reform

Sept. 5 (UPI) — Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s government has introduced a new tax reform bill in Congress to cover the $6.3 billion shortfall in the 2026 budget. It is the third tax reform of his administration and is intended to secure the $139 billion the state says it needs next year.

In 2022, Petro introduced his first tax reform, which was approved and raised $2.7 billion. In 2024, however, Congress rejected a similar proposal seeking $3 billion, leaving the 2025 budget unfunded and forcing the executive branch to issue it by decree.

The initiative, presented Sept. 1 by Finance Minister Germán Ávila, faces strong opposition in Congress and has become the center of a political battle over fiscal sustainability, public security and the finances of millions of Colombians.

The bill calls for higher taxes on high-income individuals and wealth, along with new levies on fuel, liquor and gambling. It would also tax foreign companies that provide digital services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and HBO.

Petro contends the bill seeks greater equity and will not affect the middle class or the poor, but will instead target the “mega rich.”

However, opposition leaders have rejected the measure, calling it poorly timed and harmful to the economy.

They argue that higher fuel taxes would raise food prices, directly affecting household budgets. They also criticize the government for imposing new burdens on citizens instead of cutting public spending.

On one of the most criticized points of the reform, Óscar Darío Pérez, a representative of the Democratic Center Party, said raising the income tax surcharge already paid by financial institutions — including banks, insurers and brokerage firms — 50% from 40% — would lead to more expensive loans or less access to the formal credit market.

Bruce Mac Master, president of the National Business Association of Colombia (Andi), has warned of a domino effect from the reform. He said it could raise production and transportation costs, hurting the country’s competitiveness.

“This reform will probably be the one that most affects Colombian families of all the projects presented in recent years,” Mac Master told local media.

Opposition lawmakers in Congress have vowed to block the bill, underscoring the governing challenges facing Petro, who needs support from the economic committees for the reform to advance.

“The government presents this only to follow the same strategy as last year. It puts forward impossible proposals and then blames Congress because this has no chance of passing,” Darío Pérez said.

“Colombia has a long history of tax reforms, with more than 21 attempts since 1990 and at least 14 significant reforms since 2000,” political analyst Mauricio Morris noted.

He added that each administration has pursued changes with different aims, from broadening the tax base to encouraging investment or confronting fiscal crises.

REFORM UK would win a 400 seat landslide if an election were held today, according to a new poll.

Nigel Farage is 15 points ahead of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Government, as reported by The i Paper.

7

7

7

Only 20 per cent of voters now say they would vote for Labour – whereas 35 per cent would cast their ballot for Reform.

The poll results mean Farage would win a general election with 400 seats if one was held today.

These figures have been dubbed as “catastrophic” for the PM’s party, as they continue to face backlash over the migrant crisis.

This issue was also reflected in the poll, with 41 per cent of applicants confessing they believe Farage could solve the problem – as opposed to 14 per cent who trust Starmer.

Meanwhile the Tories also trailed behind in the poll, with Kemi Badenoch only gaining 17 per cent of votes.

And, her party ranked last when it came to faith in battling the small boat crisis – with just 8 per cent admitting they believe she could put an end to it.

The poll was conducted this week, as Farage continues to unveil mass deportation plans.

It turns out nearly 40 per cent of Brits thought his ideas were possible.

The Reform UK leader vowed to deport 600,000 illegal migrants in his first term in office – in a crackdown he claims will save taxpayers billions.

The party boss said the public mood over Channel crossings was “a mix between total despair and rising anger”, warning of a “genuine threat to public order” unless Britain acts fast.

Reform’s plan centres on a new Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill, which would make it the Home Secretary’s legal duty to remove anyone who arrives unlawfully, and strip courts and judges of the power to block flights. 

Britain would quit the European Convention on Human Rights, scrap the Human Rights Act and suspend the Refugee Convention for five years.

Reform would also make re-entry after deportation a crime carrying up to five years in jail, enforce a lifetime ban on returning, and make tearing up ID papers punishable by the same penalty.

The scheme would also see prefab detention camps built on surplus RAF and MoD land, holding up to 24,000 people within 18 months. 

Inmates would be housed in two-man blocks with food halls and medical suites – and would not be allowed out.

Five deportation flights would take off every day, with RAF planes on standby if charter jets were blocked.

The poll this week echos those conducted by YouGov, in which Reform was still 8 points ahead of Labour.

And, 37 per cent of voters say they are satisfied with how Farage is leading the party.

However, 60 per cent are unhappy with Sir Keir Starmer’s performance.

Robert Struthers, head of polling at BMG, said: “Nigel Farage’s net rating of +5 may not appear remarkable on its own, but it contrasts sharply with Keir Starmer’s figures which have dropped to a new low at -41. He’s now as unpopular as Sunak was before the election last year.

“The next election may still be some way off, but there’s no doubt these numbers are catastrophic for Labour. Unless things change, pressure for a shift in strategy and even Prime Minister will only intensify.”

Jack Curry, pollster at BMG added: “There is a striking consensus among the British public when it comes to the issue of small boats. The public sees no real difference between the current Labour Government and the previous Conservative government. Both are viewed as equally ineffective.

“That frustration is clearly fuelling support for Reform. When it comes to what people actually want done, the mood music is for a tougher approach. There’s strong support for protectionist measures like more border enforcement, stricter penalties and offshore processing. That’s especially true among Reform and Conservative voters.”

It comes as a ruling to boot migrants out of an Epping hotel was overturned by the Court of Appeal on Friday.

The Bell Hotel, in Essex, has been surrounded by controversy after two of its guests were charged with sexual offences.

Epping Forest District Council last week won a bid at the High Court to block migrants from being housed at the hotel.

The temporary injunction meant that the building had to be cleared of its occupants by September 12.

