PM braced for revolt over welfare after defending his record of a year in power
However, more are expected to join them in what could be the largest revolt of Sir Keir's time in office.
Ahead of the parliamentary showdown, the Prime Minister insisted at a meeting with his senior ministers that the Government could look back with a 'real sense of pride and achievement' as the July 5 anniversary of his first year in office nears.
Ministers have given working people a 'chance to thrive, not just survive', Sir Keir also told the Cabinet meeting, according to a No 10 spokesman.
Downing Street pointed to trade deals, economic growth, the extra long-term investment in the spending review, and a cut in NHS waiting lists among the Government's achievements one year on.
The spokesman added: '(The Prime Minister) said the Government's work is all designed and focused on improving the lives of working people and giving them the chance to thrive, not just survive, and the Government should be proud of those achievements as a team.'
Cabinet ministers, and even Sir Keir himself, were said to be involved in efforts to persuade Labour MPs not to join the rebels ahead of the crunch Commons debate.
Ministers hope a partial U-turn on the benefit cuts, which will protect existing claimants of personal independence payments (Pip) and the health element of universal credit, will be enough to win over Labour rebels.
As the second reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill began in the Commons, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said reforms to the welfare system are needed to ensure its longevity.
'I do not believe that this is sustainable if we want a welfare state that protects people who most need our help for generations to come,' the senior minister said.
She added: 'There is no responsibility in leaving our system of social security to continue as it is, and risk support for it becoming so frayed that it is no longer there to provide a safety net for those who can never work, and who most need our help and support.'
To see off the threat of far greater rebellion by some 126 Labour MPs led by Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier, the Government last week softened the impact of its changes to protect some 370,000 existing Pip claimants who had been set to lose out following reassessment.
Ministers also committed to a review of the system, involving disabled people and led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, and unfreezing the higher universal credit rate for those already claiming the health-related element.
As a result of the U-turn, the reforms are expected to save less than half the £5 billion the Government had expected from its initial proposals.
In the Commons, Ms Kendall faced warnings the Timms review could be published after the reforms themselves are implemented.
She insisted any changes to be made following the review will be done so 'as soon as is practically possible via primary or secondary legislation', though Downing Street would earlier not guarantee Sir Stephen's review would be completed by the time reforms are implemented.
No 10 was also insistent that Government modelling, which predicts the welfare proposals will push 150,000 more people into poverty by 2030, was 'subject to uncertainty'.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the Government's plans were 'driven not by principle but by panic'.
Indicating that the Tories will not support the Government, Mrs Badenoch told the Commons: 'By 2030, on this Government's spending plans, we will hit £100 billion on health and disability benefits alone, that is more than what we spend on defence, and this should make everyone in this House stop and think, because this Bill does nothing to fix that problem, and that is why we cannot support it.'
She described the Bill as a 'fudge', adding: 'A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this Bill is not it.'
Rachael Maskell, the leading force of the rebellion which seeks to halt the Bill in its tracks on Tuesday night, urged MPs to join her in the voting lobbies.
The York Central MP told the Commons: 'These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party.
'They are far from what this Labour Party is for, a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother's keeper.'
Ahead of the Commons debate, Ms Maskell indicated she believed 'many more' Labour MPs than the 39 who had signed her 'reasoned amendment' would join her in rebelling.
The Liberal Democrats are also expected to back the rebel amendment, the party's work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling told the Commons.
Ministers have been coy about whether rebel Labour MPs will face disciplinary action, with Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds telling broadcasters he was 'not aware' they would lose the party whip, but said 'those issues are for the chief whip'.
Whatever people's views about the concessions, surely everyone can see the process here is ALL wrong?
Third Reading in eight days?
A timetable like that diminishes the role of MPs in getting this legislation right, shuts out disabled people and puts too many at risk.
— Andy Burnham (@AndyBurnhamGM) July 1, 2025
Elsewhere, critic of the Bill Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, hit out at the parliamentary process it will undergo, claiming it was all wrong.
