
How Labour welfare vote rebellion compares to previous revolts by MPs
The prime minister had been forced into two humiliating U-turns on the legislation in less than a week to head off a revolt that threatened to defeat his government on one of its flagship policies.
But how does this compare to previous revolts by politicians?
It is the largest rebellion of Sir Keir's premiership
According to political scientist Professor Philip Cowley, from Queen Mary University of London, who has done a comparison of previous votes, it was the largest backbench rebellion Starmer has suffered so far.
The previous record holder was earlier this month during the passage of the planning and infrastructure bill, when 16 MPs rebelled.
A smaller revolt last year, over the controversial two-child benefit cap, saw a number of Labour MPs stripped of the party whip - including Jeremy Corbyn's shadow chancellor John McDonnell.
It rivals a rebellion in Tony Blair's first year – but is 'more significant'
The number of MPs voting against, 49, is similar to the 47 who were responsible for the largest rebellion in Tony Blair 's first year in power, over a benefit for lone parents.
But Prof Cowley said this one was more significant.
He told The Independent: "Seen purely in terms of size, the first major rebellion of Keir Starmer's premiership is on a par with the first major rebellion of Tony Blair's. But this is one of those occasions in life when size doesn't matter. This rebellion was much more significant and effective."
But it is dwarfed by the revolt over Iraq
It is also smaller than the largest rebellion during Blair's first parliament, when 67 MPs rebelled over incapacity benefit.
The largest rebellion by Labour MPs at a second reading of their own governments' bill was 72 MPs. This record is shared by two votes - in 1947 on national service and, again under Blair, in 2004, on university tuition fees.
91 MPs revolted during a 1975 vote over the civil list, the system which defines how the royal family are funded, the biggest rebellion in the first year of any government since the war.
The same number, 91, hold the record for the largest rebellion by government MPs at the second reading of any bill since 1945, Prof Cowley found. That was over House of Lords reform in 2012.
But they are all dwarfed by the largest backbench rebellion of any governing party since the Corn Laws, when 139 MPs voted against the Iraq war in 2003.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Edinburgh books festival has a few questions to answer
'Fury over £300k for Sturgeon book fest' was the splash headline over pictures of the former First Minister and her ex-aide Liz Lloyd. Ms Lloyd was appointed a director of the Edinburgh International Books Festival in May, the paper reported. In June, the Scottish Government announced it had given the festival £300,000. Meanwhile, Ms Lloyd's old boss had been given a plum spot at the festival to publicise her new memoir, Frankly. My nose twitched. The eyebrows went skywards, but why? Here's the Sunday Mail again: 'The book festival said it would be 'spurious' and 'misleading' to suggest any link between Lloyd's appointment and the announcement of the cash, which it said had been planned for months.' Interesting choice of words there, particularly 'spurious'. It's the kind of ten-dollar word a lawyer might use when a simple 'wrong' would have done. It is there to send a message: nothing to see here folks, so let's all just shuffle on. Read more It is true. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong. As the festival said when news of Ms Lloyd's appointment emerged, she was appointed following 'a fully advertised recruitment process'. I could have applied, you could have applied, but we didn't. Moreover, she would bring 'valuable experience in communications, leadership and public affairs'. It has been more than the regulation two years since Ms Sturgeon and Ms Lloyd held positions in public life, the former as FM and the latter as her strategic adviser. Ms Sturgeon has carried on as an MSP, controversially as she has not been seen much in the Scottish Parliament. Those memoirs won't write themselves, you know. But Lloyd is different. She is a free agent, able to do what she wants, no permission required or sought. She has every right to earn a living by selling her skills wherever she pleases. Hence the application to the books festival. The same goes for her appointment to a firm called Flint. On its website, Flint says it 'helps businesses and investors succeed in an increasingly complex world'. Its CEO is James Purnell, former Labour MP, former minister under Blair and Brown, ex-BBC and think-tanker. Click through and you will eventually meet the Flint team, which now includes Ms Lloyd. Listed as a specialist partner with expertise in devolved administrations, operations team, policy and political analysis, her work for the FM is outlined in glowing terms. It's impressive stuff. She's an impressive woman. Once again, she's doing nothing wrong. Countless former aides, and elected representatives, have gone the same route, using what they learned in the public sector and applying it in the private. Put your knowledge and experience to work. Everyone who ever progressed in a career has done likewise. To summarise, Ms Lloyd was appointed a director at the Edinburgh International Book Festival. Nothing wrong in that. She advises businesses and investors using the expertise acquired while working for the First Minister. Nothing wrong in that. As for her book festival appointment coinciding with the award of a £300k Scottish Government grant, remember the latter had been 'planned for months', according to the event organisers. The Scottish Government said the same thing when it announced