It also caused a ripple effect across the UK as more councils launched their own bids to boot migrants out of hotels in their towns.

But the Court of Appeal on Friday overturned the injunction following an appeal by the Home Office and hotel owners Somani – meaning the migrants can stay where they are for now.

It also gave permission for the Home Office to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling not to let it intervene in the case as their involvement was “not necessary”.

It came after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made a last-ditch bid to join the battle.

But, more than a dozen councils are still poised to take legal action to shut asylum hotels.

These include at least four Labour-run authorities, such as Wirral, Stevenage, Tamworth and Rushmoor councils.

A full hearing is scheduled for October to conclude whether the council’s claim that the use of the Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers breached planning rules.

7

7

7

7

The Torrance Police Department and the California Attorney General’s Office have entered into an “enforceable agreement” meant to reform the troubled agency following a scandal that led prosecutors to toss dozens of criminal cases linked to officers who sent racist text messages, officials said.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced the reforms — which will include changes to the agency’s use-of-force and internal affairs practices, along with attempts to curtail biased policing — during a news conference in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday morning.

Bonta credited former Torrance Police Chief Jeremiah Hart with approaching him after the scandal first erupted in 2021, leading to collaborative reform efforts.

“The Torrance Police Department has demonstrated a commitment to self reflection to looking inward … to address systemic challenges,” Bonta said Thursday.

The California Attorney General’s Office announced its Torrance investigation in December 2021, the same day a Times investigation first revealed the contents of the text messages and the names of most of the officers involved. Court records and documents obtained by The Times showed the officers made offensive comments about a wide range of groups. They joked about “gassing” Jewish people, attacking members of the LGBTQ community and using violence against suspects.

The worst comments were saved for Black men and women, who the officers repeatedly called “savages” or referred to with variations of the N-word. One officer shared instructions on how to a tie a noose and posted a picture of a stuffed animal being hung inside police headquarters. Another message referred to the relatives of Christopher DeAndre Mitchell, a Black man shot to death by Torrance police in 2018, as “all those [N-word] family members,” according to court records.

Sometimes, the officers blatantly fantasized about the deaths of Black men, women and even kids.

One officer shared pictures of tiny coffins intended to house the bodies of Black children they would “put down.” Another imagined executing Black suspects.

“Lucky I wasn’t out and about,” one officer wrote in response to a text about Black men allegedly involved in a Torrance robbery, according to records reviewed by The Times in 2022. “D.A. shoot team asking me why they are all hung by a noose and shot in the back of the head 8 times each.”

The officers also suggested a political allegiance in their hate-filled text thread. In a conversation about needlessly beating a female suspect, Sgt. Brian Kawamoto said he wanted to “make Torrance great again,” a play on President Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan.

The texts were sent between May 2018 and February 2022, according to investigative reports made public by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Bonta said Thursday that roughly a dozen officers were involved in the thread. At least seven of those officers are no longer employed by the agency, according to court records and a POST database.

The group of officers that The Times linked to the texts has been involved in at least seven serious use-of-force incidents in Torrance and Long Beach, including three killings of Black and Latino men, according to police use-of-force records and court filings.

The officers actions were initially found to be justified in each case, though prosecutors later revisited Mitchell’s death and indicted Matthew Concannon and Anthony Chavez on manslaughter charges.

While Concannon and Chavez were investigated as part of the scandal, The Times has never seen evidence that they sent racist text messages. In the past, authorities have said, some officers under investigation were aware of the texts but did not send any hateful messages themselves.

David Chandler is also awaiting trial on assault charges for shooting a Black man in the back in 2018. In total, five officers linked to the text thread have been charged with crimes.

The scandal may not have come to light if not for the actions of former officers Cody Weldin and Michael Tomsic, who were charged with spray painting a swastika inside of a vehicle that was towed from a crime scene in 2021. That incident prompted former Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón to launch an investigation into possible hate crime charges. While a hate enhancement was never charged in the vandalism case, it led to the execution of warrants on the officers’ cellphones that unveiled the texts.

Tomsic and Weldin pleaded guilty to vandalism earlier this year and gave up their right to be police officers in California. Disciplinary records made public earlier this year identified Weldin as the “owner” of the group text in which many of the racist remarks were found. The group was dubbed “The Boys,” records show.

By engaging in “collaborative reform,” Bonta chose the least forceful method of reform in Torrance. Often, the attorney general’s office will seek court-mandated reform through a settlement, as it has with the Los Angeles County sheriff’s and probation departments, so that it may ask a judge to force change if a police agency doesn’t comply.

Bonta is now seeking to take over the county’s juvenile halls after the probation department failed to honor its settlement with the state.

In 2021, Hart personally approached Bonta’s office, seeking to work together on reform, which may have led the attorney general to use a softer method. Interim Police Chief Bob Dunn, who came to Torrance in 2023 after a long career with the Anaheim Police Department, said he believes Hart’s actions should show the department is committed to reform in the wake of the ugly scandal.

“It was the department that identified the behavior, the department that did the investigation and the department that took the case for criminal filing on the initially involved officers,” Dunn said of the city’s reaction to the revelation of the text messages in 2021.

In recent years, Dunn said, the department has taken steps to improve its use-of-force and police pursuit review processes by deploying sergeants to respond to any force incident. The hope, Dunn said, is to collect better information from individual cases that can be used to train officers in deescalation. Hart also created a Chief’s Advisory Panel to collect greater community input on issues facing the department, including bias allegations, according to Dunn.

PA Media

Reuters

SNP slam Reform policies

A RIGGING row has erupted after Labour rebuffed Nigel Farage’s demand for Reform representation in the House of Lords.

The Brexiteer has no peers in the upper chamber and asked Sir Keir Starmer to grant some.

