Labour's rebel MPs are rubbish at maths
It is a record that would have been broken with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill, until the Government announced a series of concessions late last week. Scores of Labour MPs had signed a 'reasoned amendment' that would have wrecked the Bill, which sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of disability benefits. In an attempt to salvage some of the savings, the Government conceded that those currently receiving benefits will not see their benefits cut. The less generous regime will apply to new claimants only, reducing savings by £3bn a year. A rebellion is still expected tonight, but the Bill should survive.
It has, however, been a deeply uncomfortable time for the Government. The scale of the rebellion appears to have taken the Government by surprise, which reflects very badly on its political operation. Keir Starmer has been accused of being out of touch with his Parliamentary party; Rachel Reeves is portrayed as being politically tin-eared and insensitive; Morgan McSweeney is described as arrogant. Just as commentators write their assessment of Starmer's first year in office, the Prime Minister is forced into making humiliating concessions.
There is plenty of blame to be distributed over this shambles, and the lion's share of it will go to Starmer, Reeves and McSweeney. There is a lack of a clear and convincing explanation for what the Government is doing. The argument that this is all about encouraging work is unconvincing when talking about Personal Independence Payments paid to those in-work. But the narrative that this is all about plucky MPs defeating heartless Ministers deserves to be challenged.
The starting point is that the cost of health benefits for those of working age is rising at an extraordinary rate. Adjusting for inflation, this cost was projected to rise from £36bn in 2019/20 to £66bn in 2029/30. To put this in context, the cost of the increase (£30bn) is not far short of the budgets of the Home Office (excluding asylum costs) and the Ministry of Justice combined.
The increase in cost (and the increase in the number of people saying they are unfit for work) is not happening at a time when there is a commensurate deterioration in the health of the working-age population according to the leading health surveys. What is driving the increase in claims for health-related benefits (and, presumably, people claiming to be unfit for work) is the gap in generosity between the value of those benefits compared to unemployment benefits and the lack of stringency in accessing those benefits.
If we want to reduce the numbers claiming health related benefits, the options are to spend more on health (expensive, and there appears to be no clear relationship between waiting times and increases in health related benefit claims), increase unemployment benefits (unpopular and also expensive), reduce health related benefits, and make the requirements to access to these benefits more stringent. The Government is perfectly entitled to ask its critics how they would address the issue.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
What is not an option is to ignore it. Or, to be more exact, to ignore it without acknowledging that taxes will have to rise to pay for it. It is a familiar theme in these columns that the public finances are in a parlous state and that we are vulnerable to the bond markets moving against us. We are not prevented from spending more on welfare by the rigidity of Reeves' fiscal rules or McSweeney's desire to appeal to Reform voters but by fiscal reality.
It is not a reality that the Labour rebels appear to be willing to accept. For 14 years, Labour activists had the luxury of blaming every tough and unpopular decision on the callousness of the Tories. It was a lengthy holiday from responsibility, which enabled them to ignore the inconvenient truth that the global financial crisis had made us poorer than we thought we were. Unless and until economic growth returned, whoever was in government was going to continue to make tough and unpopular decisions.
To be fair to Starmer and Reeves, there was some attempt to persuade their party and the country of the situation, albeit unaccompanied by specific policies and tempered by unwarranted optimism that higher economic growth would result from a change in government.
Perhaps Labour MPs never believed the rhetoric about tough choices. They are certainly not prepared to make them over welfare matters (see also winter fuel payments). They are likely to be in for a shock in the autumn when, contrary to their manifesto commitments, Labour may well be forced to put up one or more of the big taxes (and no, wealth taxes won't raise the money that is needed). If Labour MPs are worried about poll ratings now, wait until the winter.
This rebellion has diminished the Prime Minister, left the public finances vulnerable to a bond market reaction, made higher taxes all but inevitable and left the Labour Party looking ungovernable. For all the talk of rebellious backbench Labour MPs holding their heads up high, this breakdown in discipline is no way to convince the country to give the party a second chance.
