The government's welfare reform green paper - launched today by John Hutton - appears to be noticeably less radical/tough/draconian (delete according to your preference or prejudice) than many had been expecting. And its reception from Labour backbenchers was therefore much more positive than would have been predicted just days ago, writes Philip Cowley.
One reason for this can be found in the parliamentary arithmetic. Back in 1999, the largest backbench rebellion of Labour's first term came over reforms to incapacity benefit, when 67 Labour MPs voted against their whip. Then, the government had the majority to soak that sort of rebellion up - but it doesn't any longer. And of those 67 Labour MPs 40 remain in the Commons today and on the backbenches. If antagonised, they alone would now be enough to defeat the government on this issue, given the government's smaller majority.
Yet by potentially defusing any large benefit rebellion, John Hutton is spoiling a long-standing Labour tradition - their regular ding-dongs over benefit reform. You can date these back to Labour's first government, in 1924, which faced its largest backbench revolt over the issue of unemployment benefit. A total of 73 Labour MPs - almost four out of every 10 members of the PLP - voted against the MacDonald government over the right of strikers to claim unemployment benefit. As a percentage of the PLP, this remains the largest ever rebellion by Labour backbenchers against their government, larger in percentage terms even than the revolts over Iraq in 2003. The rebels included the leading Clydesiders of the time, such as James Maxton, Neil Maclean, and George Buchanan - as well as the future Labour leader George Lansbury.
Almost every Labour government since has seen some difficulty over benefits or benefit reform - from the string of 33 consecutive rebellions against the unemployment insurance (No 3) bill (otherwise known as the anomalies bill) in 1931, to a rebellion in 1977 in which another future Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, was involved, up to those over lone parent or incapacity benefit at the beginning of the Blair government.
Hutton's proposals won't have won over all the would-be rebels - and much will depend on the detail - but they might have been enough to prevent the large scale revolt that was otherwise brewing. Today might be the first sign that the government have woken up to the realities of governing with a small majority. For those of us who spend our time studying backbench rebellions this is terrible news. For the rest of you, it's probably rather good.
* Philip Cowley is a reader in parliamentary government at the university of Nottingham and and author of The Rebels: How Blair Mislaid His Majority