He sent a letter to the PM — who has ultimate say over appointments — arguing the “seismic shifts” in British politics merits some Reform seats.

Although they have just four MPs, Mr Farage’s party is leading national opinion polls.

He has in the past called for the Lords to be replaced with an elected chamber akin to that in the US.

Mr Farage said: “Whilst Reform UK believes in a reformed House of Lords, the time has come to address the democratic disparity there.”

But Defence Secretary John Healey told LBC: “This is the same Nigel Farage that called for the abolition of the House of Lords and now wants to fill it with his cronies.

“I’m not sure Parliament is going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Farage.”

While PMs technically have the final say on House of Lords appointments, they grant opposition parties some peers.

When Sir Keir nominated 30 Labour lords in December, he allowed six Tories to be elevated to the upper legislature.

Hitting back at Mr Healey’s remarks, Reform deputy Richard Tice last night accused Labour of not playing fair.

Denying they were “Putin apologists”, he told The Sun: “It’s a democratic outrage and another old-fashioned establishment stitch-up. They are essentially rigging the system against the new party, changing the rules of the game.”

In his letter, Mr Farage noted Lib Dems have 76 peers but received 600,000 fewer votes than Reform last year.

Sir Keir previously pledged to abolish the Lords but he is not expected to carry out plans before the next election.

1

Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire

Analysis

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

Last November, voters approved a sprawling overhaul to L.A. County’s government.

They didn’t realize they were also repealing the county’s landmark criminal justice reform.

Eight months later, county officials are just now realizing they unwittingly committed an administrative screw-up for the ages.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn co-authored Measure G, which changed the county charter to expand the five-person board and elect a new county executive, among other momentous shifts.

But nobody seemed to realize the new charter language would repeal Measure J, which voters approved in 2020 to dedicate hundreds of millions towards services that offer alternatives to incarceration.

“We can confirm that due to an inadvertent administrative error by a prior Executive Officer administration, Measure J was not placed in the County’s Charter after its passage in 2020,” said County Counsel in a statement. “As a result, when the voters passed Measure G, they repealed Measure J effective December 2028.”

The mistake appears to stem from a failure by the county’s executive office to update the county charter with Measure J after it passed in 2020. County lawyers then failed to include the Measure J language when they drafted the 2024 ballot measure.

So when voters approved Measure G, they accidentally repealed Measure J, according to the county.

The screw-up was first discovered by John Fasana, a former Duarte Councilmember who sits on the county’s governance reform task force, which is tasked with implementing the government overhaul. He said he first raised the issue with the county in early June.

“Someone goofed,” said Fasana, who was appointed to the taskforce by Supervisor Kathryn Barger. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

Megan Castillo, a coordinator with the Reimagine LA Coalition, which pushed Measure J to the ballot in 2020, said she was disturbed to learn last week that the fruit of years of advocacy would soon be wiped away accidentally.

“It shouldn’t be undermined just because folks rushed policy making,” said Castillo. “We know more voters were for Measure J than Measure G. It’s disrespectful to the will of the people to find this could unintentionally happen.”

Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted L.A. County money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on social services, such as housing, mental health treatment and other jail diversion programs. The county is prohibited from spending the money on the carceral system — prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.

Castillo said she was worried the repeal would result in a “deep economic fallout” for these programs with county money potentially diverted to costs required by Measure G, like the salaries of new politicians and their staff. Measure G bars the county from raising taxes meaning this money will have to come from elsewhere in the county budget.

Castillo said she first brought the issue to the attention to deputies for Hahn and Horvath last week.

“They are shocked as well,” said Castillo.

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who led the charge on Measure G, said in a statement a proposal was coming to correct the “County bureaucracy’s error related to Measure J.”

“This measure was the result of a hard-fought, community-led effort that I wholeheartedly supported—and remain deeply committed to upholding,” said Horvath. “This situation makes clear why Measure G is so urgently needed. … When five people are in charge, no one is in charge, and this is a quintessential example of what that means.”

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who opposed the overhaul of the county charter, saw it a little differently.

“It also reinforces one of the key concerns I had about Measure G from the start. When major changes to the County Charter are pushed forward without sufficient time for analysis, public input, and transparency, mistakes become more likely. Oversights like this are exactly what can happen,” Barger said in a statement. “This error could–and should–have been caught before voters were asked to make a decision.”

Supervisor Hilda Solis said she was “surprised and concerned” to learn about the error but was confident the funding envisioned by Measure J would “continue unaffected.”

The Times reached out to the other two supervisors and has yet to receive their responses.

County attorneys said in a statement they were working with the executive office to “address this situation” and ensure the executive office “timely codified” charter amendments going forward. They emphasized that, despite the looming repeal of Measure J, the county will continue to align its budget with the goals of the measure.

Derek Hsieh, head of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and a member of the governance reform taskforce member, called the mistake a “cluster—.”

“I think the voters and county employees would like to know when the Board of Supervisors knew about this mistake and what they plan on doing to fix it,” said Hsieh, who was an outspoken opponent of both Measure G and Measure J.

The union, which represents sheriff‘s deputies, had spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media to fight Measure J. The union had also joined other county labor unions to challenge the measure in court.

“There’s absolutely no question both by the will of the voters and a decision by the California Supreme Court that Measure J is the law of the land,” said Hsieh.

The screw-up became public Wednesday night at the task force’s second-ever meeting. Fasana told his fellow members who had gatherered at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall downtown he had found “a major issue.”

The news created something of an uproar in meeting that was supposed to focus on more mundane bureaucratic matters. Some members said they wanted to wait to discuss it until everyone had been briefed on what exactly he was talking about.

Others said they didn’t understand how they could talk about anything else.

