'What are we for?' Labour disquiet grows over chancellor's latest cuts

When Rachel Reeves takes to her feet in the Commons to deliver her spring statement next week, she will try to pull off what her inner circle describe as a "re-education" exercise over how Labour has used its early days in power.

- Pippa Crerar

"We want it to be a re-education on all the good things we've already done in office," said one, listing achievements including increasing the minimum wage, cutting NHS waiting lists and improving workers' rights. "We want everybody to hear it."

That the chancellor feels she has to remind Labour MPs - and the wider public - that their first nine months in office have not been as bad as the polls may suggest is telling, reflecting concern at the top of government about gloominess over the party's direction of travel. Many on the left are deeply anxious about how, as they see it, things have turned sour so quickly for a Labour party that swept into power with a huge majority of 174 - just short of Tony Blair's 1997 landslide.

Since then, Labour has dropped 8 points in the national polls, and Keir Starmer's personal approval ratings have plummeted 22 points, although both have been going slowly upwards since the turn of the year.

Few Labour MPs believe there is much reason for cheer, as there is little sign of the economy improving any time soon. Growth forecasts are expected to be downgraded again next week and Reeves is to announce the biggest spending cuts since austerity.

The despair came to a head this week after Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, announced £5bn worth of cuts to disability benefits. Despite No 10 arguing that it had a "moral case" for welfare system changes, as well as an economic one, many Labour MPs responded with dismay.

The veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott told Starmer at PMQs the decision was "not about morality" but "the Treasury's wish to balance the books on the back of the most vulnerable".

Afterwards, one minister said: "It's just not the sort of thing a Labour government should be doing." Another added: "If we can't protect the most vulnerable, regardless of the fiscal circumstances we inherited, then what are we for?"