Keir Starmer marked his first year in power by overcoming his biggest backbench rebellion, after Labour MPs almost derailed the government's attempts to reform the welfare system.
So what? It is a pyrrhic victory. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will move onto its next parliamentary stage. But Labour now has a fiscal hole to fill, and in the meantime the government has
- pitted its own MPs against each other;
- eroded its authority and credibility; and
- climbed down on the major part of the reform.
By the numbers. In the end, the bill passed relatively easily.
Ayes: 335;
Noes: 260;
Majority: 75.
It's hard to pinpoint how many non-voters absented themselves on purpose, but Labour MPs told The Observer it was the safest route for those who feared retaliation from No 10. A more revealing number might be the 42 Labour MPs who voted for the rebel amendment, tabled by backbencher Rachael Maskell, which would have killed the bill had it passed.
Backfoot. Caught out by the scale of opposition, ministers spent the best part of the weekend locked in negotiations with rebel Labour MPs. On Monday, the work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall attempted to win over holdouts. But her dispatch box performance had the opposite effect. As rebels dug their heels in, a final concession was made at the eleventh hour.
Backlog. The government agreed to delay changes to personal independent payments (PIP), the main target of backbench opposition, until after a review of the system. Led by the disabilities minister, Stephen Timms, this review is due in autumn 2026. Any changes are likely to land in 2027, which differed from the timing Kendall had given MPs just hours before.
Backfire. The bill will face more scrutiny and likely more opposition next week and throughout its passage through parliament. The question is not whether it has caused damage to the government, but how much. Those on the receiving end include
- Kendall, who spearheaded the bill;
- Starmer and his right-hand man Morgan McSweeney; and
- the chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has been criticised for centring the proposals around balancing the books, rather than the supposed rationale of welfare reform.
One minister suggested the whole saga might prompt a pre-summer recess reshuffle, although conceded that either rewarding loyalists or seeking to neuter rebels could lead to further issues.
Backlash. The entire process has caused a wave of unhappiness that won't be tempered quickly. Complaints that Starmer has not met members of the 2024 intake may sound superficial, but speak to a broader problem about party discipline. Several MPs, including ministers, told The Observer that whips had long known about the scale of opposition to the bill.
Backbone. Senior MPs including select committee chairs Meg Hillier, Debbie Abrahams and Helen Hayes forced the U-turn but are not normally troublemakers. They had specific concerns with the policy, particularly around changes to the points system for awarding PIP. These have been partially mitigated, but the net result of government concessions is that the bill
- won't save the £5 billion that Reeves hoped to recoup through the reforms; and
- won't satisfy MPs who think that the welfare system is no longer sustainable.
Backstory. This caps off a difficult period for Starmer, who will now find it even more difficult to avoid tax rises and is still smarting from last month's U-turn on his winter fuel policy. A major takeaway from yesterday is that backbenchers have again forced their leader to back down.
Backbite. Anger is not just being directed at Downing Street. The bill has exacerbated divisions within the party already exposed by the free vote on assisted dying. One supportive MP said that his colleagues were "giving the Tories an absolute gift". Another added: "Our political class is so deeply unserious." A critical MP hit back at "the boys in No 10".
Back to the future… Some Labour MPs point to Tony Blair's first term as proof that a prime minister can endure challenging times without it seeping into the wider psyche. Others note that 2025 is not 1997. Starmer is not Blair, his financial inheritance is not the same, and the political repercussions may be hard to shake.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario