Labour infantry humiliates British Prime Minister Keir Starmer

LondonUnmitigated humiliation for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The week that was supposed to mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to Downing Street –It is fulfilled this Friday–, has been the week in which the power of the premier was practically reduced to ashes and in which he was accused of making "Dickensian cuts" to social benefits for the most vulnerable. In a severe blow to his moral authority and to the legitimacy of the party leadership, Starmer saw this Tuesday night the passage of the bill reforming the Individual Contributions for the Disabled (known as welfare bill) has been practically decapitated at its core by an internal revolt of unprecedented proportions, which has forced the government to bow to the rebels' force with last-minute concessions minutes before the vote. who have spoken out against.

The initial reform of the Universal Aid system and Personal Independence Payments sought more than a saving of 6 billion euros in the social bill due to the need to find money to continue the arms race that a genuine modification of a system that, in general—and this is also believed by the rebels—is considered not to work.

The government's excuse for pushing it through was to guarantee the future of the benefits system and prevent fraud. In short, to ensure that those who are able to work work and not live on welfare, an unsympathetic view of physical disabilities and mental illness, according to critics of the government's initiative.

The debate on the reform has been lived in the Commons throughout the afternoon in a climate of great emotional tension, with a session in which dozens of Labour MPs stated that they would vote against the party because they owed it, in conscience, to their constituents and to Labour's values of equality, respect, and support. The Liberal Democrats also voted against it, and the Conservatives, for opposite reasons, likewise rejected it.

All of this deepens the feeling of bewilderment that permeates the party, with a leader without personality, servile to the powerful and weak to the most helpless, who has demonstrated a surprising lack of political flair in the processing of a highly sensitive legislative project not only for the party's left—practically annihilated by Starmer and his Praetorian Guard—but also for the bulk of the Labour infantry.

The concessions made by the government shortly before Tuesday's vote have been the culmination of one blunder after another. In short, the government has taken a second U-turn—it had already done so last week—by withdrawing the most controversial aspect of the law. This is Clause Five, which provided for imposing a minimum threshold of four points in each of the different areas assessed in disabilities to grant or deny entitlement to benefits. These are the ability to prepare and eat food, to wash and bathe oneself, to dress and undress, to toilet train, to learn and remember information, the ability to speak and communicate, and mobility within the home and outside.

Two ways to access benefits

When the bill was initially introduced in April by Department for Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, government estimates predicted that 250,000 people would fall into poverty due to tougher conditions and the abolition of benefits.

Last week, the discontent of backbenchers was already evident. But Starmer, dismissively and without calculating the repercussions, dismissed the criticism as "pure noise." In fact, 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment opposing the bill's second reading. The amendment stated that they accepted "the need to reform the social security and benefits system," but then listed a host of reasons why they refused to give the bill the green light. Many of these reasons were related to the government's aforementioned assessment of the impact of its reform.

The first of the concessions implied that people currently receiving benefits would not have to submit to tightened controls to maintain them. The rebels and 138 disability associations, led by Rachael Maskell, the same MP who has accused Starmer of "Dickensian cuts," rightly argued that the proposal ultimately entailed the establishment of a discriminatory two- or three-track system, in which access to the conditions of the contributions they had requested was essential payments to get by in their daily lives. Some 150,000 people were left holding the bag, according to the 126 rebels.

After tonight's vote, the reform, in theory, continues the parliamentary process and now enters committee discussion. But the original spirit of the law has been mortally wounded. Because the Secretary of State for the Disabled, Stephen Timms, has closed the debate by confirming in the House that Any changes to the eligibility criteria for receiving aid will depend on the outcome of the independent review of the system that he himself will carry out—to be presented in the fall of 2026—in close collaboration with disability organizations, which have not yet been consulted. The first birthday cake of his first year in power.