“To me all the work we’re trying to move forward with stops because there’s a problem —a significant, fundamental one,” said Derek Steele, who was appointed by Supervisor Holly Mitchell.

“We may actually need to take Measure G back to the people,” said Steele. “ We need to make sure we have a solve for this.”

Both Mitchell and Barger opposed Measure G, arguing it had been put together too hastily and gave too much power to an ill-defined county executive.

Sara Sadhwani, who was appointed to the task force by Horvath, said she found the accidental repeal of Measure J “incredibly concerning,” but found the way the news had been delivered to the task force “obstructive.”

“It raises so many questions for me and raises concerns about who is operating in good faith on this task forcem,” said Sadhwani. “If this was a good faith effort, wouldn’t we have agendized this issue, instead of dropping a bomb that people have no knowledge of.”

The taskforce has asked for a report from the county’s attorneys for their next meeting.

Jaclyn Cosgrove contributed to this story.

Reform UK MP James McMurdock has given up the whip over allegations against him related to business propriety, the party has said.

Chief whip Lee Anderson said McMurdock, MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock, “removed the party whip from himself” pending an investigation into allegations since published by the Sunday Times.

“At Reform UK we take these matters very seriously and James has agreed to cooperate in full with any investigation,” Anderson said.

Reform UK said it would carry out an internal investigation into the allegations.

The BBC has approached McMurdock for comment. Reform said he denies any wrongdoing.

Anderson said the allegations relate to business propriety during the pandemic, before McMurdock became an MP last year.

The Sunday Times alleged that McMurdock borrowed tens of thousands of pounds under the government’s Bounce Back loans scheme, which was designed to help struggling businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The newspaper said the loans were worth a total of £70,000 and were applied for through two companies – JAM Financial Limited and Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited.

JAM Financial Limited is alleged to have taken out the maximum loan of £50,000, a level of loan that required a turnover of at least £200,000.

Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited is alleged to have taken out loans worth £20,000, which would have required a turnover of £100,000.

The newspaper claimed that JAM Financial Limited had no employees and negligible assets until the pandemic, and that Gym Live Health and Fitness Limited was dormant until January 31, 2020.

BBC News understands Reform’s internal investigation is likely to be led by someone from outside the party and will take at least a few weeks.

When approached for comment by the Sunday Times, the newspaper said McMurdock warned “be very, very careful” and said “a technical expert” would be needed for anybody to understand the business dealings.

McMurdock won his seat in July by 98 votes, beating Labour into second place, and taking the seat from the Conservatives.

A since-deleted profile published on Reform’s website quoted McMurdock as saying he worked in business prior to standing for the party, including at the banks Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.

He is the second of the five Reform MPs elected in 2024 who have since lost the party whip, after Rupert Lowe was suspended in March.

That came after the party alleged the Great Yarmouth MP had made “threats of physical violence” against then-chairman Zia Yusuf.

The Crown Prosecution Service later said Lowe would not face criminal charges over the claims, which he called “false” and a “brutal smear campaign”. He now sits in the Commons as an independent.

Reform’s Sarah Ponchin won the Runcorn by-election in May, taking the party’s Commons cohort back to five.

However, McMurdock quitting the party whip means Reform now has four sitting MPs.

The far-right, nationalist Reform UK party would be Britain’s largest political party if a general election were held now, a major new poll shows, putting its founder, Nigel Farage, on a potential course to become the country’s next prime minister.

Reform would win 271 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, with the ruling Labour Party second at 178 seats, polling firm YouGov said on June 26. That would leave a hung parliament, with one party only able to form a government in coalition with another.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s popularity has tanked since last year’s landslide general election victory, owing to a challenging global backdrop, slow economic growth and a series of embarrassing policy U-turns on welfare reform.

Last week’s census was YouGov’s first “mega-poll” since Labour came to power. As well as showing the rapid rise in popularity of Reform and the reversal of favour for Labour, it also shows a collapse in support for the formerly ruling Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party, which suffered its worst ever general election loss last July, would win just 46 seats in an election, down from 120, leaving the party in fourth place behind the Liberal Democrats, YouGov said.

The Greens, meanwhile, would win 11 percent of the vote, picking up several new seats to hold seven altogether. In Scotland, the SNP would return to dominance, gaining 29 seats to win 38 overall.

The next election is not expected until 2029.

Why has Reform surged in popularity?

Founded as the Brexit Party in 2018 to advocate for a hard “no-deal Brexit” – the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union – and written off in its early years as a one-issue party solely concerned with immigration, Reform UK has emerged as a group that could seriously challenge the century-long dominance of Britain’s main political parties.

For his part, Farage has said that Reform’s political transformation is now complete. The party has offices in Westminster, close to the Houses of Parliament, and has attracted interest from new voters and wealthy donors alike.

To broaden its appeal, Reform dismissed members accused of racism and bullying and tried to distance the party from far-right movements in other European nations, such as France’s National Rally and Germany’s Alternative for Germany.

According to its latest party manifesto, Reform warned that net zero environmental policies were “crippling the [British] economy”. It promised to “scrap” green energy subsidies and start fast-tracking North Sea oil and gas licences.

Its main pledges remain centred around immigration, however. Reform has promised to stop small boats carrying undocumented migrants and refugees from crossing the English Channel and to freeze “non-essential” immigration. Most Brits now overwhelmingly believe that immigration is too high, according to research by YouGov.

At by-elections – votes held to fill vacancies in the House of Commons which arise between general elections – in May, Reform narrowly beat Labour in the seat of Runcorn and Helsby in northwest England, and secured a string of victories over the Conservatives in rural English counties.

Why has the Conservative Party fallen in popularity?

In part, because many of its members have defected to Reform.

Since last year’s punishing general election defeat for the Conservatives after 14 years in power, Reform has successfully poached at least 80 former candidates, donors and staff members from the traditional right-wing party, according to Reuters research.

