‘They didn't think we'd have the guts': How Labour rebels forced the government's welfare U-turn

The Guardian

a day ago

The Conservative shadow cabinet minister looked more cheerful than at any point in the 12 months since the general election. 'How did they get into such a mess?', they asked. 'What are they going to do?'
The answer was revealed a couple of days laterwhen Keir Starmer and his ministers made a series of emergency concessions on their flagship welfare reform programme, to prevent the otherwise far-greater ignominy of the programme being voted down in the House of Commons.
U-turns of various sorts are an inevitability in government; the skill lies in how elegantly you can perform them. And this week's eventual cave-in to backbench Labour pressure – formally announced by a Downing Street statement after midnight on Thursday – was very, very messy indeed.
To return to the shadow minister's gleeful query, how did it end up like this? The narrative will depend on who you ask. But a common thread, even among some in No 10, is the idea of a government worryingly disconnected from its own MPs.
From the moment in March that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, first set out consultative proposals to overhaul welfare payments, it was evident that a large number of backbenchers had worries about elements of the plan.
Notably, the green paper set out a significant tightening of the eligibility for personal independence payments (Pips), which help those with long-term illness or disability, causing concern not only among MPs but also numerous charities.
But armed with a 150-plus Commons majority – and what felt to some MPs like an almost messianic insistence on turning around an increasingly unaffordable social security system – Downing Street ploughed on.
'This has happened because of an arrogance from the top,' one veteran Labour MP said. 'On the day of the green paper, the whips were saying they thought a maximum of 10 people would actually rebel. They were laughing at us.
'They didn't think anyone would have the guts from the new intake. But they [new Labour MPs] have been doing their own organising.'
As it turned out, there was a lot of organising, from all sides of the parliamentary party. With Starmer largely preoccupied with other subjects – including the G7 summit in Canada and a change of course over a national inquiry into grooming gangs – MPs were taking action.
The crunch point arrived on Monday with the publication of an amendment intended to kill off the welfare bill at its second reading in the Commons on 1 July. Initially signed by 108 Labour MPs, it soon had the backing of more than 120.
These were not the perennial malcontents primarily from the Labour left – the 'maximum of 10' so dismissively summed up by the party whip. Signatories included a string of senior backbenchers who chair select committees, and numerous 2024-intake MPs.
How did dozens of hand-picked, newly arrived backbenchers, once thought so loyal they were dubbed 'Starmtroopers', find themselves within a year on the brink of a rebellion that could have defeated the government?
For many, the problem dates back to the very early days of the parliament and a kind of vicious discipline that resulted in seven MPs being suspended from the Labour party over a vote on the two-child benefit cap. Three of those MPs remain exiled today.
Even loyal MPs were under orders never to submit amendments – or to make their views known publicly on any subject. 'It was like student politics,' said one. 'Keep your mouth shut and maybe we'll let you on the entertainment committee.'
'Arrogant' is the word MPs are using most of all. It was the blithe assumption by whips and No 10 that any rebellion would fold that sent many over the edge.
'They tried to treat the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] like naughty children,' one MP said. 'They all did what they were meant to do and raised the issue privately, and then got totally ignored.'
Another repeated charge within the party is that even when its hierarchy did recognise the disquiet, the response tended to be either complacency or high-handed, bungling menaces.
MPs described outreach to them as having been limited to presentations and charts showing the growing size of the welfare budget and increases in numbers going on Pip.
'We asked to see the prime minister or the chancellor and we got a presentation from officials,' one said. 'They were very, very dismissive.'
MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre.
Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP's husband in order to get her to back down.
'I don't even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,' one MP said. 'Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.'
After the implications of Monday's amendment became clear, outreach efforts finally began. Even Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, made a rare appearance on the Commons terrace on Wednesday evening to try to persuade MPs over a glass of rosé. 'She doesn't want to be £5bn out of pocket,' one MP said.
Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink.
Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or 'noises off' as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare.
Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times.
A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer's leadership. 'It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,' one MP said.
A lot of the ire, however, has been directed at Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, and what one rebel called the 'overexcitable boys' in the PM's team.
Inside No 10, there had been a determination to force through the reforms in part because of internal polling and focus groups that suggest the public backs the reforms when the context is explained – even wanting them to go further.
One adviser, a close ally of the prime minister, said they had been so determined the vote had to go ahead – concessions or not – because the symbolism of being able to get the government's agenda through the Commons was so important.
'This is a fairly moderate reform,' the adviser said. 'If the government cannot make this modest saving – in a change that will not affect nine out of 10 people already on the benefit – then how can we pursue the political programme we need, to make the tough decisions the country needs us to take? It's impossible.'
Other advisers are furious about the situation they have found themselves in. 'It's absolutely outrageous these people are prepared to throw away a historic majority because people were a bit mean to them on Twitter,' said one.
Another said: 'Just wait and see what happens if they depose Morgan. It is over, then. Finito. Then we might as well hand the keys to Farage.'
But other advisers in government say they can see how No 10 has played it wrong. One called it 'a staggering failure of political management from the people who supposedly had an iron grip on the PLP'.
For many Labour MPs, however, it is about nothing more complicated than a government machine that forgot how to listen.
'Everything the government is now realising is something MPs have been saying for months,' one MP said. 'The fact that you cannot defend these cuts on the basis they will get people into work. The fact that you cannot guarantee the most disabled people won't be worse off.
'MPs are not idiots. We deserve to be listened to. We anticipated this failure. They are in this mess now because they were too arrogant to listen.'