[See also: Rachel Reeves must fear bond market vigilantes]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action spraying paint is not terrorism. As ministers abuse their powers, I feel a duty to speak out
Strongly worded emails are not doing it. Appeals to MPs are not doing it. Taking to the streets in our hundreds of thousands with banners and placards is not working. Elected representatives from every party in parliament have stood in the Commons and asked the government to act. Some government ministers themselves have condemned Israel's starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. Every poll of public opinion shows that the nation demands we stop arming Israel, and wants to see an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. But none of these things are working. Keir Starmer and his cabinet remain impervious to all calls for humanitarian intervention, and Israel is still killing children in Gaza with the support of the British government. To proscribe as 'terrorist' a non-violent direct action group such as Palestine Action threatens the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, and of peaceful protest. Surely the government should only ever apply the Terrorism Act with the utmost restraint and precision. Otherwise it allows the state to repress civil liberties that have been dearly fought for and won, and which represent the bedrock of our democracy. Those civil liberties have already come under real and dangerous threat. The powers given to the police have incrementally increased to an alarming degree, owing in part to the Terrorism Act of 2000 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022. These have both led to the right of public protest being seriously eroded, and afforded the police much greater powers and significantly less accountability. We have for some time seen these powers being used to suppress lawful protest and to detain peaceful protesters. In addition, leaving aside its members, the proscription of Palestine Action will directly affect many other activists who are deeply concerned about the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Even to be seen to support PA's non-violent direct action will be to risk being criminalised. The government's response to embarrassing security breaches at RAF bases by Palestine Action seems disproportionate, and highlights, I think, the influence on them of vested interests. There has long been a campaign by senior rightwing politicians, arms company executives and pro-Israel lobby groups to shut down Palestine Action and have it proscribed. Lockheed Martin UK is a key manufacturer of parts for the F-35 fighter jets that have helped Israel flatten the Gaza Strip, kill more than 56,000 people and create more child amputees per capita than anywhere else in the world. The government ended direct sales to Israel of some weapons, but created an 'F-35 exemption' allowing sales of these parts to continue to reach Israel via the US, where the planes are assembled. The Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems also operates on UK soil, and our government has lucrative bilateral deals with the company. As far back as 2022 the then home secretary, Priti Patel, held a meeting with Martin Fausset, the CEO of Elbit Systems in the UK, to discuss how to deal with Palestine Action. The definition of terrorism as laid out in the Terrorism Act of 2000 is clear, and includes 'serious damage to property'. Does spraying red paint on to metal constitute serious damage? The condemnation of this spraying of red paint on to planes as expressed by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, does not appear to be matched by any equivalent condemnation by her of red blood sprayed on to the tented walls of Gaza. So yes, crimes concerning damage to property have been committed, but there are already laws in place to deal with them. Labelling these as terrorism only serves to deepen the UK government's complicity in the war crimes being committed in Palestine. In a further act of desperation, efforts have been made to try to undermine the motives of Palestine Action by making a tenuous link to Iran, with unnamed Home Office sources telling newspapers it is investigating the group's finances. Smear campaigns such as this are part of a wider policy by government to intimidate and clamp down on dissent. I have had a small taste of this myself. On 18 January, I attended a rally in Whitehall organised by Stop the War – and noticed immediately that the tactics of the police that day seemed to be markedly different. Present in their thousands, they were already kettling people at the start of the event, and behaving in a manner that seemed aggressive and provocative. The march to the BBC, which had been planned to protest against its coverage of the conflict, had been prohibited by the Met at short notice, and the gathering was confined to Whitehall. I was asked to join a group of about 12 people who would form a symbolic delegation, and request passage through police lines to reach the BBC. There we planned to lay flowers at the door. Reaching the police lines, after some hesitation and resistance, an officer allowed us through. Shortly after that, however, our progress was curtailed by another police line. It was here that I saw at close hand the disproportionate tactics used by police. I witnessed further vanloads of police arriving in the area, kettling peaceful protesters and making numerous arrests – 77 in total that day. Three weeks later I was sent a letter from the Met threatening me with charges under section 14 of the Public Order Act. I then faced a three-hour police interview, before being told after several weeks (and several thousand pounds of legal fees) that I would face no further action. Over the past 21 months, I have met many hundreds of people who come out – often travelling long distances – to protest against this genocide. Old people and young, people of every faith, race, generation and ethnic identity. They come in horror at the brutality being inflicted on the population of Gaza. And many of those in our midst are Jewish. But still we are accused by lobby groups of antisemitism. This I disregard; I am married to a Jewish man, whose mother was a refugee from Hitler's Vienna. She escaped just in time in 1938 as a refugee, and most of her family were subsequently wiped out in the Holocaust. My children define themselves as Jewish, and we have many beloved Jewish friends, all of whom are appalled by the activities of Benjamin Netanyahu, his government and the Israel Defense Forces. These Jewish friends are people driven by compassion, humanity and a sense of right and wrong that will not yield to intimidation. In Gaza, the world is watching the most heinous acts of violence that I have witnessed in my lifetime. It is as if the skin has been ripped off the face of humanity to reveal terrifying depths of sadism and depravity. I am intensely aware of this thought: I do not want to find myself at the end of my life looking back at this time regretting that I could have done something and didn't – that I was too frightened to speak out, or to act. Palestine Action and its supporters will have no such regrets. Our current British government, however, may well. Juliet Stevenson is an award-winning actor Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Glasgow Times
