Morning Call: Inside Labour’s welfare revolt
Keir Starmer’s political authority is now on the line.
Good morning, it’s Megan.
Keir Starmer is facing the biggest rebellion of his career to date over the government’s proposed welfare reforms. As of this morning, almost a third of Labour MPs have put their names to an amendment brought by Meg Hillier which could stop Liz Kendall’s welfare bill from making it through the Commons. Below, I take a look at how yesterday’s events unfolded and what this could mean for the government.
In the 24 hours since Hillier tabled an amendment which aimed to cancel Kendall’s welfare reforms, triggering the largest rebellion of Starmer’s premiership, discontent among backbenchers has grown. Last night, almost a third of Labour MPs – 124 of them – had signed Hillier’s amendment. There are whisperings in government that the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill could be delayed past its scheduled 1 July vote or even dropped altogether. None of this is good for the government.
Kendall’s reforms have always been controversial; they include proposals to make it harder for some disabled people to claim Personal Independence Payments (Pip) and changes to the Universal Credit Criteria so that anyone under 22 will be unable to claim it. The cuts will save the government £5bn, but approximately 800,000 disabled people are expected to lose out by 2030. The government has framed the reforms as aiming to get Britain working again; but many of those who will now lose out on Pip are already in work. As one MP, who previously told me they would vote against the reforms but was not part of the original 108, a member of staff in their office who will be hit by the cuts may not be able to continue working without being able to access Pip.
Concern over the cuts has been simmering on the backbenches since they were announced. Many of the MPs who signed the amendment have tried to express their opposition to ministers or government officials but were ignored. Some spoke out publicly. A lot of those included in this cohort have privately said they felt ignored or disrespected by the party leadership (one told me they are frequently told off by No 10 for actions which they themselves deem to be minor). It is unsurprising, then, that many of them feature on this list.
Yesterday was the first time that a coherent rebellion was organised. Gone are the days of the traditional giant rebellion WhatsApp group (and Steve Baker bitmojis). Instead, Labour’s welfare rebels opted for a more disparate approach, organising via private individual conversations, with individual MPs rounding up the numbers. It was thought that this method was less likely to lead to leaking and had more of a chance of taking No 10 and the cabinet by surprise. And they were right; yesterday’s amendment sent the government into chaos.
In the hours after it was announced, some MPs began receiving phone calls from senior government figures warning them that a major rebellion next Tuesday could trigger a general election. There were reports that voting for amendment was being framed by some in the government as a confidence vote in the Prime Minister himself. There were reports that some MPs were being threatened with deselection if they voted for the bill. (More surprising was that as these reports surfaced, the number of MPs who publicly put their names to the amendment actually went up). This was later rebutted by Starmer, who denied that the amendment would be a confidence vote in the government. It later emerged that those making these calls to Labour MPs were very much going off script.
Senior cabinet figures, including Rachel Reeves, met with rebel MPs throughout the afternoon in an attempt to win them over and warn them of the wider consequences of voting down this bill. Simon Opher, the Labour MP for Stroud, met with the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, at 5.30pm. The meeting was “very benign” Opher told me, and Streeting seemed “quite resigned”. Some MPs, particularly those on the left of the party (such as the Labour MP for Grangemouth and Alloa, Brian Leishman) were never approached by members of the government, likely because they thought there was no point; these MPs will vote against the bill whatever happens.
Despite the government’s best efforts to talk the rebels down, the future of Kendall’s welfare bill still hangs in the balance. This is serious for the government. As the number of Labour MPs putting their name to the amendment slowly ticks up (not to mention the number who have also expressed private support) it will become increasingly unlikely that they can get this bill through without opposition support. Kemi Badenoch has already offered hers. She told Starmer she would whip the Conservative party in favour of the bill if he can guarantee to commit to reducing welfare spending, getting people off benefits and into work and, most importantly, not raising taxes in the Budget (the last one is highly unlikely).
These reforms have almost £5bn of cuts baked into them. If the government cannot get them through, it could shake market confidence in Labour’s whole fiscal project (it will also mean this money will need to be found elsewhere). There are still six days before the government’s vote next Tuesday (three of which coincide with Glastonbury festival), but the scale of this rebellion is still growing. Whether or not it was No 10’s intention, the idea that this vote is a confidence vote in Keir Starmer’s government is unlikely to dissipate: the damage has already been done.
Megan’s picks
Andrew Marr writes this week’s cover story on why Keir Starmer’s government can’t survive another crisis.
“His face ablaze with a suntan like a bank holiday weekend”: Nicholas Harris sketches Thomas Skinner’s appearance appearance at Monday’s Now and England conference.
A new Corbyn-led party would win 10 per cent of the vote: George Eaton reports on how the left is organising.
And for something different. What makes good sex? Kate Mossman reviews a new book by a former Hollywood intimacy coordinator.
Mailshot
Guardian: Starmer says welfare cut vote happening Tuesday amid growing revolt
Times: “Daddy” Trump sorted out Middle East, says Nato chief
Rafael Behr: Trump is angry with a world that won’t give him easy deals
Thomas L Friedman: If This Mideast War Is Over, Get Ready for Some Interesting Politics
Polly Mackenzie: This is how you get the sick back to work
And with that…
Let me know what you think about today’s Morning Call by hitting reply. My thanks to Sydney Diack and George Monaghan. Have a good day, George will be with you tomorrow.
Perhaps I am really missing the point here, but it has just never been clear to me how it was deemed wise to begin reforming the welfare system by targeting the most vulnerable instantly. In crushing the left to gain power have Starmer, McSweeney et. al. also crushed their own sense of humanity, empathy and fairness?
On the odd occasion that Keir Starmer finds a moment to mention his proposals to change PIP eligibility, he talks about it being a 'moral case', but all he has to say on the subject is about the need to encourage claimants into work. Ok, but where is the moral case for plunging 1000s of vulnerable people into poverty, taking away the degree of independence that PIP has provided? And today, he refers to the opposition coming from many labour MPs as 'noises off'. Get a grip, Sir!