A former Labour candidate has slammed the government’s plans to slash the welfare bill, telling BBC Question Time: “There’s always money for war, but not for the poor.”

Faiza Shaheen, who almost defeated Iain Duncan Smith in the 219 general election, hit out as the government prepares to unveil controversial reforms to the benefits system.

Ministers are looking to identify up to £6 billion-worth of savings, leading to fears that some of the poorest people in society could see their income cut.

Shaheen, who was blocked from standing for Labour at the last election, said: “I don’t agree with directly cutting people’s money. There’s always money for war, but not for the poor.

“My own mum, I saw her go through this with the cuts under the Tories. She had heart failure, did she want heart failure? Absolutely not. She was in her mid-50s, they came, they harassed her. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see.

“Anyone who’s seen someone who’s been through that, you’ll know the lack of dignity.

“I’m so upset and shocked to see this coming from a Labour government, an idea that somehow people who are struggling, people who are on benefits, are all cheating. That’s just not the case. That’s the implication for always going for this group of people.”

She said that instead of cutting benefits, the government should be increasing taxes on the rich.

To applause from the audience, she said: “If we just took those with over £10 million in wealth - something most of us can’t even imagine - and put a 2% tax on that, it could raise £24bn a year.”

Shaheen added: “At a time when we want to increase defence spending, when we want to improve services, when we’re dealing with the climate crisis, this is a really key moment to say ’do you know what, the richest have got so much richer in this country, you can put in a bit more at this point because there’s so much we’ve got to sort out.”

Keir Starmer announced last month that the government would increase the amount it spends on defence from 2.3% of national income to 2.5%, paid for by cutting the international aid budget.