39 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Starmer abandons key welfare reforms in face of Labour revolt
The Government has shelved plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and any changes will now only come after a review of the benefit. The climbdown came just 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote for the first time on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. Labour rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell said the situation was 'a complete farce' (Richard Townshend/UK Parliament/PA) It will cause a major headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves as the welfare squeeze was originally meant to save £4.8 billion a year, which was subsequently reduced to £2.3 billion when the Bill was first watered down last week. Postponing any changes to the eligibility criteria for Pip means it is now uncertain how much the reforms will save from the soaring welfare bill. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'. She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.' Some 39 Labour MPs have signed an amendment which would see the Bill fall at its first hurdle in the Commons. Rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell said: 'The whole Bill is now unravelling and is a complete farce. 'What it won't do is stop the suffering of disabled people which is why we are determined to go ahead with the reasoned amendment and attempt to vote down the Bill at second reading.' A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was dropped after the first partial U-turn on the legislation last week, which restricted the Pip changes to new claimants from November 2026. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the legislation was now 'pointless' (Stefan Rousseau/PA) That date has now been abandoned in the latest climbdown, with any changes now only coming after disability minister Sir Stephen Timms' review of the Pip assessment process. Sir Stephen announced the climbdown in the middle of the debate on the legislation. He acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'. He said the Government would now 'only make changes to Pip eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026. The concession came after frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations in Westminster involving the Prime Minister, his cabinet and wavering Labour MPs. It appeared to have won round some Labour doubters. Josh Fenton-Glynn, who was one of the 126 Labour MPs who signed the original rebel amendment to the welfare reform Bill last week, described the move as 'really good news'. He said he wanted to support the Government at 'every opportunity' and was glad changes to personal independence payment eligibility would be delayed until after the Timms review. But other Labour MPs appeared exasperated, with one telling the PA news agency that no-one 'knew what they were voting on anymore'. Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns and public affairs at the MS Society, said: 'We thought last week's so-called concessions were last minute. But these panicked 11th hour changes still don't fix a rushed, poorly thought-out bill.' But Jon Sparkes, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, said: 'The last-minute change relating to the review Sir Stephen Timms is leading sounds positive and we are pleased that the Government has listened.' He added: 'Disabled people should not have to pay to fix black holes in the public finances.'
Glasgow Times
39 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Labour rebels offered 11th-hour concession over welfare reform
Changes to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) could be delayed until after a review of the key disability benefit instead of coming into force in November 2026 as planned. The latest concession follows a partial U-turn last week in the face of a possible defeat over the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. The legislation faces its first Commons vote on Tuesday night and the 11th-hour concession on timing for the changes suggests the Labour hierarchy is still concerned about the scale of the revolt, which is set to be the largest of Sir Keir Starmer's premiership. Disability minister Sir Stephen Timms told MPs that the Government had listened to the concerns raised about the timing of the changes. The climbdown will cause a major headache for Chancellor Rachel Reeves as the welfare squeeze was originally meant to save £4.8 billion a year, which was subsequently reduced to £2.3 billion when the Bill was first watered down. Tuesday's changes leave any future savings uncertain as the scale of the squeeze on Pip is unclear. Sir Stephen's intervention, which came in the middle of debate on the legislation, followed frantic behind-the-scenes negotiations involving Cabinet ministers, Sir Keir himself and wavering Labour MPs. Some 39 Labour MPs have signed an amendment which would see the Bill fall at its first hurdle in the Commons. A previous effort to kill the Bill had attracted more than 120 Labour supporters, but was shelved after the first partial U-turn on the legislation last week, which restricted the Pip changes to new claimants from November 2026. That date has now been abandoned in the latest climbdown, with any changes now only coming after Sir Stephen's review of the Pip assessment process. Labour rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell said the situation was 'a complete farce' (Richard Townshend/UK Parliament) Sir Stephen acknowledged 'concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading'. He said the Government would now 'only make changes to Pip eligibility activities and descriptors following that review', which is due to conclude in the autumn of 2026. The concession appeared to have won round some Labour doubters. Josh Fenton-Glynn, who was one of the 126 Labour MPs who signed the original rebel amendment to the welfare reform Bill last week, described the move as 'really good news'. He said he wanted to support the Government at 'every opportunity' and was glad changes to personal independence payment eligibility would be delayed until after the Timms review. But other Labour MPs appeared exasperated, with one telling the PA news agency that no-one 'knew what they were voting on anymore'. And rebel ringleader Rachael Maskell said she was determined to press for a vote on her 'reasoned amendment' which would halt the legislation in its tracks. 'The whole Bill is now unravelling and is a complete farce,' she said. This is an utter capitulation. Labour's welfare bill is now a TOTAL waste of time. It effectively saves £0, helps no one into work, and does NOT control spending. It's pointless. They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) July 1, 2025 'What it won't do is stop the suffering of disabled people which is why we are determined to go ahead with the reasoned amendment and attempt to vote down the Bill at second reading.' Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accused ministers of 'utter capitulation' and said the legislation was now 'pointless'. She said: 'They should bin it, do their homework, and come back with something serious. Starmer cannot govern.'
