Keir Starmer won Commons backing for his welfare Bill this evening after making further concessions to Labour rebels which leave the legislation eviscerated.
MPs rejected an amendment to sink the bill by 328 votes to 149 after an impassioned debate, suggesting a significant backbench revolt.
A further vote on approving the Bill was passed by 335 votes to 260, with the Tories voting against, cutting the government’s majority in half. It is believed 42 Labour MPs voted against the whip on the amendment.
Still facing defeat after earlier retreats that left benefits to disabled people already claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) untouched but threatened cuts for future claimants, Starmer backed down further at the eleventh hour.
Changes to PIP payments for future disabled claimants will now be paused until the conclusion of a review by Welfare Minister Stephen Timms, rather than being imposed from November 2026.
The latest retreat leaves the Bill bereft of most of its original purpose and without the £5 billion savings Chancellor Rachel Reeves was eager for.
And it leaves the Prime Minister’s authority radically diminished after bruising criticisms from normally loyal Labour MPs.
Keir Starmer has been dealing with his most serious parliamentary challenge since he became prime minister. More than a hundred Labour MPs backed a motion to stop in its tracks the government’s attempt to reduce the welfare bill, including by raising the threshold at which someone can claim disability benefit.
This issue has divided the parliamentary Labour party. But what does the public think?
Although there are signs people recognise that spending on disability benefits is now relatively high, the latest annual British Social Attitudes (BSA) report reveals that it is far from clear that they are supportive of cutbacks. And, unfortunately for the government this is especially true of those who voted Labour last year.
Ever since the late 1990s, BSA has regularly asked its respondents whether they would like “to see more or less government spending than now on benefits for disabled people who cannot work”. In 1998, 78% indicated they would like to see more spending. By 2011, that figure had fallen to 53%, and it was still no more than 56% in 2021.
Now, though, only 45% would like to see more money spent on disability benefits. For the first time, less than half the country backs giving those with a disability more help.
However, that does not mean most voters would like to see actual cutbacks. Only 11% say the government should spend less on disability benefits. The rest are content with the status quo.
Meanwhile, just 5% of those who voted Labour last year back less spending. Over half (53%) are in favour of an increase.
The government’s central argument is that it has become too easy to claim disability benefits and that this is discouraging people from getting back into employment.
There is some support for this view. Among the public in general, 29% say it is “too easy” to claim disability benefit. The trouble is, just as many, 29%, take the opposite view and say it is “too difficult”. The most popular response, given by 35%, is that it is “neither too easy nor too difficult”.
Meanwhile, among Labour voters, the balance of opinion is clearly tilted towards the view that claiming disability benefit is “too difficult”. As many as 39% say so, while only 20% feel it is “too easy”.
Similarly, most voters (62%) feel the requirement for people on disability benefits to take “active measures to find appropriate work” is “about right”. Just 11% feel it is “too weak”, while more than twice as many (23%) believe it is “too tough”. Only 6% of Labour voters believe it is “too weak”.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
These figures help explain why the government has seemingly been struggling to head off the rebellion. Already burned by voters’ reaction to last year’s cutback to the winter fuel allowance, and with their party trailing Reform in the polls, Labour MPs now find themselves presented with another cut that threatens to be unpopular with many of those who put them into Westminster. Little wonder there are now signs the government is having to bend to their view.
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.
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.
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.
Keir Starmer