One was Anne Marie Morris, who was reprimanded by then-Prime Minister Theresa May in 2017 for using a derogatory, racist term during a debate about Brexit. She is now set to head up Reform’s social care policy. Other high-profile Conservatives who have defected to Reform include Ann Widdecombe, Lee Anderson, Ross Thomson, Andrea Jenkyns and Marco Longhi.

Tory loyalists are taking note. The Conservative mayor of Tees Valley, Lord Houchen, recently told the BBC that his party would need to form a coalition with Reform at the next general election if it hopes to keep Labour out of government.

However, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservatives, has ruled out a coalition with Farage’s party at the national level, arguing that Reform is seeking to destroy the Tories. A YouGov poll conducted in April showed that just 38 percent of Conservatives would be in favour of merging with Reform.

Why are people disaffected with Labour so soon after its election victory?

In addition to Reform’s recent wins, Farage has been buoyed by a challenging political and economic landscape inherited by Labour from the Conservatives. Starmer is grappling with a low-growth economy accompanied by pronounced fiscal constraints – a deficit of nearly 5 percent of gross domestic product and a debt ratio close to 100 percent. It is also charged with rescuing a failing National Health Service (NHS).

Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump upended decades of global trade policy on April 2 – a date he refers to as “liberation day” – when he announced sweeping tariffs on the US’s trading partners, including the UK. Trump later paused those duties for 90 days, however, that deadline is due to run out next week.

Though the UK has since secured the first trade agreement with the US, it maintains a 10 percent tariff on most UK exports – something Starmer was forced to swallow to get a trade deal done. Other countries have until next week to strike similar deals. Trump’s stop-start tariff war, in turn, has slowed global growth.

Labour had already straitjacketed its investment plans before Trump assumed office, however. As a result of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s self-imposed fiscal rules, the Treasury had been considering spending cuts prior to its latest budget announcement in March.

Starmer unveiled sweeping welfare reforms, including tightening the eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP) – a type of disability and illness benefit – to get people back to work and save the government 5 billion to 6 billion pounds ($6.8bn to $8.2bn) per year.

On July 1, however, he drastically watered down the UK’s controversial welfare reform bill in an attempt to fend off a full-scale Labour rebellion in the House of Commons, leaving him with a multibillion-pound hole in the UK’s public finances and a bruised public image.

That came on top of another policy U-turn on June 9, when the government announced it had reversed a motion to scrap a winter fuel benefit for millions of pensioners following widespread criticism, including from its own MPs.

Weeks of ructions recently led John McDonnell, the former shadow treasury secretary, to write in The Guardian newspaper that “a party this dysfunctional and divided cannot escape the wrath of voters at the next election”.

Would Reform really come to power in the UK in a general election?

Reform UK’s surge in the polls stems from a deep disillusionment with Britain’s mainstream political parties, which have shared power for more than a century, experts say.

However, question marks remain over Reform’s ability to govern as its policies are lacking in detail, observers say. For instance, the party’s manifesto claims it would “pick up illegal migrants out of boats and take them back to France”. But it doesn’t explain how it would persuade France to accept them back.

Tony Travers, professor in the government department at the London School of Economics, said the efficacy of these policies is, therefore, “unknowable”.

“On the one hand, these ideas would rely on the consent of French authorities. On the other, they’re also conceding that some immigration is necessary,” Travers told Al Jazeera, referring to Reform’s proposal to make concessions for healthcare workers in its proposed ban on “non-essential” immigration.

“Until recently [May], Reform had the enormous advantage of not being tested in office. Looking ahead, they will be judged on how they’ve done in government,” he said.

“It’s much easier to be in opposition than in government,” as the “nightmare challenges facing Keir Starmer won’t go away”, he added.

“If Reform win the next general election, they will have to try and fix an ailing NHS, railways, prison and education systems, all with less money than they’d like.”

Ultimately, Travers said, Reform UK’s continued performance in the polls will depend on Labour’s ability to tackle these issues.

This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom touched one of the third rails of California politics. He hopes the result sends a shock through the state’s homebuilding industry.

Newsom strong armed the state Legislature into passing what experts believe are the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since the law was signed in 1970.

The changes waive CEQA for just about any proposed low- or mid-rise development in urban neighborhoods zoned for multifamily housing. No more thousand-page studies of soils, the shadows the buildings may cast and traffic they may bring. No more risk of CEQA lawsuits from angry neighbors.

Wiping away these rules shows that no matter how challenging the politics, the state will remove the barriers it has built over decades that have ended up stifling housing construction and suffocating Californians’ ability to live affordably, the governor said when signing the legislation Monday evening.

“The world we invented has been competing against us,” Newsom said. “We have got to perform.”

Californians won’t have to wait long for the effects of the reforms. They took effect with the stroke of the governor’s pen.

At least in the short term, the result may be less of an immediate impact on construction and more of a revolution in how development in California cities gets done. Numerous hurdles both within and outside of the control of local and state governments — interest rates, availability of labor, zoning, material prices and tariffs among them — still will determine if housing is built. What’s changed is that the key point of leverage outside groups have wielded, for good and for ill, over housing construction in California communities is gone.

It can be hard to understand how CEQA became, in the words of one critic, “the law that swallowed California.”

At base, all CEQA says is that proponents of a project must disclose and, if possible, lessen its environmental effects before being approved. Yet the process CEQA kicks off can take years as developers and local governments complete reams of studies, opponents sue them as inadequate and judges send everyone back to start all over again.

Time is money, and project opponents soon realized that they could use this uncertainty to their advantage. Sometimes, if their complaints fell on deaf ears at City Hall, threatening a CEQA challenge was the only way to get themselves heard and avoid harmful outcomes. But in other circumstances, the law became a powerful cudgel wielded to influence concerns that at best had a tangential relationship to the environment.

