The government says that the benefit cuts set out in the bill it hopes to pass next week are essential for two reasons: to save money and make the growth in welfare spending sustainable; and to tackle economic inactivity and help people get back into work. To people with disabilities and their families and advocates, the bill amounts to something quite different – a brutal assault on some of the most vulnerable people in the country that betrays the very values that Labour is supposed to stand for. To read more about the detail of the bill, see this First Edition from March.
Some sort of rebellion has been priced in for a long time – but the number of rebels, and their strategy of tabling an amendment that allows them to get a sense of their own strength, have caught the government on the back foot. Here’s what you need to know.
How has the rebellion grown?
The crucial miscalculation appears to have been that the rebellion would be small and slow-growing enough that the government would be able to lean heavily on those putting their heads above the parapet, and that dark warnings of losing the whip or worse would be enough to keep the numbers manageable. Instead, there has been what you might call a Spartacus effect.
“They didn’t take it seriously,” Jessica Elgot said. “But there’s a tipping point where it becomes embarrassing for MPs to be on the other side of it” – and where those threats begin to look hollow, because nobody would seriously believe that 120 MPs would face losing the whip. So far, only one MP has backed down.
In this analysis piece, Pippa Crerar writes: “The scale of the rebellion appears to have taken No 10 by surprise, not least because much of the planning took place below the radar, and through separate groups of MPs coming together. Even some of the rebels were shocked at the numbers.”
The rebels could have just voted against the bill on Tuesday. But by publishing an amendment which would effectively kill it, they have given MPs the opportunity to sign up publicly and to see the strength in numbers that they have – hugely fortifying in the face of government pressure.
“If they hadn’t done that, a lot of MPs might have worried that they’d be walking through the no lobby more or less on their own,” Jessica said. “With so many on board, you now have others feeling left out, and getting emails from their constituents asking why they haven’t signed.”
Who are the MPs who are ready to rebel?
One measure of the danger for the government is how far the rebellion extends beyond those on the left who would be expected to oppose most cuts that the government might propose. It was tabled by 11 select committee chairs, including Meg Hillier, the influential chair of the Treasury committee; many of them were handpicked for safe seats; there are several who were selected as “mission champions” last year, a sign that they were viewed as loyal and on the rise.
“Most of them don’t want to do this,” Jessica said. “They feel like they have really tried to make the case privately, over lots of meetings and letters to ministers, or cornering them when they see them in Westminster. A lot of them struggle with the incoherence of the message they’re being asked to put out – that this is about getting more people back into work, when the vast majority of cuts are to personal independence payments [Pip], which are an in-work benefit.”
In this piece from April, Jessica notes that almost 200 Labour MPs have a majority that is smaller than the number of recipients of Pip in their constituencies – and many who fit that description are among the rebels. Similarly, this Financial Times analysis (£) from yesterday finds that 2.5% of the population in Labour constituencies in England and Wales will be affected by the proposed reforms – against 1.6% in other seats.
Many MPs are also hearing from their constituents, in their inboxes or at their surgeries, about their fears of the impact that the changes will have on them. “It doesn’t seem like a self-interested calculation, by and large,” said Jessica. “This isn’t why they got into politics – they are genuinely worried about the impact. A lot of them have worked in charities or social justice organisations or unions before becoming MPs – they are really knowledgable about the issue. And the more experienced MPs have to deal with it in their constituencies all the time.”
Will the government make concessions?
The government is extremely reluctant to abandon the bill, not least because it would blow a £5bn hole in Rachel Reeves’ budget. Yesterday, Angela Rayner – standing in for Keir Starmer at prime minister’s questions – told MPs: “We will go ahead on Tuesday.”
But the government is almost bound to insist that it will go ahead until it concludes that it has no option to do otherwise, and there is still a serious chance that the bill will be pulled. With many ministers now concluding that there is almost no chance of it passing, Keir Starmer appears ready to make concessions. Changes under consideration include relaxing the new restrictions on who will qualify for Pip.
Up until now, Downing Street appears to have been divided on the right way forward, with one source saying: “There is a camp for pulling it, a camp for concession and a small but insane camp for ploughing on.” Reeves is understood to be particularly opposed to pulling the vote.
The rebels have not been impressed by what they say have been veiled threats of deselections – denied by No 10 – and dark warnings that a defeat could bring the government down, which seems very unlikely indeed. “MPs just don’t buy it,” Jessica said.
In the last couple of days, the tactics have changed: Liz Kendall spent most of Tuesday in individual meetings with would-be rebels, while other senior ministers including Rayner and the health secretary, Wes Streeting, were on the phone to others. Amid reporting in the Financial Times (£) and the Times (£) of a backlash against the prime minister’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney for his role in pushing a hardline approach, he has also been speaking to senior rebels.
“It’s the carrot rather than the stick,” Jessica said. “They’re hearing that they’ve always been seen as reasonable, that they’re respected, that this will help the government to spend on their priorities.”
Is there a serious risk of the government losing?
The 120 who have signed the amendment so far could still rise, with at least 170 MPs having expressed concerns, and the possibility that those in government jobs will wait until the last possible moment to resign in case the bill is delayed in the meantime. If opposition parties also vote for the amendment, even the current number would be enough to overturn the government’s hefty 156-seat majority.
While the Conservatives would love to inflict a humiliating defeat on Labour, there are risks for them in doing so: they have repeatedly cast themselves as the party of stricter limits on welfare, and so voting against for nakedly political reasons could easily backfire.
In what looks like an attempt to pave the way for that option, Kemi Badenoch has said that the Tories will back the government if they are given three concessions: commitments “to reduce the welfare budget, to get people into work and not to have tax rises.”
Those are difficult commitments for Starmer to make, even if he was prepared to accept the optics of being “saved” by Badenoch. “Welfare spending still goes up even with these changes, so they would have to make the bill much tougher,” Jessica said. “It’s also possible for the Tories to abstain – and on the current numbers, that would still mean that the government would lose.”
