To suggest that Keir Starmer is in a spot of bother with his Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
This lot have, so far, opposed his Bill by tabling an amendment that effectively kills it. They are Labour MPs, and each and every one of them risks losing the Whip, and so their chance of reselection as the Labour candidate at the next general election (which they are going to lose anyway based on current progress), by doing so:
Their amendment, which is, I think, bound to be called by the Speaker, because it is the one with by far the largest number of supporters, says (and I have added bullet points to make it more readable than the form in which parliament demands it be written):
That this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government's principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill:
- because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers;
- because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025;
- because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade;
- because the Government's own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these provisions, including 50,000 children;
- because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs;
- because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability's review into the assessment for Personal Independence Payment and Sir Charlie Mayfield's independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
This is a damning indictment of Labour, by Labour.
The Starmer-Reeves-Kendall axis behind this Bill is exposed as uncaring, unthoughtful, ill-prepared and dogmatically driven by the amendment.
What is more, it is clear that those signing are suggesting that Starmer's government is guilty of just not caring. There is little more to it than that; that is the suggestion that is on the table.
I applaud those who have rebelled. They have shown courage, so far. Many will have done so for the first time since being elected. It is much easier to do so again, thereafter. They do, of course, need to see this through.
Starmer faces a loss in the House because, despite the stupid words Kemi Badenoch has had to offer, of course, he is not going to turn to her for support.
So what will happen? I think a screeching U-Turn is likely.
But the real question is, what then?
Will the message be heard?
Will Labour change direction?
Will it understand that short-term deficits to pump prime payments that create wealth and multiplier effects are worth doing?
Will it realise that this idea needs to be widely used?
Or will Reeves announce another round of deeply damaging cuts in reaction, saying that the City demands it, when it very clearly does not?
The immediate focus is appropriate. But the next rounds are where the real action is now going to be.
Starmer will lose in the Commons to his backbenchers on payments to people with disabilities. But the real question is, what happens then? Can he survive in a Labour Party he has lost control of?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Finally, some evidence of labour backbone.
I’d like to think it’s backbone and morality, but part of thinks it’s self interest.
They know this bill will kill their chance of reelection so they calculate it’s better to risk losing the whip than loose at the ballot box.
Having said that, the reason they know this is because people have been telling them. It seems to be a consistent message from the people that this bill will put them off labour. So in a way it is democracy in action. If enough people didn’t care about this then they would not be rebelling whatever the motals
I’d settle for short term deficits e.g during a lending crisis or covid lockdown.
The reality is that we have a long term deficit, since 2003 I believe and while there are a few signs of spending restraint there’s no indication that the deficit will end in this Parliament.
There might be an argument to increase the deficit short-term to pump prime the economy whatever that means: what are pump prime economists anyway? Do they exist as serious people, I’ve never read one and I’ve read widely.
@ O Laugh Mandy
“no indication that the deficit will end in this Parliament.”
I certainly hope not. The deficit is a measure of how much money the government has spent *into* the economy but not yet taxed *out* of the economy.
The money that is available to be taxed out of the economy, the deficit, is our savings. To end the deficit will involve taxing-to-extinction all our savings – and that means not just the change in your pocket or your current account at the Bank, but the money used for car and house insurance, and investments in your future pensions.
I can’t imagine that is what you are wishing for.
https://www.matchesinthedark.uk/we-pay-for-it-by-spending-the-money/
I am not sure why I let this from O Laugh Mandy on
It is obvious trolling
Apologies, and thanks for responding
I make mistakes when moderating
Richard – it’s not a bad idea to let the likes of O Laugh Mandy in from time to time. Someone will always respond, and slightly different ways of explaining why they are wrong can be quite helpful.
Agreed…and some people have done it very well
The archetypal pump-primer-in-chief was Keynes, and you can find – what we might call – foreshadowing, or pre-cursors, even in Adam Smith’s works (which market fundamentalists hate). This argues quite strongly against the use of the word “widely”, I’m afraid.
“Can he survive in a Labour Party” McSwine “has lost control of?” There sorted.
Starmer is an a-political cipher/manager. This has demonstrated that he can’t manage and the large majority that LINO has only exacerbates the situation.
McSwine thought he had control over who became an MP (being a Zionist being a prerequsite) obvs not.
My guess is that MPs mail bags/e-mail boxes have been stuffed with complaints – hence the rebellion.
