Sir Keir Starmer’s handling of Labour’s welfare reform plans has prompted strong reactions from Independent readers, many of whom see the episode as a key test of his leadership.
When we asked for views, 60 per cent said the situation shows he’s lost control of his party. Just under a quarter (24 per cent) said he was showing strength under pressure, while 16 per cent felt it was too early to judge.
The government’s original proposals – including tighter eligibility rules for Personal Independence Payments and cuts to the health-related element of universal credit – faced resistance from more than 100 Labour MPs.
In response, the leadership announced several concessions: the most controversial changes will now only apply to new claims from late 2026, and some cuts have been rolled back entirely. These adjustments are expected to cost around £2.5bn by 2030.
Some readers welcomed the revisions, viewing them as a sign that the leadership is listening. Others said the process had exposed divisions within Labour, and expressed concern about the tone of the response to dissenting MPs.
Whether Tuesday’s vote will ease internal tensions remains to be seen. For some, the events have already raised broader questions about direction, decision-making, and how Labour would govern if elected.
Here’s what you told us:
Fix issues first
I volunteer at an advice charity. It's depressing to see so many young people resigned to needing to claim benefits, so I agree that there needs to be greater opportunity for them to get into work. But in our area, there's so little on offer and transport is hit and miss. Access to support, such as community mental health services, also needs to be easier and quicker. It takes forever for people to be diagnosed and prescribed appropriate medication. Fix these issues before simply removing the only financial support they have. Starmer has been a total disaster.
I wasn't impressed by him in opposition, but his first speech gave some hope. Turns out it was only words, and words are cheap. He has poor judgment and doesn't listen – the perfect recipe for making terrible decisions.
rose177
Share your views on Starmer’s welfare reforms in the comments here
Wages are just too low
The lack of parity is the real problem. Wages are just too low. Someone could work all the hours under the sun and still struggle to make enough to pay the bills. Work is healthy, but we need fairer pay. I would suggest that those who are sorting this out see if they could live on the money that someone on the lower end of the pay scale earns. I doubt it very much.
Maggie20
Why wasn’t there any consultation?
Another self-induced catastrophic error that could have been minimised by up-front consultation with those most affected. It seems that only now is any consultation taking place – not sure whether we're looking at arrogance or incompetence here. I don't know enough about the actual workings of PIP, but I'm content to rely upon the various charities that provide help and advice for those who need PIP.
So, why wasn’t there any consultation or two-way communication before the discussions became so toxic? For the Government to now seriously offer a "compromise" that then creates a two-tier system is totally unsupportable to me, and the cringe factor of watching ministers and MPs telling us that it's a good deal is agonising. Although I find it heartening that so many Labour MPs still consider the revised offer unacceptable. Scrap it, start again, and involve those who actually live that life, rather than the armchair "experts" who don't need PIP.
Nobrandloyalty
Clearly unfair and cruel
Whilst I welcome the U-turn, I struggle to trust Sir Stephen Timms and all the MPs and ministers who introduced these proposals and have supported them, despite them being clearly unfair and cruel. Surely it's obvious that disabled people should always have been consulted about the plans, but they didn't deem it necessary. Just decided to take a machete to the current system with no forethought. I'd rather new, fairer people were brought in to suggest the changes.
sip
Overreach
He should have realised all along that there are limits to the power his majority gave him. After all, he saw Johnson toppled despite a huge majority. Putting forward such a massive change to PIP led to this rebellion. A smaller change, to be followed later by further change, might well have got through because his government have got their message across on why this section of the welfare budget is increasing. So a lesson learnt is about overreach. Coming on the heels of WFA, he has surely got to look askance at the political nous of his chief of staff. McSweeney was crucial in the lead-up to the GE, but his tactics are not what is needed now that Labour are in government. With a new chief of staff who grasps the lessons of WFA and PIP, Starmer could recover from the damage inflicted by the rebels.
avidmidlandsreader
Fear the alternative
The other thing to consider is the amount of unforeseen damage to the global economy that's been and is going to be wrought by Trump. Please don't misconstrue, I'm no fan of Starmer or Labour, but still fear the alternative. Starmer came to power in the aftermath of Johnson's abortion of Brexit and Truss' destruction of the economy. Both of which, on top of 14 years of the Tories doing all they could to make the rich richer – and they did – whilst making us peasants considerably poorer, well, those that survived Johnson's bungled Covid response.
TomSnout
Stop playing politics with people's lives
It's all very well and good for the Tories to criticise, but they were in power for over a decade and they didn't do a thing. Stop playing politics with people's lives and do what is best for the vulnerable in society. These past weeks we have seen a bill passed for assisted dying, voting to legalise abortion, now an attack on the weak and vulnerable in society. What next? A bill for only the fit and healthy to live, and an age limit to die, say sixty, to avoid paying pensions? We should be careful what we wish for.
Sunlight
Best PM we’ve had for decades
Starmer isn't weak because he listens to his MPs' concerns. He is taking ideas forward and tweaking them to best suit the majority. He is strong, the best PM we’ve had for decades.
SalonaFan
No plan on how to govern
For me, this is just another example of how Labour had a plan to win the election but no plan on how to govern. The lack of a sound political radar at the heart is worrying, and a possible arrogance because of such a large majority hasn't helped. The current strategist has a definite knack for picking policies that can alienate a large chunk of the population. Things aren't helped by the PM's public persona. Does anyone actually know what he stands for and is willing to fight for?