the money at the end of June: the deal had been signed off months before by ministers but was not publicised. What I would like to know, as a taxpayer if nothing else, is exactly when Ms Lloyd was appointed books festival director, and whether anyone at the festival knew that the £300k was in the pipeline. Why was the Government announcement held back? The money is part of a larger package of help given to the event by the Scottish Government, and there is a lot more to come. Again, were those involved in the appointment of Ms Lloyd aware of this? It's a matter of public record, after all. Once again, nobody has done anything wrong. That happens a lot in Scotland, particularly when the Scottish Government, and the current administration in particular, is involved. You can pass any number of faces on the stairs, familiar ones like John Swinney, and swear they had a case to answer for something or other, but when it comes to holding them to account, there is nobody there. Ferries, education, NHS waiting times, growth - you name it, no one is taking the blame for failure any time soon. You will never see any of these faces take the sort of pasting handed out last week to Professor Iain Gillespie, former principal of the University of Dundee, by the Education Committee. Yes, ministers have been questioned, but not like that. One of the unfortunate principal's mistakes was to fail downwards when the done thing in Scottish public life is to fail upwards. Move on, move up, take the rewards but accept zero blame unless there is no other option. It was and is the Westminster way and it has transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We'll be seeing it a lot more of this moving on as the elections approach. Get ready to hold your nose as departing MSPs, and their aides, compete for jobs in the public and private sectors. And if the SNP should win a majority again, despite their record, the failing upwards can carry on as normal. I wonder if Ms Sturgeon will address the subject of failure when her much-anticipated session at the books festival comes to pass. If she is up for it, I would like to hear Ms Lloyd's thoughts as well. Now that she is a festival director and in what they call 'a public-facing role', there shouldn't be a problem. John Swinney too - all are welcome. Until then, I'll keep wrinkling my nose. Bewitched, no. Bothered, plenty. Alison Rowat is a Herald feature writer and columnist


The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Glastonbury chanters or the Southport hate-tweeter – throw the book at one, you must throw it at them all
News that Avon and Somerset police have launched criminal investigations into the bands Bob Vylan and Kneecap for their Glastonbury sets reminds me that we have a severe prisons crisis in the UK, and that we need to build more of them. Perhaps we should build a special one for all the people we keep criminally investigating for saying, rather than doing, bad things. I'm pretty sure they have a few of those types of prisons in other countries. Although, it must be said that those are normally countries run by people we consider bad. Confusing! But look, maybe we're becoming the sort of country where we imprison lots of people for saying awful things. I don't … love this look for us, I have to say. But no doubt someone has thought it all through very, very carefully. If so, they could put the two nasty idiots from Bob Vylan in it. Obviously all of Kneecap, too. Maybe those guys would have their cell on the same landing as Lucy Connolly, the woman who was imprisoned for two years and seven months for a repulsive tweet in the wake of the Southport child killings. They could be joined by whoever at the BBC didn't pull the Glastonbury live stream on Saturday after Bob Vylan started their repulsive chants, given that Conservative frontbencher Chris Philp is now officially calling for the corporation to be 'urgently' investigated. I see Chris is also calling for the BBC to be prosecuted – so I guess he's already done the police investigation for them, and all at the same time as absolutely aceing his brief as shadow home secretary for where-are-they-now political outfit the Conservative party. In terms of Spewing Hate Into The Nation's Living RoomsTM, it must be said that the footage of Bob Vylan's offending set is still embedded into multiple stories on the MailOnline website, all containing an exhortation to 'watch the full video'. Should whoever is leaving the videos up on MailOnline also be investigated and prosecuted? Perhaps Chris Philp could adjudicate. Either way, let's keep a cell or five for them in the special new prison. After all, why on earth shouldn't we imprison a few journalists, too? In for a penny, and so on. Needless to say, embattled prime minister Keir Starmer has made time to have plenty of official views not just on the behaviour of the two bands, but on any future decisions to book them. If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail – and if your big job before politics was being director of public prosecutions, then I'm sure everything looks like a prosecutable offence. It certainly did to the prime minister after last summer's riots in the wake of the Southport murders, when Starmer seemed to relish the response happening the best way he knew how: by rushing it through the courts. Connolly was one of those prosecuted, in her case for a manifestly revolting and racist but also clearly tossed-off post responding to a false rumour the killer was an asylum seeker, saying people could set fire to asylum hotels 'for all I care'. She admitted inciting racial hatred in court, but has since become something of a cause celebre for the fact that she is a mother with an otherwise clean record (and one who had lost a young child herself), and that she has got a harsher sentence for this tweet that she later deleted than some convicted rapists. I wrote in the immediate wake of the riots that it was clear that something big had happened in the UK – though it wasn't yet precisely clear what. Unfortunately, the prime minister seemed to think it was fairly simple. 