Vicky Foxcroft said co-production with disabled people should have happened ‘absolutely from the start’. Photograph: Teri Pengilley/The Guardian
[Guardian] Exclusive: Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned as whip over welfare bill, urges ministers to work with affected people on changes
The Labour whip who resigned in protest against disability benefit cuts has said Keir Starmer’s concessions do not yet go far enough to win her over, as No 10 launched a fresh attempt to stem the revolt against its welfare bill.
Vicky Foxcroft, who quit her frontbench role over the welfare bill a little more than a week ago, urged the government to work jointly on the changes with disabled people and to publish the review of the system before bringing in cuts.
In an interview with the Guardian, Foxcroft said she had not made up her mind how to vote on Tuesday but would need assurances about further improvements.
“I would hope that actually we start to ensure we listen to disabled people and their organisations right across government. This isn’t just about warm words. This is about making sure we get policy right,” she said.
Keir Starmer with Andy Burnham at the launch of Labour’s election manifesto last year. via Associated Press
The mayor of Manchester said the PM’s concessions did not go far enough.
Andy Burnham has called on Labour MPs to vote down the government’s welfare cuts – despite Keir Starmer’s attempts to buy off his backbench rebels.
The Manchester mayor said the prime minister had only performed “half a U-turn”, which did not go far enough.
…
He said Labour MPs “face the prospect, if they accept this package, someone could come to their surgery in two years saying ‘why did you vote to make me £6,000 worse off than someone exactly the same, but who was protected because they were an existing claimant’?”
“I hope they think carefully before the vote, because the vote will create that unfairness and divide in disabled people,” he added.
The government agreed to make two major changes to the welfare bill ahead of a House of Commons vote on Tuesday (Alamy)
…
On Tuesday, we are being asked to vote for the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its original form because the concessions promised are not written into the Bill yet. We are being asked again to ‘trust’ that the Bill will change in committee.
But even with the promised concessions, we are still being asked to tighten eligibility criteria. A cut in support for those who will need it the most.
I am one of several disabled MPs, and not once did anyone from the Cabinet or No 10 reach out to me. Even worse, it appears they didn’t reach out to the multitude of disabled rights organisations or trade unions in agreeing to those concessions. Why were they not in the room when vital decisions about their lives were made?
These concessions are about party management and saving face.
There is no new bill, there are no new explanatory notes, and there are no impact assessments on the new proposals, and no time for sufficient scrutiny. There has been no formal consultation with disabled people. The majority of employment support won’t be in place until the end of the decade, access to work is in a worse state than ever before, it is unclear what the impact on carers’ allowances will be, and it creates a two-tier benefit system where disabled people will be worse off.
Many Labour MPs still believe these are the wrong reforms and will vote against the bill next week. Photograph: Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images
Sir Keir Starmer’s plans risk creating lasting inequality – and alienating the very voters who once believed his party stood for their protection
…
The upshot is that existing claimants would be protected, but future ones face tougher rules. Two people with identical conditions could receive support, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that differs by up to £6,560 a year – purely due to timing. This, we’re told, is compassion. The savings – halved to £2.5bn a year – come by offloading the cost on to future claimants. MPs rightly fear this locks in a two-tier system that is deliberately harsher on disabled people.
Older Labour MPs will remember denouncing this very playbook. A decade ago, Iain Duncan Smith pioneered a slow, procedural tightening of welfare – hitting new claimants first, then reassessing the rest – precisely to defuse resistance. Labour opposed it then. Today, it is governing by the same method. It feels out of step with a post-pandemic Britain grappling with a cost of living crisis.
Many Labour MPs believe these are still the wrong reforms and will vote against the bill when it comes back to the House of Commons next week. Clearly, tightened eligibility and a two-tier system may exclude many who need support. If the government wants to raise money, it might ask a little more of those with the broadest shoulders – not those with mobility aids, care plans and the audacity to ask for a fair deal. If ministers truly believe they are acting decently, they should publish the impact assessment and be honest about the consequences.
Keir Starmer in The Hague on Wednesday, where he called the rebellion over the welfare bill ‘noises off’. Photograph: Kin Cheung/Reuters
MPs describe receiving veiled deselection threats as No 10 sought to quash revolt before finally backing down
…
MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre.
Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP’s husband in order to get her to back down.
“I don’t even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,” one MP said. “Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.”
…
Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink.
Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or “noises off” as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare.
Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times.
A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer’s leadership. “It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,” one MP said.
