat from Iran, and report.
, the deputy Labour leader and education secretary, was giving interviews on behalf of the government this morning. Asked about the RAF Mildenhall story, she told Sky News:
I can't comment on those sort of live operations, as you know.
But we're constantly keeping the security of our bases under review and, as we've seen with other cases recently, we take firm and quick action where we need to.
Here is the statement the Labour party released overnight in response to the advance briefing about the Tory plans to cut benefits by £36bn. A Labour spokesperson said:
The Tories let the welfare bill soar on their watch. Now they have the audacity to pretend it was nothing to do with them. You can't trust them to solve problems they created in the first place.
The Conservatives designed and implemented this benefit system, which has driven large numbers of people to be signed off and written off. In the Tories' last year in government, the welfare bill rose by a record £33bn.
Labour is tackling the collapse in face-to-face assessments, bringing in personalised employment support for sick and disabled people and spreading opportunity to young people through the Youth Guarantee. Further reforms will follow the Milburn and Timms Reviews.
Good morning. It is quite easy for politicians to declare that they will cut the welfare bill by X amount – but much harder when they have to explain exactly who will lose out. This is summed up by a good anecdote about a former chancellor (Ken Clarke, according to some versions, but it could have been any of them), who gave this reply when asked for cuts that would save £1bn:
So, do you want one million people to lose £1,000 each, or 10 million people to lose £100 each?
Today is giving a speech to launch a policy document, Welfare That Works, explaining how the Tories would cut welfare by £36bn. That's 36 million people losing £1,000 each, according to the logic of our notional chancellor, although of course it is not quite as simple as that. All of these cuts are ones that the Conservative party has proposed already, but what we are getting today is a bit more detail about how some of them would be implemented in practice, and a big overall argument defending them.
Here is a page from the document summarising where the cuts would fall.
I will post more on the detail in the document later.
According to extracts from her speech released in advance, Badenoch will say that she is publishing these proposals now so that voters do not get any "nasty surprises" if they elect a Tory government.
It is too late to work out what you think once you're in government. If you want to change this country, you need to know exactly what you want to do and how you're going to do it …
We're telling people what we are going to do now so that there will be no nasty surprises from us such as cutting your winter fuel payment, the jobs tax or the family farm tax once we get into government.
Badenoch will also claim that spending on working-age benefits is "crushing our economy". More than a third of her proposed savings would come from cuts to sickness and disability benefits, and Badenoch will claim there is a "fundamental difference" between Conservative and Labour thinking on this issue. She will say:
Labour MPs think cutting welfare is always cruel. They believe the kindest thing you can do for someone who is struggling is to tell them it's okay not to look after themselves. That there's nothing wrong with a life of dependency. And if you don't think very hard about it, I can see why you might believe that is kind. Of course, there are people who genuinely cannot work. People with serious illnesses and disabilities. People who need time to recover. We must have a safety net for those people.
But the reality is that millions of people can and do contribute to our economy to their families to their communities even when they face serious challenges. Double amputees run marathons. People who are housebound do wonderful creative work from home. People with autism run some of the biggest tech companies in the world.
If you tell a young person that their ADHD means they are defective and will never amount to anything, that mindset is likely to be more destructive to their future than the condition itself. That is what our welfare system is currently doing. Conservatives believe in a system that looks at people through the lens of what they can do, not what they cannot.
In fact, this is a misleading caricature of Labour thinking on welfare; the government is about to publish a report from Alan Milburn that will be 100% dedicated to making the system more focused on what young people "can do, not what they cannot". But, as is often the case with Badenoch's rhetoric, it crystalises an argument and makes for a good headline.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Andy Burnham chairs a political cabinet.
10.30am: Kemi Badenoch gives a speech on her plan to cut benefits by £36bn.
11am: Michael Marra gives what is being billed as his first major speech since becoming Scottish Labour leader.
11.30am: Alex Norris, the justice secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
I'm afraid we are no longer able to have comments open below the line every day on this blog. If you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com. You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints.