Switch off the editor’s digest free of charge
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Ultimately, there is only one constitutional reason why someone is a prime minister. You are there because you can master a majority in the House of Commons. They no longer fall as soon as they lose a vote, but as soon as this spell (and power over their own MPs) are broken, they rarely recover.
Less than a year after his landslide victory, Keir Starrer is facing such a crucial moment. If the next few days go bad, we can look back as the last effective week of his authority. The parliamentary uprising against proposed welfare reforms is an existential crisis for both the Prime Minister and his government.
This is not the usual dispute over the change in laws, painful enough, but everyday. Instead, About 120 From Starrer’s own deputies – enough to wipe out his majority – threatens to sink entire legislation before it even started with the change levels of his passage through the parliament. It’s one thing CompromiseAnother to take care of those that an important bill Torpedo Torpedo.
This is a blow. But if it is defeated; If he blinks on Tuesday and pulls off the vote or offers more than modest concessions, this signals a shift in power, whereby either the transformation of the government into a left, higher tax and merger administration or limps it for the rest of Starrmers. Prime Minister must listen, but the reversal would transform his program into a permanent negotiation with non -trustworthy MPs.
The episode will also ask serious questions as to whether workers are essential reforms that need both public services and finances.
The main problem is a plan to reduce payments and to tighten the authorization for those who claim health and disabled advantages, and reduce the claims for the claims for ultimately Up to 800,000 people. This and moves to reduce the financial incentives in order to maintain health deposits for the most important welfare payment of Britain £ 5 billion per year.
Few deny the need for a reform. The health -related benefits in the work event are due to increasing exceptions £ 36 billion in 2019 to £ 63 billion to 2028/9. New personal independence payments (PIPS) to the lower lower ones 40 have increased by 150 percent since the pandemic, Mainly due to psychological health problems. The increase partially reflects the clamp to other services and leads the applicants to these higher payments. Earlier reforms proved to be a shapewear that simply postponed the bay.
But critics argue that The promised support in employment helps to find a job And that the new points-based registration rules for pips are arbitrary and people are punished with real needs. They correctly say that they are all cuts and little reform.
This would always be a fight. Labor MP does not go to politics to reduce well -being. Tony Blair was also available in the first years of his premiere with great welfare revolts. But he won it decisively.
And this is also an uprising against Starrer’s deviating political operation, led by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, accused MPs of abusing the problem. Backbenchers were treated as wild dogs that have to be tamed regularly. When this rebellion began, the government showed little interest in compromises. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, was just as difficult.
Starer’s withdrawal about the pensioner fuel payments in the pensioner encouraged the MPs and confirmed their doubts about his political judgment. You now feel a leader who can be bullied back.
The opposition goes far wider than the usual Corbynite -unconconconConables. It is led by high -ranking mainstream Labor MPs and supported by mayors such as Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham. The scale is less afraid to join in. And rebellions are habitual.
Delayed the downing street sounds conciliatory and speaks with rebels, but it is difficult to see that you are satisfied without a large withdrawal of the new PIP rules. This would significantly reduce the savings that the Ministry of Finance has already issued. And open defiance makes it difficult to withdraw.
Ideally, he needs victory or, without failing, a fudge that delays the confrontation until later in the parliamentary process if a less humiliating compromise can be found. And he still has a few threats. Those who expect him to scrap the restriction advantages of “two-child caps” for those with larger families are quietly reminded that the defeat here makes less money for other things you want.
But it is late a day and the numbers look very bad. When he blinks or loses, his already reduced credibility becomes, says a minister, “crushed”. The MPs of soft left are encouraged to fight more topics and to push for further tax increases compared to cuts. Minister of Social Affairs Liz Kendall is seriously damaged, his chief of staff will be less secure under siege and his chancellor.
Above all, however, the public will rightly ask whether Labor has the will to meet the changes that the creaking state of Great Britain demands. The extent of the Welfare Act means that this reform cannot be the last word on this topic. What will happen to controversial NHS reforms? If Labor shows that there are no hard decisions, voters will resume the search for a party that does not do.
It would not be fatal to lose or too long. But whatever the shortcomings in this legislation – and there are many – would invite a loss of authority that is often the beginning of the leader. As soon as they are forced to bend your knee to your backbench, you rarely stand up again.
