Next week marks the first anniversary of Labour entering government 鈥 though you could be forgiven for forgetting. Not just because of the distracting spectre of World War Three but because this now bears little resemblance to a one-year administration.
The mood is instead reminiscent of the dark days of Rishi Sunak鈥檚 government 鈥 when the prime minister struggled to impose his will on a quarrelsome party 鈥 or of late-era Tony Blair when three-figure rebellions became the norm. Despite frantic phone calls by cabinet ministers, 126 Labour MPs have signed a wrecking amendment to the welfare bill (including 71 of the new intake, once depicted as comically loyal 鈥淪tarmtroopers鈥). Threats of deselection have proven no deterrent to MPs who already expect to lose their seats and 鈥渨ant to leave the Commons standing tall and proud鈥 in the words of one rebel.
The scale of the revolt has stunned plenty in Westminster but the warning signs have been clear for months. From the moment the government announced its intention to cut health and disability benefits by 拢5bn, outrage and upset spread far beyond the 鈥渦sual suspects鈥 (as ministers refer to the likes of the Socialist Campaign Group).
鈥淭oo many of the proposals have been driven by the need for short-term savings to meet fiscal rules, rather than long-term reform,鈥 warned the Resolution Foundation, the body previously led by Labour minister Torsten Bell, back in March. 鈥淭he result risks being a major income shock for millions of low-income households.鈥
Here is precisely why so many Labour MPs have revolted (370,000 current personal independence payment claimants and 430,000 future ones would lose an average of 拢4,500 per year). Government officials now identify the failure to make a 鈥渕oral鈥 case for the bill as the defining problem. And the cuts were transparently driven by the desire for savings. As one Labour MP puts it, 鈥渢he magician鈥檚 cloak fell鈥 when Rachel Reeves added an extra 拢500m of cuts just a day before her Spring Statement (after a worse-than-expected OBR forecast).
But the problem is not simply that the moral argument was not made 鈥 it is that Labour rebels don鈥檛 believe any such case exists. Indeed, attempts by ministers to convince them to the contrary have only stiffened their resolve. A party that often defines its moral purpose as reducing poverty cannot accept a bill forecast to achieve the opposite (an additional 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, would be left in relative poverty).
No 10 is now planning concessions to avert a government defeat when parliament votes next Tuesday (83 Labour rebels would be enough to deny Starmer victory). 鈥淭here will be a ladder for people to climb down,鈥 one cabinet minister tells me.
In the meantime, a vicious internal blame game has begun. Reeves and No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney are those often singled out by critics 鈥 the two figures who Starmer outsourced economic and political strategy to.
Reeves is accused of 鈥渓acking political antennae鈥 and of failing to learn the lessons of the winter fuel debacle (when Labour similarly underestimated the revolt that benefit cuts would unleash). 鈥淒on鈥檛 be surprised if she鈥檚 gone at the next cabinet reshuffle,鈥 one senior party figure remarks (though Starmer has so far remained conspicuously loyal).
McSweeney, critics say, has pursued a Reform-focused electoral strategy that has alienated Labour from once-loyal supporters 鈥 with a 鈥渇orgotten flank鈥 defecting to the Greens and the Lib Dems 鈥 and has adopted an 鈥渋mperious鈥 party management style that has created a deep disconnect between No 10 and backbenchers.
There is a well-established pattern in British politics of blaming the courtiers rather than the king 鈥 and it is one that some in Labour inveigh against. 鈥淗ow many heads have to roll before people remember who the PM is?鈥 one previously loyal MP asks (it was once Sue Gray who was identified as the root of the government鈥檚 woes). 鈥淧eople have got to start laying the lack of leadership at Keir鈥檚 feet.鈥
By this account, Labour鈥檚 routine stumbles and ever more frequent U-turns are symptoms of a far deeper malaise 鈥 a Prime Minister who has lacked direction from the moment he entered Downing Street. In one year, Starmer has managed to use up an impressive number of his political lives. The question even some cabinet ministers are already asking is how many he has left.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here