Keir Starmer’s malfunctioning political machine

Good morning. The government’s difficulties over cuts to welfare spending are in large part a policy problem. But they are also a product of a dysfunctional political operation. Some thoughts on the latter in today’s note.

Heading for defeat

The size and scale of the rebellion against the government’s planned cuts to personal independence payments continues to grow. More Labour MPs have signed up to the amendment to block the legislation from its first major Commons vote next week, while Sadiq Khan has come out against the bill too.

Kemi Badenoch has announced that the Conservative party will vote against the cuts. Not in so many words: she has done one of those “we will support you, provided you meet these three tests that are impossible to satisfy” tests that are so beloved of opposition leaders throughout the ages.

The three tests: the government needs to bring unemployment down, reduce the welfare budget, and rule out increasing taxes in the autumn. All before next week’s vote! Of course, the real thinking here is that the government looks like it is going to lose the vote. That’s why Badenoch is setting her three impossible tests and why, while Keir Starmer is vowing to press ahead with the reforms, in public he is downplaying talk of it as a confidence vote.

As I wrote yesterday, the underlying problem for Labour is that the policy is bad. The cuts run contrary to the logic of the government’s broader reforms to welfare, to the extent that they have any policy logic to them. That is one reason why the attempts to contain the rebellion are not working — ministers have been deployed to win round rebels. But, as one rebel put it to me, the problem is “they don’t really have anything to say”.

The average Labour rebel is pretty close to public opinion on this issue — they agree with the big picture aim of what the government is trying to do and concur that our welfare system needs reform, but they look at the arbitrary changes that the government is making and they say: “What on Earth does this have to do with reform?”

The introduction of universal credit was a reform because it changed how the benefits system operated. In my view it was not a wholly successful one: despite public spending on welfare remaining at similar levels (as a share of GDP) to the financial crisis period, we are now seeing higher levels of destitution.

But this proposed change by the Labour government, where Pip will continue to be assessed and operated in the same way as before but under a new series of conditions, is not a “reform”. It’s just a way to save money.

Given the thin policy justification, all the government whips and ministers are really left with is “come on, do us a solid”. But the problem is that for a variety of reasons, Labour MPs are not inclined to do so. Keir Starmer has never really been one to spend hours wooing MPs or working the tea room. There are not many out-and-out Starmerites who are going to vote for a policy they think is bad to do the prime minister a favour. As a result, Starmer’s operation, whether in opposition or in office, has never been able to be that effective at keeping MPs on side.

That’s part of why this rebellion is now in effect being led by 11 select committee chairs — politicians who for the most part do not expect or want to hold ministerial office but who can cause trouble unless they are cultivated and kept on side. The government has never made enough effort to do so.

That Labour MPs have little contact with the prime minister and little faith in the political strategy is another thing adding to the rebellion. Indeed, it is also why some MPs are now openly talking about the possibility of a change of leader, with one telling Anna Gross that they think it may now be “time for a change”.

And aggravating it all is that U-turn on the winter fuel allowance, a measure that caused significantly less hardship than these cuts would do. That signalled to Labour MPs that if they don’t like a policy, they can change it. It showed that the government yields under pressure.

A combination of bad politics and bad policy means the government is now heading for defeat in the Commons — and the consequences of that loss may yet lead to a deeper crisis in the government. A change of both policy and approach is needed if Labour wants its second year in office to be more fruitful than its first.

Now try this

As I have mentioned once or twice, I absolutely adored The Ballad of Wallis Island (still in cinemas! Go and see it!). It also features a terrific soundtrack. Lovely interview with the movie’s composer, Adem Ilhan, here.

Top stories today

• Rollercoaster economics | The UK government pledged to spend close to £500mn on transport and infrastructure improvements to secure the vast Bedford theme park planned by US media group Comcast, said people close to the talks.

• Expanding UK’s nuclear deterrent | The UK is to purchase 12 US-made F-35 stealth fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons, in a sweeping overhaul of the country’s defence strategy.

• China warning | The UK government has said it wants to boost trade with China despite warning that Beijing has been increasing efforts to spy on Britain and to undermine its democracy and economic security.

• Charm offensive | Labour MPs claim they have been told they will not be considered for promotion or ministerial roles if they rebel against the government’s welfare changes, the i paper (paywalled) reports. According to rebels, some speaking for the government have been telling MPs they should treat the vote next week as a confidence motion in the government.