ZZiggurat
Designed to save money
All of this was totally avoidable, as there is no doubt that the changes were designed to save money; nothing else mattered. If Labour had consulted businesses as to the best way to help them employ disabled people, if they had consulted the disabled as to the best way to help them get into work, and had pumped money into training and support to stop people having to go onto benefits in the first place, then there would have been true reform.
ListenVeryCarefully
Listening to the people should not be seen as weakness
It shouldn't damage his standing, because listening to the people on compassionate concerns should not be seen as weakness. Unfortunately, in a world that appears to value autocrats and would-be dictators, it will inevitably be seen to undermine his position.
StJust
He will be a better PM for it
No, it’s given him the opportunity to listen to the electorate and his MPs. If he does that and relaxes his attitude both towards not taxing the very rich and the mistaken focus on 'the economy' as the only important thing, he will be a better and more popular prime minister for it.
Holly
He’s not the right person for the job
He needs to step aside. He is out of touch with the party and with the country. He's not a leader – he's an autocrat who has no time for anyone else's opinion and will sack you if you dare to go against him. At this rate, there will be no Labour MPs left. He's not the right person for the job. Personally (although she was kicked out), I'd like to see Zarah as leader.
deadduck
Indistinguishable from the Tories
Could anyone pick a Labour prime minister who has had a worse start — alienating significant proportions of the electorate, including many whom the Labour Party is supposed to protect? I know the economy took a massive nosedive from 14 years of Conservative failure, but to then pursue economic policy so far to the right that it becomes indistinguishable from the Tories is unforgivable. To see the Tories actually supporting Starmer in the House of Commons against Labour rebels is proof that he and his PLP supporters have lost the plot — and will likely make a successive Labour government at the next election near impossible.
NigelFromage
The wealthy must contribute more
There are people in this country whose income far exceeds even the most profligate spending. These people need to make a much greater contribution through higher taxes to benefit the poorest, either by increasing benefits or by funding measures that enable the poorest who can work to do so.
Alrum
Starmer is Cameron in a red tie
I've always regarded Starmer as Cameron in a red tie, and he's done nothing to change my opinion. If the previous left-leaning Labour membership of half a million hadn't been lied to, neither he nor "4 per cent Liz" would have seen the light of day. People had had enough of Blairism by 2010, and the vote share in every election since proves that. But the Labour right still haven’t got the message.
Blacko
Leadership through threats is no leadership at all
A leader needs to lead – and be seen to be doing so. Sadly, the PM, despite his huge majority, has been doing the opposite: following, rather than leading. What makes this even worse is his use of threats – whip withdrawal, deselection – which disrespects MPs' rights (and duties) to represent their constituents.
Krispad
This is democracy
If he had refused to listen, he would have been called "out of touch." But because he did listen and made amendments, he’s now seen as weak. In other words, he can’t win. Personally, I think a leader who does listen is far stronger than one who arrogantly pushes ahead. This is exactly how democracy is supposed to work – MPs representing the views of their constituents.
flyingscot
Sound idea, terrible execution
In most cases, benefits should be a temporary measure – a bridge to finding a permanent solution. Permanently subsidising those who aren't completely incapacitated is unaffordable, and over time, deprives people of the ability to live independently. The core idea behind the legislation is sound, but the execution has been farcical and amateurish.
Pomerol95
Weakness in governance
When taxes rise to compensate, public sympathy for those on benefits may start to fade. A carpenter measures twice before cutting – surely any serious policymaker should adopt the same principle. But this Government, despite its huge majority, lacks the will to impose and stick to a policy. That is true weakness and lack of resolve.
Martyn
The government resents the people
What is really broken about the welfare system? Yes, people wait ages for money, suffer humiliating assessments, and get some of the lowest benefits in Europe. But apparently those aren't the problems the government wants to fix. The real issue is this: the government resents spending on the people. The benefits bill exposes the deep wounds caused by economic mismanagement, and rather than take responsibility, they blame the people, portraying millions as too feckless to be allowed decent lives.
nakaserokid
Barriers to work
Proposing cuts without proper consultation or tackling the real barriers to work is what weakened Starmer’s position. For example, the Access to Work scheme for disabled people currently has a nine-month wait just to provide workplace adjustments. How can Labour say it’s serious about getting disabled people into work with that in place?
Aryhian1
No conviction, no consistency
I don't often agree with John Rentoul, but he’s right about Keir Starmer. He has no conviction, blows with the wind, and is making U-turn after U-turn. He must go – but who’s even capable of filling his shoes?
Cyclone8
Not all disabled people can work
Disabled people should absolutely be protected, including those who can work. But what about those who can’t? For some, work would further damage their health. Being disabled is not nearly as easy as some people seem to think.
Markcarlisle
A chaotic, damaging proposal
The proposed reforms are misguided. They won’t save money – on the contrary, they’ll cost more thanks to added red tape and endless record-keeping. It's short on detail and long on bureaucracy. Starmer has mishandled this completely – another bad idea, sloppily presented, chaotically executed. Since taking office, it's been mistake after mistake. He and his team act like a chaotic classroom with a teacher who has no control, no clarity, and no ability to lead. He doesn't come across as smart or astute. He should go before doing more damage.
FarsMars
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.
The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
Labour welfare bill latest: Starmer warned secret rebels ready to sink benefits vote
Energy bills to rise after Ofgem approves £24bn investment
BBC director-general was at Glastonbury during Bob Vylan performance
Starmer braced for biggest rebellion of premiership as MPs rail against benefit cuts
The sound of silence for Kendall was a big problem for Starmer beyond welfare reform
Trans charity demands investigation into EHRC following gender ruling
