Starmer seeks to quell revolt to speed through welfare reforms
Downing Street insiders said talks were taking place with Labour MPs about the legislation after 126 of them publicly backed a move to block it.
The first vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will take place on Tuesday and a concerted effort has been launched by ministers to win round potential rebels.
The Prime Minister told MPs there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system.
'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said.
'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness.
'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.'
If the legislation clears its first hurdle it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill – with a plan for it to clear the Commons a little over a week later on July 9.
Ministers have said they will listen to suggestions to improve the legislation but opposition appears entrenched and the swift timetable for the Bill could add to critics' concerns.
Commons Leader Lucy Powell told MPs: 'As the House would expect, the Government actively engages with parliamentary opinion throughout a bill's passage, as we are doing intensively with the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill.'
A No 10 source said: 'Delivering fundamental change is not easy, and we all want to get it right, so of course we're talking to colleagues about the Bill and the changes it will bring, we want to start delivering this together on Tuesday.'
Overnight six more Labour MPs added their names to the rebel amendment that would halt the legislation in its tracks.
The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faces the most serious revolt of his premiership (Ben Stansall/PA)
The new signatories include the Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee chairman Toby Perkins, Stoke-on-Trent Central MP Gareth Snell, Newcastle upon Tyne MP Mary Glindon and Tamworth MP Sarah Edwards.
North Ayrshire and Arran MP Irene Campbell and Colchester MP Pam Cox, both of whom won their seats in the party's 2024 landslide election victory, have also added their names.
The new names take the total number of Labour backbenchers supporting the amendment, tabled by Treasury Select Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, to 126 out of a total of 162 backers from all parties.
The plans restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit.
The Government hopes the changes will get more people back into work and save up to £5 billion a year.
Existing claimants will be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support, a move seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes.
But the fact so many Labour MPs are prepared to put their names to the 'reasoned amendment' calling for a change of course shows how entrenched the opposition remains.
One backbencher preparing to vote against the Bill told the PA news agency: 'A lot of people have been saying they're upset about this for months.
'To leave it until a few days before the vote, it's not a very good way of running the country.
'It's not very grown-up.'
They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: 'I don't think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.'
The Daily Telegraph reported that potential concessions being considered include a commitment to speed up payment of support to help people back into work and offering assurances that reviews of policies in this area will be published.
Meanwhile, The Times reported some MPs opposed to the plans had blamed Sir Keir's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and suggested the time had come for 'regime change' in Downing Street.
Asked about attacks on Mr McSweeney, trade minister Douglas Alexander said: 'I'm much less interested in the gossip about SW1 than whether this legislation works on the streets, in the towns, in the communities right across the country.'
He told Sky News it was 'for the Prime Minister to make his judgments' about who works in Downing Street but 'the fact is that team delivered us an historic victory only last July, against expectations'.
He told ITV's Good Morning Britain: 'If there are practical ways that we can improve this legislation, we should.
'We should do it not to buy off rebels, but because it's a Labour thing to do and that's the conversation that I expect ministers will be engaged in in the coming days.'
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated overall, 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a Pip daily living award in 2029–30 as a result of the reforms.
The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment.
Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in Pip.
The 2.2 million existing claimants of the health element of universal credit who are expected to still be claiming in 2029–30 are estimated to see a £450 real decline in their support in that year because of the freezing of the payment.
There are also set to be 700,000 new claimants who will typically receive £2,700 a year less than they would have done under the current system, the IFS said.
NEW: Government's benefit reforms could reduce annual spending by around £11 billion in the long run – but still leave health-related benefit bill far above pre-pandemic levels.
Read @TomWatersEcon, @LatimerEduin and @matthewoulton's new report: https://t.co/8aP99eVQHS
— Institute for Fiscal Studies (@TheIFS) June 26, 2025
It will be well into the 2030s before the reforms are fully rolled out and, in the long-term, the savings could amount to around £11 billion a year, the IFS said.
A little over a quarter of the public are supportive of the proposed reforms, according to polling published on Thursday.