Examples are legion. The owner of a gas station in San Jose sued a nearby rival gas station that wanted to add a few more pumps. Pro-life advocates sued a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic in South San Francisco. Homeowners in Berkeley sued the University of California over its plans to increase enrollment at the state’s flagship university and the traffic and noise that might result.

Over time, CEQA negotiations became embedded in California’s development regime, known and used by all the major players. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalled that as a community organizer in South L.A. in the 1990s she used CEQA to try to stop liquor stores from opening. A company owned by billionaire developer Rick Caruso, Bass’ opponent in the most recent mayoral election and normally a CEQA critic, this year filed a CEQA lawsuit challenging a major redevelopment of a television studio near a Caruso shopping mall.

For housing, the primary interest group invested in CEQA at the state level has been labor organizations representing construction workers. Their leaders have argued that if legislators grant CEQA relief to developers, which boosts their bottom lines, then workers should share in the spoils through better pay and benefits.

This union opposition was enough in 2016 to prevent a proposal from then-Gov. Jerry Brown to limit CEQA challenges to urban housing development from even getting a vote in a legislative committee. A year later, a version of Brown’s bill passed but only because developers who wanted to take advantage were required to pay union-level wages to workers.

Just about every year since, lawmakers have engaged in this dance with labor groups. In 2022, the California Conference of Carpenters defected from the State Building and Construction Trades Council and supported a less-strict version of labor standards, which lawmakers ushered into multiple bills.

But housing construction hasn’t followed. The number of projects that have been issued permits are millions less than what Newsom promised to build on the campaign trail in 2018. Californians continue to pay record prices to house themselves, and those fleeing the state often cite the cost of living as the reason. Newsom and legislators decided they needed to do more.

“We don’t want to sit here and ram our head against the wall on the politics and then have nothing to show for it,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) at Monday’s signing ceremony.

Wicks authored legislation this year that waived CEQA rules for urban housing development without any labor requirements and was working it through the regular process. In May, Newsom grabbed Wicks’ bill and additional CEQA reform legislation and said he wanted them to pass as part of the budget. Doing so would fast-track the bills into law without the normal whittling down that happens in committee hearings.

As budget negotiations heated up, Newsom doubled down. In a rare move, he insisted on tying the approval of the state’s entire spending plan for this year to the passage of CEQA reforms. That meant legislators who otherwise would be opposed could only vote no if they were willing to torpedo the budget.

What emerged was a clean CEQA exemption for homebuilders in urban multifamily areas. Union-level wages for construction workers only are required for high-rise or low-income buildings, both of which often are paid now because of specialized labor required for taller buildings and other state and local rules for affordable construction.

CEQA doesn’t typically affect single-family home construction in established communities.

How much this is going to matter immediately for homebuilding isn’t clear. Studies are mixed on CEQA’s effects. One by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any CEQA litigation. Another found tens of thousands of housing units challenged under CEQA in just one year. Still, more advocates of reform argue that it’s impossible to quantify the chilling effect that the threat of CEQA lawsuits have on development in California and how much the law has dominated the debate.

“This signals a seismic shift in Democratic politics in California from NIMBYism to abundance,” said Mott Smith, board chair of the Council of Infill Builders, a real estate trade group that advocates for urban housing. “You can touch this mythical third rail and live to see another day.”

Those who live across the street from a proposed five-story apartment building and oppose the housing will have to find a way other than a 55-year-old environmental law to stop it.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers stood around Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday and celebrated the passage of the state budget and “transformative” housing legislation at the state Capitol.

Between mutual praise and handshakes in front of television news cameras, there was little acknowledgment of the power dynamics that played out behind the scenes: Democratic lawmakers once again gave in to the demands of the soon-to-be termed-out governor.

“We’ve seen multiple situations now where it’s clear that the Legislature is in one place and the governor is in another, whether that’s bills that have passed overwhelmingly and been vetoed, or it’s dragging the Legislature along on budget bills,” said Lorena Gonzalez, leader of the California Labor Federation. “At some point the Legislature needs to legislate.”

Newsom took a rare step earlier this year and publicly supported two bills to lessen environmental review standards to speed up the construction of housing in California. Despite vowing to supercharge homebuilding, Newsom previously backed only smaller-scale policies and construction has stagnated.

In his recently published book “Abundance,” journalist Ezra Klein argued that California’s marquee environmental law stands in the way of housing construction — a critique that struck a chord with the governor. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, this year was hellbent on proving that he’s the kind of Democrat who can be part of the solution and push through the government and political logjams.

When a pivotal bill designed to streamline housing construction recently stalled in the state Senate, Newsom effectively forced it through despite the concerns of progressive lawmakers, environmental interest groups and labor unions. The governor did so by ensuring that a state budget bill included a “poison pill” provision that required lawmakers to pass the housing legislation in order for the spending plan to go into effect on July 1.

Newsom called the bills the “most consequential housing reform that we’ve seen in modern history in the state of California” on Monday evening.

“This was too important to play chance,” Newsom said, adding that he worried reforms would have fallen prey to the same opposition as prior years if he allowed the “process to unfold in the traditional way.”

Democratic lawmakers for years have tried to cut through the thicket of regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, and faced stiff opposition from powerful labor groups. These groups, notably the State Building and Construction Trades Council, have argued that any relief offered to developers should be paired with wage and other benefits for workers.

The legislation Newsom signed Monday sidestepped those demands from labor.

Assembly Bill 130, based on legislation introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), exempts most urban housing projects from CEQA, requiring only developers of high-rise — taller than 85 feet — and low-income buildings to pay union-level wages for construction workers.

