Liz Kendall's humiliating welfare climb-down
'This government believes in equality and social justice,' began Liz Kendall. Which government she was describing is anyone's guess. I suspect that if you were to ask the general public what they thought the government believed in, 'equality' and 'social justice' wouldn't even make the top 100 printable responses.
The government were facing a backbench rebellion so great that even the cabinet – who, as anyone who has ever seen them give an interview can attest, have an appetite for humiliation which appears to be almost sadomasochistic – were having second thoughts
Kendall was at the House for the start of a monumental climb-down: think Hillary and Tenzing in reverse. The hapless one-time leadership candidate was now the face of the Starmer government as it explained why it was backtracking on its flagship welfare reforms. Kendall claimed it was because this Labour government listens. In fact, it was because they were facing a backbench rebellion so great that even the cabinet – who, as anyone who has ever seen them give an interview can attest, have an appetite for humiliation which appears to be almost sadomasochistic – were having second thoughts.
The great climb-down was delivered in a sort of identikit motivational speaker voice. Kendall had the general air of someone leading a team ice-breaker exercise for a depressed corporate team at the Best Western off the Reading Ring Road. In a just world, this is exactly what most of her colleagues would be doing.
'We are delivering on our promises' Kendall whirred, all misplaced emphases and faux sincerity. There came a sort of apologia for what the government had done which, though technically delivered facing the Tory benches, was basically directed at the rebels.
Kendall referenced what she presumably believes to be government successes. We heard at length and at volume about the 'Right to Try' scheme. This policy which enabled disabled people to try out the world of work is clearly an attempt to produce a catchy title and legacy akin to Thatcher's famous policy. To use a cinematic analogy: this is less an affectionate remake and more like someone filming a blockbuster on a handheld camera at the back of a cinema, with every other scene interrupted by someone going for a pee, and then trying to sell it out of the back of a van.
After this bluff came the catering sized portion of Humble Pie. 'We have listened carefully,' Kendall said, 'in particular to disabled people and their organisations'. This must be some new policy on behalf of Kendall since she was one of the core cabinet cheerleaders of the Assisted Suicide Bill, which disabled groups opposed unanimously.
The shadow secretary of state, Helen Whately didn't spend long responding to the absurdity of what had just been said. 'Nothing we've seen of Labour over the last few weeks suggests they have the courage and conviction to deal with this problem'. As Donald Trump once said, 'many such cases'. She asked one question of the Secretary of State: how were they going to pay for this?
'I'm in listening mode.' said Kendall in response which actually drew a laugh. She then reverted to an old trick of talking about how awful the Tories had been. For this she got some lukewarm cheers. Behind her, the crocodiles began to circle. This won't be the Starmer government's last cock-up and climb-down, but it might prove to be the first which its obituarists reference as leading to the inevitable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
40 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The rebellions against Starmer are only just beginning
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street To rebel is to wage war. Specifically, if you go back to the Latin, it means to wage war again – the conquered rising up against their conquerors, insurgents who refuse to let grievances go. Etymology is probably not front of mind for Keir Starmer as the vote on his government's highly contentious welfare reform bill looms today (1 July). Last week, 126 Labour MPs – nearly a third of the parliamentary party, easily enough to defeat the government – put their names to a wrecking amendment. A stand-off ensued, and eventually it was the government that blinked. In an attempt to win over the backbenchers, concessions were hastily offered, concessions that will leave Rachel Reeves with a £3bn hole to fill in. But that still may not be enough. Around 50 rebels are thought to be holding firm – including, somewhat ironically, one who was until very recently a Labour whip. Assuming the numbers are accurate (which, given how this disaster seems to have caught Downing Street by surprise, isn't worth counting on), a government with a majority of 156 should be able to ram its reforms through with a revolt of this size. But what happens next? Rebellions are not just humiliating for the prime ministers who suffer them. As the derivation suggests, they are rarely a one-time thing. For MPs mulling over whether to defy the whips and vote with their conscience or be well-behaved little backbenchers who might get a promotion one day, the data shows rebelling gets easier with practice. Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart from the University of Nottingham analysed rebellions in the 2001 parliament under Tony Blair and found a worrying trend of MPs who had previously been obedient getting a taste for revolt. Matt Bevington from UK In A Changing Europe pointed out that, once Theresa May had lost one vote on Brexit, the situation spiralled: her government suffered ten defeats on Brexit votes in nine months. As well as altering the psyche of the backbench MP, big rebellions – whether they succeed or not – automatically reflect the party leader in a way that is uncomfortably revealing. When David Cameron lost a vote in 2015 regarding the rules around a future EU referendum, it wasn't just his personal authority that took a blow. Cameron, who had just won a slim majority earlier that year, lost by 27 votes when 37 of his own MPs joined Labour in opposing the government. Both the scale of the rebellion and the willingness of Labour to work with the Tory Eurosceptics should have sent red lights flashing on No 10's dashboard. It signalled that the government