Isabel Hardman

Neither Keir Starmer nor Rishi Sunak were very good at Prime Minister’s Questions today. Though Starmer didn’t get his own job title wrong this time, he did still speak as though he was the leader of the opposition attacking the Conservatives in government, rather like he’s the guy in charge. Sunak decided to punch the bruise on the winter fuel payment and then make a handbrake turn to British farming, which left the Prime Minister a little discombobulated, as he clearly hadn’t prepared anything on that subject. But he was unable to talk about one of the biggest issues of the week, which was the mass early release of prisoners, because he knew that trying to scrutinise the government on this would just lead to the Conservatives being blamed all the more.

Before coming into government, Keir Starmer would use his battles with the unions, particularly Unite, as a way of defining himself against the parts of the Labour movement resistant to change. His speech to the Trades Union Congress this morning was more about suggesting that the unions could be part of that change. I say ‘could’. Parts of the speech made it clear that Starmer still thinks some union bosses need to face up to reality. He told the hall in Brighton that ‘I do have to make clear from a place of respect that this government will not risk its mandate for economic stability under any circumstances. And with tough decisions on the horizon, pay will inevitably be shaped by that.

Who was Rachel Reeves more worried about tonight when she addressed the Parliamentary Labour party? The Labour MPs who will rebel against the government tomorrow in the vote on restricting winter fuel payment to those on pension credit – or the ones who are staying loyal? No one spoke out against the cut when the Chancellor spoke this evening, but others have made their displeasure clear in broadcasts, or by signing the early-day motion calling for the government to U-turn. Reeves told the party: ‘I understand the decision that this government have made on winter fuel is a difficult decision. I’m not immune to the arguments that many in this room have made. We considered those when the decision was made.

David Lammy has just announced that Britain is suspending 30 arms export licenses to Israel. The Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that after a review of international humanitarian law, he was left with no choice but to conclude that there was a risk of a number of weapons being used to commit or facilitate the violation of the law. He said: It is with regret that I inform the House today that the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Could Labour be about to water down its removal of the winter fuel payment for pensioners? The chorus of muttering is getting louder in the party about restricting it to those on pension credit or other means-tested benefits, with backbenchers saying they have been shocked by the volume of letters from pensioners about it. This week, Rachael Maskell called on the government to think again about the policy after the new energy price cap went up, and now Harriet Harman has intervened with her own suggestion. Baroness Harman politely offered a compromise in which ‘they decide to make a different cut-off point’. Harman doesn’t tend to criticise her party in public: she always tries to take a positive line about its leadership or stays quiet.

A much bigger story than Rachel Reeves cancelling the winter fuel payment is her announcement today that she is finally killing off the beleaguered cap on social care costs. Reeves told the Commons that the Conservative government had not funded its reforms to social care, so they weren’t going to happen. She said: Adult social care was also neglected by the previous government. The sector needs reform to improve care and to support staff. In the previous parliament, the government made costly commitments to introduce adult social care charging reforms, but they delayed them two years ago because they knew that local authorities were not ready and that their promises were not funded, so it will not be possible to take forward those charging reforms.