Senate Bill 131 also narrows CEQA mandates for housing construction and further waives the environmental restrictions for some residential rezoning changes. The bill, led by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), additionally designates a host of nonresidential projects — health clinics, child-care and advanced manufacturing facilities, food banks and more — no longer subject to CEQA.

Experts in development said the new legislation could provide the most significant reforms to CEQA in its 55-year history, especially for urban housing.

CEQA generally requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a construction project. The process sounds simple but often results in thousands of pages of environmental assessments and years of litigation.

CEQA creates substantial legal risk for homebuilders and developers, and past efforts to alleviate its burdens fell short, said Dave Rand, a prominent Southern California land-use attorney. The bills signed Monday provide relief for the vast majority of housing, he said. High-rise and affordable housing construction often already require union-level pay.

“The worst cog in the wheel has always been CEQA,” Rand said. “It’s always been the place where projects get stuck. This is the first clean, across-the-board, objective, straightforward exemption that anyone can figure out.”

He said clients are eager to take advantage of the new rules, which take effect immediately.

“There’s over 10 projects we’re going to push the go button on with this exemption probably Tuesday,” Rand said.

For non-housing projects, the changes do not amount to a comprehensive overhaul but are still meaningful, said Bill Fulton, publisher of the California Planning & Development Report.

In the past, state lawmakers have passed narrow, one-off CEQA waivers for projects they supported, such as increased enrollment at UC Berkeley in 2022. SB 131 continues the Legislature’s penchant for exempting specific kinds of development from CEQA rules, he said, though the nine categories of projects affected provide more expansive relief than prior efforts.

“They’re cherry picking things that they want to speed through,” said Fulton, who has termed the phenomenon “Swiss cheese CEQA.”

Observers said Newsom’s actions were the strongest he has taken to force large-scale housing policies through the Legislature.

For years, the governor has made audacious promises — on the campaign trail in 2017, Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes by the end of this year, a goal likely to fall millions short. But he has been more likely to work behind the scenes or swoop in and praise bills once they’ve passed rather than publicly shape housing policy, said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor.

Elmendorf, who supports the new laws, called Newsom’s arm-twisting and willingness to challenge entrenched interests, “an incredible about-face from his MO with respect to the legislative process on controversial housing and environmental issues for the last six, seven years.”

The governor has jammed his policy priorities on other topics through the Legislature before, including climate legislation, infrastructure and oil regulations, with mixed results over the years.

Newsom’s term ends in early 2027. His endorsement of the meaningful housing policies, and his strategy to propel one through the state Senate, became a bellwether of his strength at the Capitol as his time in office wanes.

Wicks said Newsom “put a ton of skin in the game” to force the proposals through.

“He went all in on pushing for taking on these sacred cows like CEQA because I think he recognizes that we have to tackle this problem,” Wicks said.

Wicks’ legislation had cleared the Assembly before the proposal became part of the state budget process, which added pressure on lawmakers to pass the bills. She described herself as “cautiously optimistic” as it moved through the Capitol and said her house understood the need for reform.

Wiener’s legislation was slower to gain traction. Just last week, the inability of the Senate and the governor’s office to reach an agreement on the proposal held up the announcement of a budget deal.

Then Newsom tied the proposal to the budget, essentially requiring lawmakers to pass the bill or risk starting the fiscal year on July 1 without a spending plan.

During the debate on SB 131, Sen. Henry Stern (D-Calabasas) said the legislation had “significant issues” but that he would vote in favor of the measure because of assurances that those would eventually be addressed.

“I think nature and abundance can live side by side. In fact, they must,” Stern said. “We don’t want to live in a moonscape California. Want to live in a livable one.”

Despite the concerns, lawmakers passed both bills on Monday.

Gonzalez was critical of legislators, saying “nobody is voting their values.” She compared the Legislature going along with Newsom’s plan to Republicans in Congress.

“California Democrats are crying foul that legislators and senators are passing things that they don’t even know the effect of that aren’t in line with their constituents that are just being shoved down their throats by Donald Trump,” Gonzalez said. “And those same legislators in California are allowing that to happen to themselves.”

WASHINGTON — Anybody remember “Abolish ICE?”

That was progressives’ impassioned cry last year after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents imprisoned undocumented immigrant children in cages. It was a litmus test of compassion for Democrats running for president.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said yes, “abolish ICE.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said she’d “replace” the agency. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he’d “restructure” it.

But Joe Biden, the leading moderate in the race, refused to get near the idea. Eventually, “Abolish ICE” disappeared — and Biden won the nomination.

Now, after George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer, progressive groups have raised a new banner: “Defund the police.”

It may be the worst political slogan ever coined.

For one thing, its proponents say it doesn’t mean what it sounds like — the abolition of police departments, a proposal that would be an election year gift to President Trump.

The defunders say they want to trim police budgets and redirect the money to social services, and let cops go back to solving crimes and other core functions. Even then, the idea is massively unpopular.

A Yahoo News/YouGov poll last week found only 16% of Democrats favor cuts in police funding. Republicans are even less enthusiastic.

“Abolish ICE” was more popular than that.

Biden’s response was crisp. “I don‘t support defunding the police,” he said Monday. “I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency.”

That’s no surprise. Biden is a man of the center — the center of the Democratic Party, that is. He built his Senate career as a “law and order” candidate during the high-crime era, with strong support from police unions.

He’s moved left since then, but “Defund the police?” His 77-year-old political antennae are too well-tuned for that.

More striking were the similar reactions of most other Democrats, including leading progressives. Sanders said he wants to pay well-trained police officers more, not less. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said the slogan was “a distraction.”

Instead of defunding police, House Democrats plan to pass a sweeping police reform bill with a long list of sensible proposals: a ban on federal aid for police departments that use chokeholds, mandated use of body cameras for police, a change in qualified immunity laws to let people seek civil damages against abusive police, and a national misconduct registry to track bad cops.

