KEIR Starmer is facing calls for a “regime change” at Number 10 amid a revolt over proposed welfare reforms.
New Labour MPs have told colleagues that voting down the legislation would help get rid of “overexcitable boys” from Starmer’s team of advisers, according to The Times.
Less than a year after securing a landslide election victory, chief of staff Morgan McSweeney (below) is facing mounting criticism, with Labour MPs reportedly accusing him of alienating backbenchers.
The BBC said one MP had described McSweeney's team as "boisterous young men" running around "like extras in The Thick of It".
Another MP reportedly said: "It is so bad you almost have to admire their artwork in creating such a hopeless situation'".
Starmer and his deputy Angela Rayner have both insisted a vote will go ahead next week on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which seeks to cut back disability benefit payments by around £5 billion per year.
But given more than 120 Labour MPs have signed an amendment opposing the plans, there are now reports Number 10 is in talks with many of them about possible changes to the bill in the hope of winning them over.
Twelve Scottish Labour MPs are among those to have signed the amendment, while all SNP MPs have given their backing too.
A No. 10 source said: “Delivering fundamental change is not easy, and we all want to get it right, so of course we’re talking to colleagues about the bill and the changes it will bring. We want to start delivering this together on Tuesday.”
At the centre of the row over the bill is the proposal to change the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payments (PIP), with 800,000 disabled people set to be denied payments even if they struggle to wash or dress below the waist.
The bill would also limit the sickness-related element of Universal Credit.
Existing claimants will be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support, a move seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes.
Rayner has said talks between backbenchers and the Government were “ongoing”.
One backbencher preparing to vote against the bill told the PA news agency: “A lot of people have been saying they’re upset about this for months.
“To leave it until a few days before the vote, it’s not a very good way of running the country.”
They said that minor concessions would not be enough, warning: “I don’t think you can tinker with this. They need to go back to the drawing board.”
The reasoned amendment argues that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed.
North Ayrshire and Arran MP Irene Campbell is the most recent Scottish Labour MP to sign, but party leader Anas Sarwar is continuing to back the cuts.
Speaking to the Holyrood Sources podcast in Edinburgh on Wednesday, he said: “Look, my position has been quite consistent on the welfare reforms, which is I support the principle of reform.”
Asked again to state his position on the welfare cuts as proposed, Sarwar suggested that the UK Government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill may change before the crunch vote next Tuesday.
“Conversations are underway,” he said.
“As you would expect, people are legitimately raising their concerns, having those conversations … I think it's safe to say that there'll be ongoing conversations with the legislation and legitimate concerns should be addressed, but we should absolutely support the principle of reform.”
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank indicated overall, 800,000 fewer working-age people are expected to receive a PIP daily living award in 2029/30 due to the reforms.
The tighter criteria are set to lead to 430,000 new applicants – who would have received an award without reforms – receiving no award, and 370,000 existing claimants losing out following reassessment.
Most of the 800,000 losers will receive £3,850 per year less in PIP.
The changes are aimed at increasing incentives to work for people who are able to, but IFS senior research economist Eduin Latimer said: “The changes may lead to an overall increase in employment, though any boost to employment income is unlikely to come close to offsetting the direct income losses experienced by affected claimants.”
