Labour’s welfare rebels have broken cover today in a remarkable challenge to the government’s legislative programme and the prime minister’s political authority.
Last night, 108 Labour MPs — led by 13 select committee chairs — went public in a bid to thwart the government’s £5 billion package of welfare cuts at their first parliamentary hurdle.
The MPs have backed a reasoned amendment to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. It stresses “the need for… reform of the social security system” and expresses general agreement “with the government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work” — but it is otherwise coruscating in its criticism.
The amendment objects: “[The bill’s] provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers.”
It adds: “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.”
A Rubicon has been crossed: Labour rebels, several of whom are instinctively loyal, have organised to obstruct what has come to be regarded as the government’s flagship bill.
Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, is among the amendment’s signatories. The amendment is in the name of Meg Hillier, a widely respected former minister (under Gordon Brown) and chair of the Treasury select committee.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
There is no mistake here. The rebels well understand their threat: the government has a working majority of 165. That means 83 Labour MPs would need to join every opposition MP to vote in favour of this amendment for the bill to be stopped.
If their nerve holds, the 108 Labour rebels could kill the government’s welfare bill at its second reading. The vote is set for next week.
This rebel rhapsody follows Vicky Foxcroft’s resignation as a government whip over the proposed legislation. In her farewell missive, released Thursday, the former shadow minister for disabled people commented: “I do not believe that cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the health element of Universal Credit should be part of the solution.”
In response, shadow culture secretary Lisa Nandy said she was “not” detecting signs of widespread rebellion. How wrong that assessment was.
There is still a great deal to be decided. The rebellion, interestingly, gives Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party a choice. If the official opposition opts to reject the legislation, the government could well lose the vote. (Recent musings from shadow ministers suggest the bill does “not go far enough”).
And yet, a Conservative gambit to back the bill could arguably prove more crippling. Government whips would not be able to squeeze the rebels by presenting their alleged act of apostasy as a gift to the Conservatives. Rather, Badenoch and co would be wandering into the “Aye” lobby alongside Labour’s payroll vote.
Badenoch, for the first time as opposition leader, has an opportunity to make a decision of genuine political substance. She has two possible ways of inflicting damage on the government: reject the bill and trust the rebels will stand fast, or back it to sow greater unrest in Labour ranks.
Keir Starmer, cornered and with pressure mounting, also has a choice. It is simple but tortuous: hold firm and test rebel resolve, or U-turn again.
The former path could see the government double down on some of the ruthless whipping tactics rumoured in recent weeks. According to some accounts, MPs have been threatened with suspension and even deselection. To suggest this strategy would inspire ill-feeling and resentment, even among non-rebels, drastically understates the matter.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Such an approach would reflect the government’s weakness: a wild overcompensation after Starmer instigated a political argument in his party, and failed to win it. Starmer and Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, had sold the cuts as “moral” and “Labour choices”.
Kendall addressed MPs at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party last night. Making her case for the legislation, Kendall said: “Our plans are rooted in fairness — for those who need support and for taxpayers.
“They are about ensuring the welfare state survives, so there is always a safety net for those who need it.
“They’re about putting proper safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable.
“But above all they are about our belief that everyone can fulfil their potential and live their hopes and dreams when — collectively — we provide them with real opportunities and support.”
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, said yesterday that “there will be no U-turn — we’re voting on it next week.”
After months of questionable governance, this is another saga that will degrade Starmer’s authority — in his party and in parliament.
Recent soundings from Downing Street suggest the prime minister, despite his recent record, will not budge on his government’s welfare cuts.
A readout of cabinet this morning, courtesy of No 10, relays Starmer’s position: “The prime minister opened cabinet by setting out that the government has a clear mission to rebuild Britain, fix what is broken and restore hope — and that requires hard, honest choices.
“He said nowhere is that clearer than in the welfare system the government inherited.”
It adds: “[Starmer] underlined this is part of the government’s plan for change to make life better for working people.”
Liz Kendall, in her contribution, said the reforms are “about creating a society rooted in fairness, with strong safeguards to protect the most vulnerable.”
“She said that there is nothing responsible about denying disabled people who want to work the opportunity and support to do so.”
Starmer has signalled that he will refuse to shift. That stance puts pressure on the rebel position. But masquerading as strong and authoritative will not reorganise reality — or disguise the manifest frailty of Starmer’s standing.
The prime minister could merely be ensuring his government suffers the maximum political punishment next week, if rebel resolve holds.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
