It seems the local elections may have been Sir Keir Starmer’s Pandora’s Box.
Ever since Labour were robustly rejected at the ballot box (losing a by-election, a mayoralty and almost 200 seats), backbenchers have been popping up with criticism of the PM.
Over the weekend, multiple Labour MPs put their heads above the parapet – most notably, former minister Louise Haigh who hit out at winter fuel cuts and said they had become a “totemic” issue for voters.
Now, another member of the PM’s party is causing him a headache.
Steve Witherden, the MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr has launched a broadside against the PM.
“I did not become an MP to push hundreds, if not thousands, of my disabled constituents into poverty”, he said.
Watch: Minister defends the government’s record following the local elections
The Welsh MP said he would “not be voting to cut benefits for the most vulnerable”.
Witherden called on his party leader to “do the right thing” and drop the policy.
He is referencing the government’s welfare reform bill that is set to come before the Commons, which Witherden said he will vote against.
In a video posted to his X account, he added: “I did not become a Labour MP to vote through further austerity.”
He added the proposed cuts will “hit… [Wales] disproportionately hard and vulnerable people will be put at risk”.
First minister: Starmer’s plans ‘causing serious concerns’
It follows the Welsh Labour leader calling on Starmer to rethink his policy on the winter fuel allowance today.
Dame Eluned Morgan, the first minister, said: “We know that splits and spats make for easy news, but this isn’t drama.
“This is honesty, this is responsibility. This is what leadership looks like.”
She also warned the PMs cuts to disability benefits are “causing serious concern here”.
Downing Street: ‘We won’t be swayed’
Responding to these criticisms this morning, a spokesperson for the PM said that “we are clear in our minds”.
They said: “We have our views and we won’t be swayed.”
The spokesperson also added that cuts to winter fuel payments were “necessary” to “stabilise” public finances and said that only with these “difficult decisions can we support public finances”.
