I would love to think that Labour MPs are rebelling over the issue of cuts to payments to people with disabilities because they had found a moral backbone, at last. However, this article in the Guardian then came to my attention, and as it notes:
At least 80 Labour MPs are at risk of losing their majorities over proposed welfare cuts, according to data shared between Labour MPs who are warning the government that the changes “pose a real electoral risk”.
The analysis suggests almost 200 Labour MPs have a majority smaller than the number of recipients of personal independent payments in their constituencies – a significant number in northern England “red wall” seats.
So, are these MPs really worried about the ethics of this, or are they just rebelling to save their own skins? I wish I knew the answer to that, except perhaps I don't. I want to believe that they are ethical, and I rather strongly fear that they are not.
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!
“diability benefits” in the title?
Apologies
Changed now.
Didn’t you mean ‘diabolical benefits’ system?
The well-intentioned bid to support people with life’s challenges has now morphed to such an extent that more than half a million people are claiming PIP support payments for anxiety. The benefits system is forcing people to become victims in order to get support. This attitude does not help young people, who become entangled in the benefits system at an ever younger age and convince themselves they are unable to attend school or work because of misnomer of ‘mental health’.
Source:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14205171/Record-half-million-adults-claim-disability-benefits-anxiety-depression.html
Very politely, the Daily Mail is not a source, unless you are looking for far right dogma.
And you have obviously never met a young person with anxiety. I have. Far too many of them. They’re not making it up. They’re living in a world profoundly hostile to them. Of course they’re anxious, but the conceited male, likely with a certain degree of wealth and of a fair age has no claimed comprehension of that precisely because they are the oppressor.
@Randy Newman
“The benefit system is forcing people..”
HOW, exactly?
“become entangled in the benefits system..”
HOW, exactly?
Perhaps you could share some real life examples?
When you’ve done that, perhaps you could explain how taking money away from young people already under severe financial stress, will help their mental health, again, with real life examples?
Then finally relate these real life cases, to the Bill currently being considered by Parliament, and why that consideration is being done WITHOUT the benefit of appropriate data.
If you won’t/can’t do that, then frankly, I’m not interested in your unsupported “opinions”.
@ Randy Newman,
I’d imagine there are some chickens coming home to roost, regarding the general health of young people.
Raising children in poverty leads to undernourishment and other forms of malnourishment. This, in turn, can lead to poor physical and mental development; often with lifelong consequences. I, for one, am not surprised that after 15 years, and counting, people are reaching working age in poor shape in increasing numbers. Austerity is the root cause, of that particular issue; increased austerity will not cure it.
The poor and disabled do not have a friend in you; with apologies to Randall Stuart “Randy” Newman.
I am an anxious person. I have been all my life: anxiety has been a formative power in my life, to no good end. I eventually got diagnosed in my 50s and received some help then, which I wish I could have been offered when I was at school. I might be better able to deal with it now (when, of course, as an OAP I would be lucky if I got offered more paracetamol to go with the paracetamol I already take for my arthritis along with the medications for my heart problems, about which I try not to feel anxious).
Although I dislike him, having sat on the local executive and seen the real person behind the persona, Dave Robertson MP (Lichfield) when a local councillor had always been supportive of disability groups. He had representations from those groups in previous weeks. He is unlikely to retain his seat as many local Tories have voted Reform in recent elections, and that would easily overcome the dwindling Labour vote as Staffordshire slips further in its normal casual racism.
Just when you start to think Labour MPs have a conscience, the truth pops up and reminds you they don’t.
To be honest, isn’t this how politics is supposed work?
If you don’t like what the politicos are doing, peacefully vote them out. Isn’t this democracy? So are these rebels asking to be saved from democracy?
I for one am no fan of modern highly paid MPs lacking domain knowledge who pose as managers when in fact they should just be facilitators of public services.
Politics is a well paid job these days and I actually agree with that but feel that it offer very poor VFM because of the huge democratic deficit created by the funny money that is going into party political funding by rich vested interests. For me, until the party political funding is sorted out (made transparent, equalised, state funded only) and the FPTP system is abandoned, the whole purpose of democracy remains compromised and untrustworthy.
Much to agree with
“80” is a magic number in Labour Party circles, as is “202”.
80 MPs to start a challenge.
202 MPs to win a leadership election.
(Unless he expels rebels, but he cant expel many or he loses his parliamentary majority, currently at about 78).
If we allegedly live in a democracy, i don’t understand why more decisions (especially controversial ones) are not put to a referendum. it would actually benefit the politicians because they can then simply blame the voters for the outcome.