'Let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them,' he said, albeit to some reporters instead, 'violent disorder clearly whipped up online: that is also a crime. It's happening on your premises, and the law must be upheld everywhere.' Sadiq Khan seemed to think it was something to do with the Online Safety Act not being 'fit for purpose'. In more successful hot takes, it was also the moment that Elon Musk test-drove his epithet 'two-tier Keir'. That one has stuck, and it will stick even harder if, for example, sublebrity band Bob Vylan don't get the book thrown at them in the same way that no-mark Lucy Connolly did. To be clear, I don't think any of the aforementioned lot ought to be in prison, however vile and unacceptable their behaviour was. But if you don't deal with them in pretty much the same way, then people are going to be talking far more loudly about two-tier justice again. This type of talk has already reached all the way into the Oval Office where, in February, vice-president JD Vance suggested to Starmer that the UK had a free speech problem. You might have seen that Bob Vylan have just promptly had their US visas revoked for what the deputy secretary of state called 'their hateful tirade'. But we can't expect consistency from the Trump administration. What we expect of our own country is infinitely more important. I used to think masses of legislation around what horrible things people could or couldn't say was a niche-application civilisational advance, but I have changed my view, and now fear we are sleepwalking towards a society where half the people will think certain incarcerated miscreants are political prisoners, and the other half will think a different bunch of incarcerated miscreants are political prisoners. I am very much for living in a country where we don't think we have political prisoners at all. Getting there isn't simple – but stopping travelling in the wrong direction would be a good start. Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist 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. This article's URL was amended shortly after publication to remove draft text that was included in error.

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Anas Sarwar backs Labour welfare cuts but insists they wouldn't do same Scotland
The Scottish Labour leader claimed it is 'factually wrong' to say people will have their benefits 'cut' under measures proposed by Keir Starmer's government, because the overall welfare budget is still set to rise. Sarwar added that Labour are now in a 'much better place on welfare reform than a week ago', before they scaled back proposals to avoid a defeat in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. Last week, more than 120 Labour MPs signed a 'reasoned amendment' to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill after it was revealed it would cut around £5 billion per year from disability benefits. READ MORE: Scots back independence as Keir Starmer's popularity at record low, new poll finds Ministers hope a partial U-turn by Starmer on the plans, 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. However, not all of the changes will directly impact people in Scotland as Pip is being replaced by the Adult Disability Payment. The Scottish Government has promised not to make similar cuts in Scotland, with the Social Justice Secretary warning that even the Prime Minister's concessions do not go far enough. Shirley-Anne Somerville called on Labour to scrap all of their proposals, pointing to the UK Government's own analysis which shows they could plunge 150,000 people into poverty. Sarwar has argued that the figure did not take into account other Labour measures to help people get back into work, or economic policies. Asked if he would cut benefits for disabled people in Scotland if he wins next year's Holyrood election, he told the PA news agency: 'No, absolutely not'. The Scottish Labour leader insisted his party is 'on the same wavelength' and agrees that reforms to the welfare system are needed. But he said claims that benefits are being cut are not true, as the welfare bill is still set to grow. 'We all accept the principle of reform,' Sarwar said. He added: 'We all accept that we have to prioritise work, and that work is the best route of poverty. 'We all accept that. Those that can work should work. 'We also all accept that those who can't work should get the support they need, and also accept those that need support to get into work should get that support too.' Responding to Sarwar's claims SNP MSP Colette Stevenson said the Scottish Labour leader wouldn't stand up for Scotland and would "rubber stamp anything his Westminster bosses tell him to". She said: "When Keir Starmer proposes cutting support for disabled people, it's Anas Sarwar who stands by him every step of the way. "From the Winter Fuel debacle, to failing the WASPI women, to supporting the two-child cap, to backing cuts to disability payments, Labour's record in one short year says it all. "SNP-run Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down rather than up, we're scrapping the two-child cap, and we're protecting disabled people by maintaining the Adult Disability Payment here in Scotland, rather than passing on Labour's proposed cuts in England. "Anas Sarwar has proven he won't stand up to Starmer - he'll rubber stamp anything his Westminster bosses tell him to."