Last week, Keir Starmer infamously dismissed the protests of his MPs concerned about the government’s flagship welfare bill as mere “noises off”. Such criticisms, the prime minister’s telling implied, reflected the inevitable but manageable friction generated by far-reaching reform.
As had been the case during his tenure in opposition, the revolt reinforced his resolve. Starmer interpreted those murmurs of mutiny as a timely opportunity to reeducate his MPs — and impress upon them the standards, the seriousness, he expects of his “changed” Labour Party.
Simultaneously, reports suggested prospective rebels were being threatened with the sharpest of sticks available to the Whips’ Office: a veto on ever occupying ministerial office, suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), and even deselection as a candidate in time for the next general election.
But today, a few days and some significant concessions later, Starmer is scrambling to reestablish his authority. Hours away from a vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, the “noises” — by some accounts a cacophony — are very much “on”.
The prime minister is braced for the largest rebellion of his premiership.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Professor Philip Cowley, the go-to authority on parliamentary revolts, has revealed the precedents Labour’s welfare rebels are today seeking to reset. 16 (MPs) is the largest backbench mutiny Starmer has suffered since entering office — that came on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Further relevant numerical benchmarks include 47, the largest rebellion in Tony Blair’s first year as prime minister over plans to cut benefits to single parents; 67, the largest rebellion Tony Blair suffered in his first parliament over the incapacity benefit (1999); and 72, the largest rebellion of Labour MPs on the second reading of a (Labour) government bill. That latter record is shared by the respective revolts over the National Service Act 1948 and Higher Education Act 2004 (tuition fees).
Other records cited by Cowley look safe as things stand. 91 is both the largest rebellion in the first year of any government since the war (1975 Civil List Act), as well as the largest rebellion by government MPs at second reading since 1945 (House of Lords Reform Bill 2012). In 2003, on parliamentary approval for the invasion of Iraq, 139 MPs delivered the largest backbench rebellion of any governing party since the Corn Laws.
Returning swiftly to the present: 39 Labour MPs have signed a new reasoned amendment (a bill-killing device) to the government’s welfare legislation. But leading rebel Rachel Maskell claimed this morning that there are “so many more” MPs prepared to vote down the welfare bill who are done with the reasoned amendment approach (via the BBC).
It comes after Dame Meg Hillier withdrew her reasoned amendment to the proposed legislation, which was signed by over 120 MPs. The Treasury select committee chair outlined her support for the proposed legislation this morning — the clearest signal yet that the government’s concessions, announced late last week, have had an impact.
In all, at least 83 Labour MPs would need to vote against the bill alongside every opposition MP to defeat the government, which boasts a working majority of 165. (The former figure will likely be complicated by the prospect of abstentions from Labour MPs unwilling to actively vote down a government bill).
Yesterday evening, Kemi Badenoch confirmed she would whip Conservative MPs to vote against. Badenoch believes the bill’s measures do not go far enough. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party (SNP), the Green Party and Jeremy Corbyn’s Independent Alliance have all tabled their own reasoned amendments.
Plainly, the government’s concessions did not go far enough in assuaging rebel sentiment to ensure, beyond any doubt, the bill’s safe passage. The revolt was not sapped of its potency. And what is more: the government, by most accounts, went backwards yesterday as ministers set out its case.
As part of the government’s original, pre-U-turn proposals, it announced a new review led by widely respected disability minister Sir Stephen Timms into the personal independence payment (Pip) assessment process. But MPs spent Monday questioning the rationale for the review, due to be completed by autumn 2026, given the government is asking MPs to confirm changes to Pip as part of the welfare bill.
At present, Pip assessments involve questions about tasks like preparing and eating food, washing and getting dressed. Each is scored from zero — for no difficulty, to 12 — for the most severe. Under the government’s proposals, new claimants would have to score at least four points for one activity to qualify for the benefit, instead of qualifying for support across a broad range of tasks.
Rebel MPs have raised concerns that ministers risk creating a “two-tier” and even a “three-tier” system with their reforms. They note that there will be claimants already assessed according to the current system; claimants assessed according to the new system, outlined in the welfare bill; and claimants assessed, potentially, according to a future system created after the Timms review.
MPs gave voice to this concern in the commons yesterday. Highlighting the allegedly illogical sequencing, Labour chair of the women and equalities committee Sarah Owen queried: “What is the logic of making changes to future claimants before producing the Timms review?”
There is also the matter of a review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, into what employers and government can do to increase employment of disabled people. That does not report until the autumn.
Anneliese Dodds, who attended cabinet as international development minister before her resignation, yesterday asked ministers to “expedite” that review and ensure it includes “disabled people more meaningfully”.
Also yesterday, the government’s own impact assessment revealed 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty by 2030 as a result of the cuts. While that figure is down from the 250,000 estimated under the original plans, it formed the basis of Maskell’s contribution.
She said: “I cannot countenance sick and disabled people being denied support to enable them to be independent in the future, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. Nor can disabled people across our country support these measures.
“It is a matter of conscience.”
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Moreover, moments before the commons statement, Debbie Abrahams suggested to ITV News that the rebels hadn’t actually secured what they wanted from their negotiations with No 10.
Abrahams commented: “The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn’t actually what we thought we had negotiated… and there are some issues around that… we’re not quite there yet.”
It is also relevant that work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall’s performance in the commons yesterday — her big sell before the debate today — was somewhat underwhelming. In response to a question posed by Vicky Foxcroft, the ex-government whip who resigned last month over the welfare proposals, Kendall issued an answer that required immediate clarification from her department.
The detail-oriented questioning from leading figures on the backbenches, especially that of the select committee chairs, was not always matched by those answers relayed at the despatch box.
As a result, the debate remains politically unsettled as MPs prepare to vote on the proposals this evening (the relevant divisions are expected to begin at 7.00 pm). The messy nature of the debate reflects the unconvincing and arguably incoherent arguments put to MPs by Downing Street over recent weeks. The whips and other senior officials have singularly failed to convince rebels of the moral worth of their measures.
Ahead of the spring statement in March, the bill was conceived as a plan to address concerns about the public finances. Rachel Reeves’ back-and-forth with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which resulted in the chancellor pursuing further savings, appeared to reflect this imperative. In turn, ministers have been forced to reverse engineer a positive case for the reforms — and it is on this point specifically that Downing Street has come unstuck.
The debate has opened rifts between No 10 and the PLP at large, amid reports of heavy-handed whipping tactics and a pervasive air of dismissiveness. Indeed, the debate paints a picture of a dismissive, distant and dysfunctional Downing Street operation — and of a parliamentary party suddenly disinclined to accept its diktats.
Even if the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill passes, which remains the collective expectation of Westminster, the damage wreaked by this saga will not be easily undone.
The power balance in the Labour Party has been reshaped, possibly irrevocably, by the developments of recent weeks.
Josh Self is editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here and X 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.