Referenda are not proof the existence of a democracy.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/06/25/dwp-research-on-disability-employment/
Note the date that this was put into the public domain, which is why it hasn’t been seen in the MSM.
I hope all MPs have seen it. It seems obvious to me that the poorer and more disabled you are, the poorer and more disabled you will be kept by this government. Until you die of it, of course.
Worth reading
I find myself wondering:
If the northern “red-wall” seats are in danger of going to Reform or worse, where are the jobs that the ex-PIP recipients are supposed to be able to walk into?
The highest unemployment rates are in the East and West Midlands constituencies, according to the House of Commons library.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8748/CBP-8748.pdf
They do not exist.
162 have now signed, including some independents.
I don’t think it was a good idea to say that those people opposing are ‘noises off’. Could have added a few.
They don’t seem to want to change the timetable, either. The vote will be next Tuesday, and the rest Wednesday of the next week.
There won’t be time to discuss everything in that time, will there?
The SNP has signed, in its entirety.
I rather think I’m to blame for the exposure of MPs’ majorities versus the number of PIP claimants in their constituencies. Me n’ Crips Against Cuts have amassed a good database of lots of useful information, and this was gleaned from GOV.UK. I merely made it extremely public. However, I think it is wrong to say that this is the reason many of them are rebelling; it may be a factor, but it is by no means the root of their anger. After all, unless there is another election within this parliamentary session, their seats are safe for four years.
I believe this is the culmination of the staggering number of missteps for which Starmer’s Government has been responsible. Interestingly, well over half of the MPs who have signed the Reasoned Amendment are from the 2024 intake; they are not the “usual suspects”, nor are they particularly on the Left. ( Starmer engineered the candidate selection to ensure that the Left was excluded). The veteran MP Meg Hillier’s name leads the Amendment; as Chair of the Treasury Select Committee scrutinising Treasury policies, her voice counts. Another 10 Chairs of Select Committees have also signed. It was obviously a coordinated response by the Chairs, and I think it has given newer MPs the courage to say loudly that the welfare reform proposals are cruel and morally indefensible.
The Whips informed McSweeny about 5 months ago that the PLP was extremely unhappy with the proposals. McSweeny’s response, apparently, was that the proposals were popular with voters, so they would be going ahead. He probably meant the proposals were popular with Maurice Glasman (architect of Blue Labour and honoured guest at Trump’s inauguration); Reeves – because it found £5 billion which has already been spent and whose PPS is the recently elected Imogen Walker, aka Mrs McSweeny; Mandelson, for whom McSweeny worked, and the focus groups Labour relies on for “public opinion”.
New MPs are feeling that they are left out of policy making except when their votes are needed. They are angry that Starmer is so remote and chilly, and that they cannot see the PM without getting past McSweeny. They have been treated to a gross distortion of the “Change” which they wanted to be part of, and are understandably outraged by the railroading through of a set of hugely punitive measures which bear no relation to the Green Paper – itself a shambles – or their own values. The language coming out of Government is impossible for them to regurgitate on doorsteps; how can they say with any degree of conviction that “this is the moral thing to do”. The twisting of words and meanings is, to them, intolerable.
McSweeny’s “bright idea” of apeing the Right to gain voters has resulted in over 200,000 people leaving the Labour Party, which is now in debt, having lost over half its membership since 2021. Most of the losses have been in the last six months. This particular brainwave of stripping highly vulnerable people and their carers of what is often their only income is a perfect example of an idea looking for a policy to implement it. The whole mess is a direct result of a failure at all levels to do proper assessments of the actual consequences. Policies pushed out ahead of any assessments never work. The Charge of the Light Brigade springs to mind.
So much to agree with and thank you.
@ Hannah
That has been excellent work. Congratulations! And thank you.
Thank you Hannah, a great post.
While am sure there are some labour MPs will see this moment as opportinistic I do feel that most are doing this for the right ethical reasons.
I have just reas that Starmer will not be stopped and will push ahead with the vote tuesday… and The government has said it will rush the Bill through its remaining stages in a day. This usually takes weeks, I believe with expert and lived-experience evidence. Instead, there will be very little scrutiny.
Like I said last the week ‘the age of the bulldozer.’
ID cards will be next.
Looks like Starmer is conceding with “massive concessions” and the rebellion appears to be over.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/starmer-offers-massive-concessions-on-welfare-bill-to-labour-rebels
All select committee chairs now on board with gov’t. Concessions said to be worth “several billion pounds over next few years” and seen as another major U-turn by Starmer.
Of course it is a Starmer “pledge/promise” so not worth the paper it is written on.
There are another 4 days to go so….