Biden has endorsed the bill, which is similar to criminal justice proposals he has outlined.

“Let us vow to make this, at last, an era of action to reverse systemic racism,” he said in a passionate speech in Philadelphia last week. “Bad cops should be dealt with severely and swiftly. We all need to take a hard look at the culture that allows for these senseless tragedies to keep happening.”

And here’s what may be the most important development: Most of the public agrees.

A series of public opinion polls found that the wave of overwhelmingly peaceful protests that followed Floyd’s death crystallized a remarkable shift in public opinion — in favor of reform.

The Yahoo/YouGov poll, for example, found that fully two-thirds of Americans want to ban police from using chokeholds, including 48% of Republicans.

A Monmouth poll found that 57% of Americans believe police officers are more likely to use excessive force in a confrontation if the target is Black; four years ago, only 34% gave that answer.

What provoked the huge change in public sentiment? I’ll nominate an obvious cause: ubiquitous cellphone cameras, which enable protesters and bystanders to record police misconduct and upload it to social media.

In an earlier era, the Minneapolis police could claim — as they tried to do this time — that Floyd died in a violent struggle with officers. But we know otherwise, because we watched him die after nearly nine agonizing minutes with an armed officer pressing his full weight on his neck and others holding his legs.

As the protests swelled, Trump resorted to the age-old playbook of “law and order,” charging that the problem was violent agitators running amok. But anyone with a smartphone could see that wasn’t true.

He tweeted that a 75-year-old protester who suffered serious head injuries after being shoved by police in Buffalo, N.Y., had faked his fall and might have been “an Antifa provocateur.” That one didn’t fly, either.

Trump normally displays a canny sense of the public mood. But he has put himself squarely on the wrong side of this issue — not only morally, but as a matter of practical politics.

He doesn’t seem to have noticed that most voters think he’s dead wrong.

Suddenly, thanks to the tragedy of Minneapolis, Democrats have an opportunity to build a majority — perhaps even a bipartisan majority — in favor of criminal justice reform.

It’s too late for George Floyd, but just in time for the November election.

Project 2025 became a flashpoint during the 2024 presidential campaign. The sweeping conservative policy blueprint aims to overhaul the federal government and reshape United States society.

How closely is President Donald Trump following its direction? And how much does it test the limits of the Constitution?

Marc Lamont Hill talks to Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation.

President Gustavo Petro has sought to call a referendum, in a move the opposition say violates the constitution.

Colombia’s Council of State has suspended a decree by President Gustavo Petro that sought to call a referendum on a labour reform, citing a lack of Senate authorisation.

The move on Wednesday comes after Petro last week bypassed legislative opposition and signed a decree summoning voters to the polls in August to decide on the labour reform.

The package includes provisions for an eight-hour daytime workday, higher weekend and holiday pay, and mandatory social security contributions from delivery app drivers – key social policies the left-wing leader has pushed for.

A majority of the social and economic reforms promised by Petro – who was elected in 2022 on pledges to right centuries of inequality in the Andean country – have been rejected by lawmakers.

The decree sparked criticism from the opposition, which argued that Petro’s decree violates the Political Constitution of Colombia and destroys the separation of powers of the country’s three branches of government.

Under Colombian law, the Senate must rule on the advisability of referendums. If the referendum were to be held, each measure would need to be approved by the majority of at least 13.5 million voters, a third of Colombia’s electoral roll, to be valid.

Political opponents also said the costly referendum was really aimed at boosting Petro’s party ahead of 2026 elections, when he cannot seek re-election.

Despite the failure to call a referendum, the Senate on Tuesday approved a revised version of the labour reform bill after extensive debate, with 57 votes in favour and 31 against.

The Senate previously rejected the reform bill in April, but it was revived after Petro warned he would declare a referendum to put the measure to a public vote.

The presidency dubbed the bill “a historic step toward decent work” in a post on X shared by Petro.

Protests were recently held in the capital Bogota and other major cities by advocates of Petro, who expressed their support for his proposed labour reform.

Colombia is still reeling from bombing attacks in the southwest of the country that left seven dead and an attempted assassination on conservative opposition senator, and presidential hopeful, Miguel Uribe Turbay, which sparked fears the country could return to its darker days of assassinations and prolonged violence.

Sir Keir Starmer has hit back at potential rebels in the Labour Party over his plans to cut the benefits bill, insisting “we have got to get the reforms through.”

MPs will vote in the coming weeks on a package of measures aiming to cut the benefits bill by £5bn by 2030.

The Welfare Reform Bill will include proposals to make it harder for disabled people with less severe conditions to claim Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Speaking to reporters, the prime minister said: “We have got to get the reforms through, and I have been clear about that from start to finish.

“The system is not working. It’s not working for those that need support, it’s not working for taxpayers.

“Everybody agrees it needs reform, we have got to reform it and that is what we intend to do.”

Last week, ministers sought to reassure nervy Labour MPs by introducing a transition period for those whose benefits are being withdrawn.

Dozens of Labour MPs have expressed concerns about the plans to cut Pip payments and the sickness-related element of Universal Credit.

Many have said they are prepared to vote against the primary legislation the government needs to pass to make the changes to welfare payments.

The welfare package as a whole could push an extra 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty, according to the government’s impact assessment.

Asked if there could be further concessions, Sir Keir said he was determined to press ahead with the changes:

“The principles remain the same, those who can work should work.

“Those who need support in to work should have that support in to work which I don’t think they are getting at the moment.

“Those who are never going to be able to work should be properly supported and protected. And that includes not being reassessed and reassessed.

“So they are the principles, we need to do reform and we will be getting on with that reform when the Bill comes.”