On social media site X, he wrote: 'Third Reading in eight days? A timetable like that diminishes the role of MPs in getting this legislation right, shuts out disabled people and puts too many at risk.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Starmer wins vote on UK welfare reform but suffers damaging rebellion
LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Keir Starmer won a vote on his welfare plans on Tuesday at significant political cost as he suffered the biggest parliamentary rebellion of his premiership and was forced to back down on key parts of the package. After his lawmakers pushed him into a series of embarrassing U-turns to sharply scale back plans to cut benefits, lawmakers in the House of Commons gave their initial approval to a package of measures Starmer says are vital to securing the future of the welfare system. But the scale of the rebellion - with 49 Labour lawmakers voting against the reforms - underlined the prime minister's waning authority. A year after winning one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British history, Starmer has seen his personal approval ratings collapse and been forced into several policy reversals by his increasingly rebellious lawmakers. "It's been a bumpy time tonight," work and pensions minister Liz Kendall told reporters after a session of parliament when lawmakers took turns to mostly criticise the planned changes. "There are definitely lessons to learn from this process." Starmer came into office last year promising his big parliamentary majority would bring an end to the political chaos that defined much of the Conservative Party's 14 years in power. But the revolt over the welfare bill underlines the difficulty he has pushing through unpopular changes. In the run-up to the vote, ministers and party enforcers known as "whips" had been locked in frantic last-ditch lobbying of undecided members of parliament to try to win their backing. In a further concession to rebels about two hours before the vote, the government said it would not finalise changes in eligibility for a key benefit payment until a review into the welfare system had been completed. Paula Barker, a Labour member of parliament, called the attempt to pass the plans "the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen". In the end, the government suffered by far the biggest rebellion of Starmer's premiership, eclipsing the 16 members of parliament who opposed an infrastructure bill earlier this month. Mel Stride, the opposition Conservative Party finance policy chief, described Starmer's team as "a government that's lost control", only able to pass the legislation by having "ripped the heart of it out". Labour lawmaker Henry Tufnell said by agreeing to the concessions Starmer had shown "he's willing to take on board these criticisms that people have raised." Almost 90 disability and human rights groups before the vote urged lawmakers to vote down the legislation. The proposed reforms are designed to reduce the cost of Britain's growing welfare bill, which the government has described as economically indefensible and morally wrong. Annual spending on incapacity and disability benefits already exceeds the country's defence budget and is set to top 100 billion pounds ($137 billion) by 2030, according to official forecasts, up from 65 billion pounds now. More than half of the rise in working-age disability claims since the COVID-19 pandemic relates to mental health conditions, opens new tab, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank. The government had initially hoped to save 5 billion pounds ($6.9 billion) a year by 2030 by tightening rules for people to receive disability and sickness benefits. But after the government conceded to pressure from its lawmakers, it said the new rules would now apply only to future applicants, not to the millions of existing claimants as had been proposed. Analysts estimated the savings would likely be closer to 2 billion pounds. It was not clear how the additional last-minute change would impact the hoped-for savings in the welfare reform package. Opposition politicians said the government would now have to raise taxes or cut government spending elsewhere to balance the public finances in the annual budget later this year. The government has said there would be no permanent increase in borrowing, but has declined to comment on possible tax rises. While Starmer is under no immediate threat, and the next election is not expected until 2029, his party now trails behind Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK in opinion polls. John Curtice, Britain's most respected pollster, said this week that Starmer was the most unpopular elected prime minister in modern British history, and that voters still did not know what he stood for a year after he was elected.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Why govt's promise of 'biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation' may be overblown
Angela Rayner is set to announce plans to build 180,000 new social homes in the next decade, as the government seeks to "turn the tide on the housing crisis". It would be six times greater than the number of social homes built in the 10 years up to 2024 - and forms part of a drive to build 300,000 new social and affordable properties by 2035. The plan is backed by a £39bn investment announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last month's spending review. 2:29 The deputy prime minister called on the social housing sector to "work together to turn the tide of the housing crisis", and said the investment was "the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation". "We are seizing this golden opportunity with both hands to transform this country by building the social and affordable homes we need, so we create a brighter future where families aren't trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home," she said. Ms Rayner's target for social and affordable housing is part of a wider long-term plan - also due to be published on Wednesday - setting out how the government will build both more houses and improve housing standards. Here, Sky News looks at what the plan will mean for the country, how it compares to previous programmes, and how it could be affected by the increased cost of construction. 3:17 Crunching the numbers The £39bn 10-year Affordable Homes Programme is an ambitious investment in affordable housing, representing a real terms increase from the previous programme of over £1bn annually. However, claims of the "biggest boost in a generation" may be slightly overblown. When factoring in inflation, the annual investment of £3.9bn falls short of the equivalent £4.5bn annually from 2008 to 2011 under the previous Labour government. This was however a notably short-term uplift, and the sector will welcome the stability of the new settlement which secures funding for 10 years - compared with five years or fewer under previous programmes. The programme sets out to deliver 30,000 affordable homes per year on average, with at least 18,000 of those being for social rent, rather than other tenures such as shared ownership. This would be more than twice the number under the previous programme, which is estimated to have delivered about 8,000 homes annually for social rent by its completion. Similarly, however, it is fewer than were delivered by the previous Labour Affordable Homes Programme, which was over 30,000 a year from 2008 to 2011. A further challenge to the government's goal of a "generational" uplift is the increasing cost of building, meaning they may face diminishing returns on their investment. The previous Affordable Homes Programme initially aimed to deliver 180,000 homes, which was revised down significantly to between 110,000 and 130,000 due to increasing costs and delays. This government can expect to face a similar economic landscape, particularly with an ambition to deliver a greater share of socially rented homes - the most expensive type of affordable housing to build.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
A humiliating day for Keir Starmer in parliament
It has been a month of U-turns for Keir Starmer's Labour government … but none have been quite as dramatic as this. Helen Pidd heads to parliament on the day the Commons is due to vote on the government's flagship welfare bill, amid a furious rebellion among Labour MPs on its proposed disability cuts. She hears from a series of Labour MPs – from those in support of the bill to those against, and those still undecided – after a week in which the government has offered concession after concession to rebels to try to get its legislation over the line. Yet, as political correspondent Kiran Stacey reports, even as the debate started, senior figures in government were worried they might still lose, prompting the biggest concession of all. So where does this leave Keir Starmer's authority only a year into office, and where can his beleaguered government go from here?
