Will Keir Starmer lose a fight with his own MPs over welfare cuts?

Independent

6 hours ago

Some 108 Labour MPs – about a quarter of the parliamentary party – have signed up to an amendment to the government's welfare bill that could effectively stop planned cuts to personal independence payments (PIP).
A rebellion on that scale could be enough to eliminate the usual majority, defeat the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, and humiliate the government. A vote on the crucial second reading of the bill is due next Tuesday, and time is running out for ministers to salvage their policy.
What's a 'reasoned amendment'?
One that rejects a proposed piece of legislation, listing reasons. Despite the name, it wrecks the passage of a bill completely.
Are these rebels just the usual suspects?
No. There aren't enough of them on the left these days to cause serious damage to anything, and the fact that so many senior backbenchers, chairs of select committees and the like, plus new, usually loyal, members from the 2024 intake, are in open revolt indicates widespread disquiet.
How big?
The government might still win a vote on the bill, depending on how the opposition parties behave, and how many Labour rebels actually vote against it on the day (rather than abstain), but it would certainly slash the usual majority. However, any likely loss would be nowhere near the historic Commons defeats on Brexit that Theresa May suffered. Whatever the Commons voting, the resignation of senior ministers, maybe even in the cabinet, in protest, would be an even more significant moment.
Why rebel?
Politics and policy. The dissidents have been emboldened by the successful campaign to make the government U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and, prospectively, removing the two-child cap on child benefit (subject of an unsuccessful revolt last year). Labour MPs are alarmed by the party's poor poll ratings and dismal performance in the local elections and Runcorn by-election, and so fear the rise of Reform UK.
In policy terms, or principle, they also doubt the wisdom of the move to restrict PIP. In the words of the amendment, it is: 'Because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because the government's own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these provisions, including 50,000 children.'
But doesn't the government have a huge majority?
Yes, but that can make it more attractive for an individual MP to rebel – if you think your vote won't matter anyway, or, as in this case, where the rebellion is so popular that the whips can't control it and punish the misbehaviour. You can't realistically take the whip off 108 government backbenchers and committee chairs, which would turn a government with one of the most commanding majorities in history into a minority administration.
What are the government's options?
It could simply abandon most of the PIP reforms, leaving only the cost-free popular items, such as the 'right to try' a job without having to risk losing benefits or reapply for PIP. That would probably be too big a step, if it can possibly be avoided, given various other U-turns in progress. If they did do this, Rachel Reeves would need to find £5bn, most likely in cuts elsewhere, and lose even more of her authority.
Ministers will certainly try and compromise about the reductions in PIP eligibility, and could whittle away the size of the rebellion by delaying the implementation until, say, a successful pilot scheme, by publishing more impact assessments, and by better consultations with people affected.
As a last, desperate resort, the government could appeal to the Conservatives to support the bill or at least abstain; Tony Blair had to resort to such tactics over the Iraq war and academy schools. Kemi Badenoch says she doesn't wish to alert Labour to her plans in advance. It's a possibility.
What does the public think?
It's more divided than on the winter fuel payments, but generally suspicious that restricting PIP isn't about helping people into work but simply saving money – a view shared by many MPs.
Why has it come to this?
Ministers have lost the argument. Keir Starmer, Reeves and Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, have failed to persuade colleagues it's not mainly about the public finances, but intended to materially improve the lives of vulnerable people in every sense. Kendall says a 'fairer society' is one 'where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot' – but this all started in the context of a fiscal crisis. Pat McFadden, cabinet office minister, also makes the overarching argument that: 'I don't think we can sit back and just watch the number of people and the cost to the country increase year on year, without asking the question: 'Can we do more to help more of those people into work?''.
Is this the return of 'chaos and confusion'?
That's the danger – you look out of control of events. Labour in recent years made much of the indiscipline and indecision of the Conservatives, but since the general election, that has rebounded somewhat. The missteps and blunders over the last year speak for themselves. Voters tend not to be impressed by governments that can't get their policies implemented, and political parties that are openly divided don't win elections. With so much at stake, there must be a compromise. The question is how messy it will be. It wasn't supposed to be like this.