Usually, in politics, a U-turn is the right thing to do. If a leader changes from an unpopular policy to a more popular one, they tend to emerge embarrassed but strengthened.
This U-turn – a bid to stave off a mass rebellion over plans to cut £5bn from the benefits bill – is different. Mainly because Keir Starmer has switched to a policy that is more popular with his MPs but less popular with the voters. It will be particularly unpopular with the voters when they have to pay for it in higher taxes.
The concessions announced by Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, last night will be enough to overcome the Labour revolt on Tuesday and the remaining votes the following week. Meg Hillier, the rebel leader, has described Kendall’s plan as a “good and workable compromise”, and so will presumably be withdrawing her wrecking amendment, which attracted the signatures of nearly one-third of Labour MPs.
But there is a price to be paid, and not just in the billions that will now not be saved from the growing disability benefits budget. There will be a personal price to be paid by Starmer: the clock on his time as prime minister is running down faster than I ever thought it could.
He is not under imminent threat, but previously I thought it likely that he would lead Labour into the next election. Now I think the balance of probability has switched.
Labour backbenchers have felt the taste of power, and they will want to taste it again. They have seen “cave-man” Starmer give in to them, and although they might welcome this as an example of how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, it means that the prime minister has lost a lot of the respect he had from the majority of Labour MPs, who are loyal and want the government to succeed.
Ever since I began reporting on politics, MPs have complained that No 10 doesn’t listen to them – but this rebellion does seem to have been handled particularly badly.
One source who was in the thick of things during the chaos of Liz Truss’s brief premiership even compared the current incompetence to the day when Wendy Morton, Truss’s chief whip, resigned and then unresigned as confusion reigned over whether a vote on fracking, of all things, was a vote of confidence in the government or not.
The most loyal MPs and special advisers point out that policymaking is often messy, and that we are seeing pragmatic Starmerism in action. He has acknowledged the problem and negotiated the “workable compromise”. But this will not wash.
Starmer has known for weeks that the attempt to restrain welfare spending faced serious opposition that put his majority at risk. I assume that Hillier was one of the 100 Labour MPs whose names were sent confidentially to Alan Campbell, the chief whip, warning that they could not support the bill. These were mainstream, loyal MPs seeking to raise their concerns in private in the hope of avoiding the public humiliation of the prime minister – which happened anyway, thanks to Starmer’s stubbornness.
The blame for the very public U-turn lies with Starmer himself. It wasn’t a communications problem, as he tried to suggest last week when he said that “we haven’t always told our story as well as we should”. The problem with the change to disability benefits was the change to disability benefits, not the “story” he tried to tell about it. It was no use reciting a fairytale about helping people to get off benefits and into work when Labour MPs knew that the main motive for the policy was to save money.
Nor can the blame be laid at the door of the prime minister’s advisers. Some Labour MPs have accused Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff, of pursuing a “Blairite” anti-welfare policy. But it was not his decision. Others have said that Campbell, as chief whip, should have seen trouble coming: he did; and he warned Starmer repeatedly.
The prime minister had no choice but to give in, but he left it so late that he damaged himself with an embarrassing cave-in that leaves the government in the unpopular position of letting the welfare bill rise more quickly.
It is almost pointless to try to predict what will happen in four years’ time, but it feels as if Starmer is now more likely than not to cease being prime minister before the end of this parliament.
Have your say: Has Starmer been weakened by Labour’s welfare revolt?
Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform, prime minister
Don’t blame Morgan McSweeney – this welfare mess is Keir Starmer’s fault
If Labour cuts my PIP, I lose everything I have worked for
Sorry, Mr Bezos, it’s no wonder you’re not welcome in Venice in June
‘We haven’t learned anything’: Readers despair over UK’s Covid response in 2025