could not count on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party in its coming fight over the EU, regardless of the broadly pro-Brussels sensibilities of the Labour MPs and members – a lesson that proved inescapably true during the referendum campaign itself. Theresa May's premiership after the 2017 election was essentially one rebellion after another, each sapping at her authority and backing her further into a Brexit corner. The parliamentary arithmetic of pragmatists in government attempting to work out something the EU might actually accept, hard-Brexiteer Tory rebels willing to brook no compromise and opposition MPs intent on being as obstructive as possible meant there was a majority against every conceivable option but no majority for any of them. May was eventually chewed up and spat out by her government's own contradictions. May, of course, had the excuse that she didn't have a majority to work with. Rishi Sunak did, having inherited the 'stonking' electoral triumph won by Boris Johnson. He ended up equally trapped between his backbenchers and reality, suffering a humiliating rebellion when 61 of his MPs backed an amendment condemning the Rwanda bill for not being tough enough. The fact that Sunak went on to win the vote didn't matter. His authority – already fragile after failing to win a leadership contest in his own right – never recovered. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe That's the thing about rebellions: once MPs realise they have the numbers to force the government into positions it would rather avoid, they rarely forget it. Starmer is now facing down a revolt of a similar size to those who challenged Sunak with the Rwanda amendment, but at the start of the parliament (which celebrates its first birthday on Friday) rather than the end of it. It is delusional to imagine the 126 MPs who managed to extract major concessions from the government over the welfare cuts will settle down and play nice for the next four years. They've learned a powerful lesson from all this. How has a government with a seemingly unassailable majority got into such trouble early on? The issue is partly one of substance: asking Labour MPs to vote for measures that seem tailor-made to antagonise the Labour base and go against Labour principles was always going to be a brutal struggle. And there are major issues of party management. Labour MPs talk openly of feeling disregarded and ignored, patronised by the leadership and taken for granted. Keir Starmer clearly hasn't done enough to get to know his 400-odd foot soldiers and win them over. This has been bubbling over for some time – perhaps since he withdrew the whip from seven rebels 18 days into office. There's another issue. Backbenchers with rebellion on the mind talk of being unwilling to have a vote cutting disability benefits on their record. That record is very easy to find: online on the official parliamentary website, or via They Work For You, where you can look up your MP and see a helpful summary of how they've voted on a range of topical issues – like, for example, disability benefits. There is no allowance made for 'the whip told me to' – and nor should there be. Transparency in politics is undoubtedly positive. It is good that voters can see how the people elected to represent them are getting on with that job. But in the days before the internet, MPs didn't have to worry about constituents marking (or, at least, being able to mark) them on every vote. They had more leeway to back an unpopular measure for the sake of keeping the government running smoothly. They Work For You is run by the mySociety project, whose aim is to use the internet to empower citizens to take a more active role in democracy. It launched in 2003 – the same year a staggering 139 Labour MPs voted against the Blair government, opposing the invasion of Iraq. No one is suggesting the Brexit hardliners of the May era or Sunak's Rwanda challengers made decisions purely on the basis of ensuring their profiles gave the correct impression for the voters they cared most about. But it's hard to imagine this didn't feature at all in their thinking. As he heads towards his one-year anniversary in government this Friday, Starmer should be aware that the same will feature in the thinking of the 126 MPs who signed last week's letter, whatever happens with the welfare vote today. If you put your principles first by rebelling once, the temptation is there to rebel again. The clue's in the name. [See also: A humbling week for Keir Starmer] Related
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
I'm disabled and Rachel Reeves is my MP - cutting Pip won't get me back to work
'We believe if you can work, you should work,' declared Chancellor Rachel Reeves three months ago, as she went through a raft of welfare reforms in her spring statement. That was part of the reasoning for major cuts to benefits, including Universal Credit and the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) for disabled people. By making those measures less generous, the state would save money and people would be incentivised to find work – or so the government argued. But back in the Chancellor's constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, Anastasia Tempest was watching on in frustration. Anastasia, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, had been searching for work for some time and was being supported in that effort by a local organisation called Pathways to Progress. But around the same time Reeves was giving her speech in Westminster, Pathways to Progress was closing its doors permanently. It had lost its government funding. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. Anastasia told Metro: 'They're cutting back on access to work. 'That's a very good scheme and there needs to be more support, because there isn't a lot of support. And the support that was there has either been cut or eradicated altogether.' The initial measures announced by the Department for Work and Pensions in March were watered down last week as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced a significant rebellion from Labour backbenchers. Most significantly, everyone currently on Pip will continue to receive the same level of payment, with the changes to eligibility only applying to new claimants from November next year. However, a government assessment of the changes published today revealed 150,000 people would still be pushed into poverty under the altered measures. Charlotte Gill, Head of Campaigns and Public Affairs at the MS Society, says: 'We're appalled that the government are choosing to rush through this reckless and harmful bill. 