Of 2,004 people surveyed by More in Common over the weekend, just 27% said they supported the planned changes to the benefits system and half (51%) said they believe the cuts would worsen the health of disabled people.
A similar proportion (52%) said the cuts would increase pressure on the NHS while six in 10 said the Government should look at alternative cost-saving measures instead.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the Government should pull the Bill and 'go back to the drawing board' instead of 'cutting vital support from thousands of vulnerable people'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Has any government crashed as quickly as this one? Yes, and it's not even close...
Almost one year into the Starmer administration and the question is already being asked: has a government ever crashed so quickly? There's no denying the dismal poll ratings in which Labour now regularly runs behind Reform UK, the disappointing election results, mixed signals on the economy, U-turns, disarray in the parliamentary party and talk of 'regime change' (in No 10, not Tehran). There is obvious cause for Labour supporters to be disheartened, but some reasons to be cheerful too… How bad is the decline? It's not as bad as it looks. On the basis that, at the last general election, Keir Starmer converted Boris Johnson's 2019 Commons majority of 81 into a Labour overall majority of 174, it was indeed a stunning, historic performance – the best 'conversion' for any party since the Second World War. However, such a picture flatters to deceive. It was all done with fabulously tepid public support. Labour's vote share was 33.7 per cent, less than any other winning party in modern times, with only about one in five of the electorate expressing positive support. Starmer 's personal ratings were also modest as he went into the general election, certainly by comparison with, say, Tony Blair's stellar image in 1997. It's true that Labour poll ratings on the eve of the 2024 election were over-optimistic, and it's a little hazardous to compare real results with polls. But the overall point remains; Labour were never as loved as we might falsely imagine or discern from the eccentricities of the British electoral system. But is it still bad? Yes, in terms of a government emerging from a general election with a comfortable majority and sinking so low within a year of that result. But if we extend our timescale a little, it's also true that almost every such government suffers 'mid-term blues'. Blair's prolonged honeymoon after 1997 is a notable exception, and some administrations have gone into apparently terminal decline within about two to three years, but have recovered. The most spectacular post-war example would be how the Suez crisis in the autumn of 1956 wrecked Anthony Eden's government after he'd won an easy victory over Labour in May 1955. In that case, a change of leader helped preserve Tory rule the next time round. Another precipitous decline in reputation and standing – actually faster than Starmer's – followed John Major's election win in April 1992. His majority was slight (21 seats overall) but he'd beaten Labour by a solid seven percentage points. However, on 16 September 1992, 'Black Wednesday', sterling was forcibly ejected from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and the Tory party's reputation for economic competence was shredded with it. An impressive economic recovery followed, but with little beneficial effect on the divided Tories' poll ratings. Even at the time, it looked like the die was cast for Labour's triumph in 1997. Slightly exceptional must be Boris Johnson's squandering of the historic achievement he enjoyed in 2019. He made his own share of mistakes – overpromising, underdelivering, Partygate, sleaze and misleading parliament – but the effect of the Covid pandemic on the economy also had something to do with his mostly self-inflicted fall from grace. After all, his personal ratings peaked during the vaccine rollout in 2021, and he was gone a year or so later when party and public lost patience with him. Which prime minister got it right? Margaret Thatcher. Her government, elected in May 1979, had a decent mandate but fell into deep economic trouble and disarray by 1981 in the depths of recession. She was rescued by a divided opposition, economic recovery, the 'Falklands factor' and a certain steadiness of nerve. A landslide followed in 1983. What about Labour governments? They don't win that many elections. A close analogy would be Harold Wilson 's second administration; he was also elected with a landslide – a majority of 97, in 1966 – but by 1968, the pound had been devalued, his economic planning policy was dead, and the government's popularity had collapsed, with historically bad local election and by-election results. However, Wilson and his chancellor, Roy Jenkins, took Reeves-style tough decisions and went through the 'hard slog' of tax rises and spending cuts to stage a formidable recovery. They still had to sacrifice major legislation to backbench revolts (reform of the Lords and the trade unions respectively), but were not far off winning the 1970 general election. Instead, the