Wonder what else will happen? Fire Reeves?.
I’m not sure on the game Badenoch is playing, politically. If she gets what she asked for then this will likely lose even more support, and if the vote succeeds then Starmer is the one that might benefit. If she doesn’t get an agreement then she still loses more moderates from her callous view. Surely she understands that Reform is eating their lunch because it’s promising more to the public (without the need to cost things properly), not less?
Now might be a good time for Labour to do a Tory and change leaders without a general election. It now seems likely that a less neoliberal figure would be chosen, and they’d have time to rebuild before an election. Starmer may have been who they needed to get elected last time, but it’s possible to agree that and still feel they would do better with a new leader.
You assume Badenoch understands anything.
There is no evidence of that.
Sorry to do a third post but I thought this might interest you.
The Independent are doing a poll. As of 09:00
61% do not support the cuts
23% support reform but not through cuts
16% approve
Telling…
The link is to an open letter to Liz Kendall from trade unionists opposing the bill, but you do not need to be in a trade union to sign it…
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bx-ASakEHwzvfWZpdE_ibZ3cgub4-d8OArTcZTMCImA
How on earth will reducing access to the daily living component of PIP enable existing claimants to ‘work’ when they are already working but need to rely on that component for them to work within their existing limited capacity?
It is literally imnpossible to work out the profoundly privileged mindset of Liz Kendall
Talking of trolling I cannot help feeling that “Loathsome” Liz Kendall was doing just that by walking into Parliament to try and slash social security for out poorest citizens yesterday with her sleeves up and a £5,500 watch on her wrist.
Very happy to see that our current MP, Paula Barker, has signed this, as well as our previous (due to boundary changes) MP, Kim Johnson. 🙂 Might this be the beginning of the end for Starmer, Reeves and co?
There is a video coming…
You ask an interesting question Richard
What will happen now??
We can definately say McSweeney will be furious
Starmer won’t give a shit as he doesen’t even know why he bacame prime minister in the first place.
Reeves will moan that she can’t balance the books unless she breaks her iron fiscal rules.
Streeting will be smug with schadenfreude sensing the beginning of the end for Starmer and Reeves.
Also bearing in mind their collective political stupidity, (it’s their fault they are in this unforced dilema of their own making in the first place) I would guess they will do whatever is the single most stupid thing they can, something that will make everything worse than it already is and that will benefit Fararge and Reform.
I would bet on it if I could.
Let us see what happens. I’m afraid none in Labour party have any credibility with me.
I think it is worth reminding Labour MP’s before they vote, facts like these.
In the news today.
Struggling households owe billions of pounds in unpaid council tax, but bills are expected to keep rising in the years ahead (above CPI inflation).
Newly-published figures show £6.6bn is owed to local authorities in England, with an extra £642m having been added to those arrears in the year to April.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd78e5w04vdo
Then there is mortgage arrears, rent arrears, water arrears, gas/electricity arrears, etc…
Quite low down in the BBC news priorities — a long way behind all the extra lolly for bombs and guns.
Starmer needs to look at the polls.
Good data
Thanks
As I’ve said frequently, backbench Labour MPs are the ONLY people who can change Labour right now. They have the power, both in the Commons AND in the PLP. If enough of them tell McTeam where to get off, then there is nothing Starmer or McSweeney or Macfadden can do about it.
Solidarity is the key and that’s what the whips try to break down (using bribes or blackmail) a bit like hyenas with antelopes or baby elephants – separate one out and isolate it, then drag it down and grab it by the throat).
And one of the rebels WAS a whip (Vicky Foxcroft)!
But until the vote nxt Tuesday, or the withdrawal of this new iteration of the “Assisted Dying for PIP Claimants Bill”, I’m not cracking open any bubbly.
Weve seen Liz Kendall off before (she may have a £5.5k watch, but she only got 4.5% of members’ votes in the 2015 leadership election).
Lets do it again.
If she speaks in the debate on Tuesday, if the Bill is not withdrawn, watch her snarling with the sound down. You will see the reason I mentioned hyenas.
[…] wanted to point out that I am not associated with the Labour MPs rebelling over severe cuts to benefits that will throw many disabled people into poverty other than supporting their objectives. I wish […]
I note one MP has withdrawn their name from the amendment, Samantha Niblet, Derbyshire South with a pathetic apology for doing so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yg2p07vx6o.
Let us hope the other MP’s remain committed.