'It's outrageous that MPs are being asked to vote for dramatic welfare changes, without having time to properly scrutinise their impact.' Facing a rebellion of more than 120 backbench Labour MPs, Keir Starmer announced a range of concessions to the bill ahead of a debate and vote today. All current Pip recipients will stay on the system without any changes The changes to eligibility – including the requirement for recipients to get at least four points from a single activity in their assessment in order to qualify – will only apply to those who claim after November 2026 200,000 people with the most severe, lifelong conditions will not be called for a University Credit reassessment Current recipients of the UC health element and some new claimants who have 12 months or less to live will see their income rise at least in line with inflation until 2029/30 Anastasia said she doesn't like seeing Pip being 'abused' and accepts it can be misused. She said: 'I do think it's really good if somebody with a disability or some kind of health condition can work, even if it's a little bit, it can be quite healthy. 'I mean, it's a difficult one, because Pip shouldn't be used for people not to work.' But she said the Chancellor could find alternative ways to find money: 'I have met Rachel Reeves on Zoom. I spoke to her once a couple of years ago. 'If I was to speak to her again, I would ask, go after the billionaires.' Anastasia continued: 'Why people with disabilities? Pip is often misunderstood, it's not means tested, and I think it's good that it's not means tested because it's related to having a disability. More Trending 'Nobody, nobody wants to be disabled. Nobody would choose to be disabled. You know, I don't choose to have cerebral palsy. 'I think some people think, I mean, I've read stuff, they think you receive a lot of money if you have a disability. That's nonsense.' Today, MPs will vote for the first time on the welfare cuts when the Universal Credit (UC) and PIP Bill has its second reading in the House of Commons. The proposed legislation is expected to pass following the government concessions, but the PM is still likely to see one of his biggest MP rebellions just days ahead of his first anniversary in the job. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Benefit cuts will push 150,000 people into poverty despite U-turn, government admits MORE: I dehydrate myself so I don't have to use public disabled toilets MORE: All of Keir Starmer's welfare cut U-turns 'will cost £4,500,000,000'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ministers launch review of UK parental leave and pay to ‘reset system'
Ministers have launched a review of parental leave and pay as Labour considers ways to make paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day-one rights. Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, said the government had heard campaigners' concerns, and accepted the current system was not working for young families. Officials will assess the entire system for supporting new parents to take time off work when they have a baby, including shared maternity and paternity leave. Maternity leave is paid at 90% of a mother's average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, then for the next 33 weeks, whichever is lower of that 90% figure or £187.18 a week. New fathers can take two weeks' paid leave at a rate of either £187.18 a week or 90% of average weekly earnings, whichever is lowest. Officials hope to increase the take-up of shared parental leave, which allows a couple to share up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of paid leave between them. Reynolds has signalled plans to simplify the system for parents and employers, and stressed businesses would not face extra burdens. 'The arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a life-changing moment,' the business secretary said. 'We want to make sure parents get the support they need to balance work and family life. Campaigners have long called for change, and this government has listened. This review is our chance to reset the system and build something that works for modern families and businesses.' It comes after hundreds of fathers took to the streets of London and Edinburgh last month to demand better paternity leave. The London protest took place outside the Department for Business and Trade, as demonstrators said better paternity leave would help close the gender pay gap by helping families share childcare and thereby making it less likely new mothers would have to take career breaks or go part-time. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, said: 'Those early years are the most special time for families, but too many struggle to balance their work and home lives. Supporting working parents isn't just the right thing to do – it's vital for our economy. 'Through our plan to make work pay, we're already improving the parental leave system with new day-one rights. This ambitious review will leave no stone unturned as we deliver for working families.' Officials say millions of families could benefit from a better start for their children, given that one in three fathers do not take paternity leave because they cannot afford to, and the take-up of shared parental leave remains very low. Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The review comes after the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, urged people to consider having more children – and have them sooner – as she warned of the 'worrying repercussions' created by a decline in birthrates. Phillipson told the Daily Telegraph that people were scared of having children because of the high costs and she wanted 'more young people to have children, if they so choose'. Months ago, the education secretary said young women had been given added 'freedom' to have more children by expanded government-funded childcare.