victor was a Tory leader most had written off as hopelessly bad at the job. Any other comforts for Labour? Well, Starmer is only the third Labour leader to win a general election, and he's already been in office longer than Liz Truss, who breaks all records for political dive-bombing (albeit some distance past the previous general election). Starmer will probably surpass Alex Douglas-Home's 363 days in No 10 (1963-64), and if he makes it to the next general election, he'll beat Johnson, Callaghan, Heath and May for time in office. He might even win again to complete his 'decade of renewal'. A volatile electorate, the intervention of Reform UK and the Tories' extreme weakness might throw up all sorts of surprises. History proves that economic success can sometimes yield dramatic post-nadir electoral dividends. It might happen. If so, by 2033 or 2034, Starmer could look back on his current travails as mere 'noises off'. But not yet.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
France could take back Channel migrants under new deal
Sir Keir Starmer is in talks with France to return Channel migrants in a 'one in, one out' deal. Ministers are understood to hope that they can announce an agreement in principle when Emmanuel Macron, the French president, makes his state visit to the UK next month for the Anglo-French summit. Under the scheme, Britain would send back Channel migrants to France within weeks of their arrival in return for the UK taking asylum seekers from France. Home Office sources indicated that a returns scheme was a 'work in progress'. France has resisted such moves since the Dublin returns agreement was scrapped under Brexit and argued that any new agreement would have to be EU-wide. However, France opened the door to taking back Channel migrants for the first time after Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, said that it would 'send a clear message' to others planning to make the journey. France has also agreed to start intercepting migrant 'taxi boats' at sea for the first time after previously refusing to do so for fear of breaching maritime safety laws. The policy change driven through by Mr Retailleau is expected to be confirmed at the summit, which is taking place from July 8-10. The moves come after small boat crossings hit record levels with more than 18,000 migrants having reached the UK so far this year, up 43 per cent on the same point last year and the highest number since the first arrivals in 2018. The French have been open to a pilot, one-for-one scheme, which, if successful, could be extended EU-wide. The EU has previously rejected returns agreements that are only bilateral between two countries. A deal would be limited to the UK taking asylum seekers in France with family connections in Britain in exchange for a corresponding number of Channel migrants being returned to France. No 10 has, however, also been studying more ambitious returns schemes. Senior figures from the European Stability Initiative (ESI) have been invited to Downing Street twice in the past eight months to present their ideas. In their presentations, ESI proposed almost every Channel migrant would be returned to France within three to four weeks with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family connections to the UK. In return, the UK would agree to take in a capped number of asylum seekers from the EU of, for example, 20,000 a year under a time-limited scheme. They argued that without a near-100 per cent return rate, there would be no deterrent to crossings, predicting that as soon as it became clear there was no prospect of success, the incentive for migrants to make the dangerous, expensive journeys would evaporate. The ESI team argued that their scheme could be extended to a wider group of countries than just France. It also offered them a model for striking their own 'returns' deals with countries that were the source of illegal migrants. The EU has already backed the creation of return 'hubs' - temporary detention centres in non-EU countries where deported migrants would wait before being sent back. Sir Keir confirmed last month that the UK was also in talks with a 'number of countries' about return hubs for failed asylum seekers, which he described as a 'really important innovation'. Home Office sources said it was uncertain whether a deal would be formally announced at the Anglo-French summit. However, they will face pressure not to limit the number of migrants they can send back to France. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, warned that the scheme would fail unless all illegal migrants were denied asylum in the UK and removed from Britain. 'We pay the French half a billion pounds to wave the boats off from Calais, and in return we get a merry-go-round where the same number still come here,' he said. 'The French are failing to stop the boats at sea, failing to return them like the Belgians do, and now instead of demanding real enforcement, Labour are trying a 'one in, one out' gimmick. 'If Labour were serious, they would not have scrapped the returns deterrent the National Crime Agency said we needed – instead, they've surrendered our immigration system. Pathetic.'
