Keir Starmer is discovering that politics is a rough trade in which you don鈥檛 get any thanks 鈥 not even from your own side, let alone the voters.
Labour MPs will mark the first anniversary of their leader鈥檚 general election victory next week by mounting their biggest challenge to his authority. Some 122 of them 鈥 more than enough to defeat the government鈥檚 working majority of 165 鈥 have signed an amendment opposing the welfare bill鈥檚 proposed cuts to disability benefits. A funny way to say 鈥淭hanks for the landslide, Keir,鈥 isn鈥檛 it?
Yet the prime minister only has himself to blame. He is belatedly making the case for welfare reform to his mutinous backbenchers, but everyone knows the bill is about 拢5bn of panicky, crude cuts to eligibility for disability and sickness benefits to enable Rachel Reeves to stick within her fiscal rules.
She scrambled the package together ahead of her spring statement in March. Her cover was blown when fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to 鈥渟core鈥 some of the savings towards meeting her rules, and she had to make last-minute savings of 拢500m on universal credit. Crucially, ministers had not prepared the ground with Labour backbenchers.
Starmer insists that next Tuesday鈥檚 crunch vote will go ahead, but the government is in panic mode. Cabinet loyalists are ringing round the rebels, claiming the vote is an issue of confidence (which Starmer denied). But the frantic arm-twisting isn鈥檛 working. There is safety in numbers, and yesterday the number of Labour MPs who had signed a hostile amendment that would, in effect, kill the bill at its second reading rose from 108 to 122. They rightly sense the wind in their sails after forcing a U-turn on the pensioners鈥 winter fuel allowance.
Even some cabinet ministers think privately that Starmer will have to back down, or at the very least postpone next week鈥檚 vote to avoid a humiliating defeat. Downing Street was surprised when so many Labour backbenchers crossed a line from private grumbling to public dissent by signing the amendment. It shouldn鈥檛 have been, and now there鈥檚 a familiar blame game as No 10 and government whips point the finger at each other.
The mood among Labour backbenchers is black. They complain that the government鈥檚 efforts to sell the changes have been woeful. One told me: 鈥淚t鈥檚 been shambolic, a presentational disaster. At one briefing for us, they didn鈥檛 say, 鈥榃e will protect disabled people who will never be able to work.鈥 It should have been point one, not added as an afterthought.鈥
As I鈥檝e pointed out, the 拢1bn of back-to-work support trumpeted by ministers is not what it seems, as it does not reach that amount until 2029-30 and is not yet fully funded.
Critics claim that No 10 strategists saw the cuts as a way to define Starmer against the hard left. But Starmer has broken rule one for Labour leaders: never unite the party鈥檚 soft and hard left factions against you. The rebels are not the disappointed former and ex-future ministers portrayed by some loyalists. Many opponents are rebelling for the first time, more out of sorrow than anger, and accept Starmer鈥檚 belatedly offered 鈥渕oral case鈥 that the party must reform a 鈥渂roken鈥 welfare system that traps one in 10 working-age adults on disability or sickness benefits.
About 40 rebels are 2024 newbies 鈥 carefully vetted for loyalty as parliamentary candidates by Team Starmer 鈥 who are prepared to sacrifice the hope of promotion. But many came into politics to oppose 鈥淭ory austerity鈥, including welfare cuts: it鈥檚 in their DNA, just as Euroscepticism was in the bloodstream of the Conservative MPs who destabilised successive leaders.
There are no easy options for Starmer. Backing down completely would look pusillanimous and be yet another U-turn. Reeves would have a 拢5bn hole in her spending plans, and the financial markets might wobble at a government that looked unable to take tough decisions to balance the books.
In theory, Starmer could try to rely on the votes of the Tory opposition to see off the Labour rebellion. But Kemi Badenoch is offering him a poisoned chalice: her party would support the government if Starmer promised he would not raise taxes in the autumn. It鈥檚 a rare 鈥渨in-win鈥 for the Tories: if Starmer relies on Tory backing, Labour鈥檚 divisions will deepen. If he rejects her offer, as he will, the Tories will shout that the Budget will raise taxes.
Starmer could postpone the vote, and speculation is rising at Westminster today that this will happen. He could try to come up with a compromise package by the autumn. The downside: a PM who seems to be running scared of his backbenchers. A nuclear option would be to make the savings part of the October Budget, which would formally make them a confidence issue. But that would create permanent enemies among Labour MPs.
If Starmer doesn鈥檛 make a tactical retreat, some ministers and ministerial aides will probably resign, deepening the crisis. A compromise of softening the impact of the cuts to personal independence payments might also look weak, and would inevitably be portrayed by Tory newspapers as a U-turn. But it鈥檚 the least bad option, and Starmer should take it.