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
With this surrender to Leftist rebels, Starmer's days as PM are numbered
It is now clear that Keir Starmer is making major concessions to his belligerent MPs to save his political career. A series of compromises have drastically diluted his landmark welfare Bill. This is not just a personal defeat. Starmerism, the final line of defence between the far-Left and the levers of power, is on the brink of collapse. Rachel Reeves and her Treasury colleagues will conclude Britain has little choice but to continue pursuing mass migration and increasing taxation. Spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence will become hopelessly unrealistic; even 3 per cent will be out of reach. All this is aside from the moral gravity of the failure to break the cycle of benefits dependency, or the impact it will have on those who study, strive and work hard to provide a better life for their families. Spending on welfare has ballooned in recent years. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. By the end of the decade the country could be spending as much on disability benefits as it currently does on transport, policing and social care put together. The pool of workers is shrinking, whilst spending rises inexorably. In the end, this country will go to the wall. Starmer's reforms didn't go far enough; the IFS estimates that the benefits bill would still rise by £8 billion by 2030. Yes, this row – the row that could derail Starmer's premiership – would not even come close to cutting the overall cost. A benefits surrender risks destroying the trust of the markets, triggering a Truss-style meltdown, not immediately but inevitably. Labour came into power on the promise of 'change'. When Reeves hiked taxes by £40 billion in a single fiscal event, she insisted she was 'fixing the foundations'. The Government has sought to distance itself from the 'fantasy' economics now being advanced by Reform UK. How can it reconcile this with a benefits climbdown, coming in the wake of all the other about-turns on other cuts? How can it claim to be taking 'tough' decisions for the 'greater good'? Labour's far-Left, fresh from derailing Starmer's reforms, will surely make the case for a shift towards socialist populism. If Labour cannot see off Nigel Farage through the successful pursuit of deep reform, then, according to some Labour MPs, the next best thing is to try and match his immigration populism with economic populism. Wealth taxes, pensions tax raids, second home levies – all will be on the table. A failure to push through benefit cuts will above all be a moral calamity. Britain is becoming a country that mollycoddles 'takers' whilst clobbering the 'makers'. Citizens who attempt to improve their lives are being dragged down, through excessive taxation, the neutering of private enterprise or the destruction of the private school system. We learnt this week that more than seven million people are now estimated to be higher rate taxpayers, a jump of more than two-fifths since just 2022-23. The permanently inactive are exalted as 'vulnerable' and 'deserving', a status that renders them untouchable. Serial welfare recipients are relentlessly given the benefit of the doubt, yet the self-employed and those with assets are treated by the system as potential tax dodgers. We should of course cushion the most vulnerable in our society. We should also make the distinction between the respectable working class and the dysfunctional underclass. On a recent trip to the North East, residents from one rough estate told me of the local children who aspire to become drug dealers and believe that their future is not determined by their own decisions but rather merely by 'luck'. Their parents are too proud to visit the estate's work support charity but are at ease tapping benefits from an impersonal bureaucracy. Those like Diane Abbott who preach that 'there is nothing moral about cutting benefits' should be made to conduct an in-depth tour of these places. They would see the destructive impact of uncontrolled welfarism on the integrity of families, the self-respect of adults, and the dreams of children. Starmer's failure was not inevitable. Labour could have made a solid centre-Left case for reform. It should be possible to cut benefits while also treating genuinely disabled people with greater humanity, not least by bringing back rigorous in-person assessments. It could have glanced at this week's British Social Attitudes Survey, which found that less than half (45 per cent) of people support more spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work. Nearly a third now agree it is too easy to claim disability benefits. And there is rising evidence that benefits cuts can actually be a vote winner. After a brief softening of public opinion during the Covid lockdown, polling expert James Frayne has recently picked up on a hardening of attitudes to welfare and a growing perception that benefits do not reach the working class. Rather than hiding behind Old Left platitudes about the 'dignity of work', Starmer could have spoken bluntly about the phenomenon of people claiming benefits based on false beliefs and statements about their mental health. The Prime Minister's failure to articulate these truths only serves to embolden his opponents. As one told me: 'I've heard no minister explain why the budget of the United Kingdom should be balanced on the backs of disabled people. And if you can't make the argument maybe you're doing the wrong thing.'
