Is This the Beginning of the End for Starmer?

Early this week, Keir Starmer suffered the biggest humiliation of his premiership so far. One of his flagship bills, the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, which aimed to cut spending on disability benefits, was only narrowly voted through after major concessions from the government. It looks now as though Starmer's backbenchers are dictating government policy, and as though the government are struggling to get their business through the house. With such a massive majority, this really shouldn't be happening, and has gone to show just how weak the Prime Minister now is. So in this video, we're going to briefly explain the vote this week, how it weakened Starmer, and ultimately, whether this could be the end for the embattled PM. Never miss an episode, and always feel in the loop, by subscribing and ringing the bell. Back in March, Liz Kendall, the Work and Pension Secretary, announced changes to the welfare state. As things stand, qualification for the Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, is centred around a score given to individuals based on their ability to perform certain tasks. An individual needs 8 points across the Daily Living Assessment in order to receive the Basic PIP Allowance, or 12 points for the Enhanced Allowance. The proposed change would have meant that an individual needs 4 points in one category, as well as reaching 8 total points across all categories, in order to receive the Basic PIP Allowance. The Department for Work and Pensions claimed that as a result of this change, by 2029-30, there would be 430,000 fewer successful new applicants. And they claimed that in that time, it would save the government 5.5 billion pounds. However, as we got closer to the second reading of the bill this week, the government appeared worried that their backbenchers could actually block the bill via a reasoned amendment. In order to try and prevent this from happening, the government made a concession aimed at getting the rebels back on side. Significantly, they promised that these changes wouldn't affect those already on PIP. While this appeared to have won some rebels over, the changes weren't made without criticism. For starters, these changes meant that the government would only save 2.5 billion by 2029-30, a 3 billion reduction. Given how slim the fiscal headroom is at the moment, critics argued that this reduction would have to be accounted for with tax rises in the budget this autumn. Other critics argued that it created a two-tiered system of benefits, where people with the same conditions, and therefore the same PIP score, would receive different benefits based on when they applied for them. Despite all of this, the government assumed that this concession would be enough to win them the vote. On the day of the vote itself though, the government appeared worried again. The media reported that there were at least 50 Labour rebels willing to vote against them, and whips were privately being told that the number could be closer to 80. Considering that 84 Labour MPs would be required to vote against the government in order for the legislation to fall, it's not surprising that the government were worried. So, a mere 90 minutes before the vote was set to happen, the government made another concession. This time, they promised that no changes would be made until Sir Stephen Timms, the disability minister, had published his report into the changes. Rebels had pointed out that the report was originally due in autumn of 2026, which is when the changes were set to be implemented, which would have left no time to act on any of its findings. As a result of this concession, it's now not guaranteed that any changes to welfare will be made at all. It will all depend on Timms' review. The government then had neutered the bill, and deprived it of its purpose. MPs complained that making this change so close to the vote made knowing exactly what they were voting on difficult, while others complained that there essentially wasn't a bill to vote on at all. And even with all this, 49 Labour rebels ultimately still voted against the government. This was a real humiliation. It's the biggest rebellion against Starmer yet, and forced him into gutting a bill that he's spent weeks, and plenty of political capital, attempting to justify. It also demonstrates to his backbenchers that if they push hard not only will they not be punished, but they can push the government into changing legislation. The fact that Starmer clearly lacks the political capital to discipline his more left-wing backbenchers, plus his unwillingness to explicitly defend his visibly upset Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the Commons afterwards, sent UK borrowing costs skyrocketing on Wednesday evening, with the 30-year guilt yield jumping by 0.2%. So how did Starmer let this happen? Well, this wasn't just a vote against the bill itself. For many, it was also a vote against Starmer's form of leadership. This is something that's been simmering away in the background for a little while now. Essentially, many MPs feel that Downing Street, armed with a stonking majority, feels able to do as it likes. This was evident as far back as July last year, right after the election, when a total of seven Labour MPs backed an SNP amendment calling for the end to the two-child benefit cap. In response, all of them were suspended, and only four have since been let back into the party, with this being the first demonstration that the government had little time for dissent in the backbenches. Since then, MPs have reportedly claimed that they've been treated like naughty children, and that they were urged never to submit amendments, nor make their views publicly known on any subject. This too seemed to be the case on the changes. Back in March, when the changes were first proposed, a number of Labour MPs voiced concerns. But despite this, the whips believed that any rebellion would be limited, and just ploughed ahead anyway. Perhaps part of the issue here is that Starmer doesn't seem all that engaged with his party. After all, since becoming Prime Minister, he's only voted in the Commons seven times, and is reportedly frequently disconnected from everyday parliamentary business. But what does this mean for Starmer? Well, his authority is seriously weakened, and his party is now divided. Fortunately for Starmer, there are limited avenues and opportunities for rebels to inflict further damage to him, but that doesn't mean that this is over. History suggests that rebellions breed further rebellions. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, he too suffered a rebellion only seven months into his term. 47 of his MPs rebelled over a motion aimed at cutting benefits for lone parents. While he survived, rebellions against the new Labour government increased, and his authority was weakened. Fortunately for Blair at the time, he was still a popular Prime Minister. Starmer doesn't have that luxury. He's going to have to work particularly hard in order to convince his backbenchers to simmer down, otherwise some of his particularly ambitious colleagues may start eyeing the Labour crown. All of this plays into a broader feeling of chaos in the world at the moment. Whether it's wars, economics, or geopolitics, it feels like things are increasingly uncertain. And who's at the middle of all of that? Well, the United States. At one time, the US seemed to be a steady, stabilising force in global politics, but it seems that those days are over, with American influence, popularity, and dominance on the decline. So in the next issue of our magazine, Too Long, we're discussing this shift, and the potential that we're currently observing, the end of the American order. In that section of the magazine, we unpack everything from the collapse of democratic norms in the US, to the decline of American soft power, and if the US can maintain its dominance in energy and technology. We also discuss the people who could pick up the reins from the US, like if China, Europe, or even a new multipolar order could replace America. This magazine is our longest ever, coming in at 76 pages, and it's full of our very best journalism and well thought through analysis. That goes beyond just the US too, with more than half of the magazine dedicated to other topics, from Germany's new focus on military might, the offshoring of migrants around the world, how Nigel Farage could become Britain's next Prime Minister, or our section where we ask a handful of experts what's really driving anti-establishment sentiment around the world. You can pre-order a copy of Too Long from our website right now, or you can subscribe to make sure that you never miss an issue going forward, and if you do, you'll also get 20% off every copy as long as you're subscribed. Plus, just this week, if you use code AMERICANORDER, you'll get an additional 20% off any subscription, bringing down the price to as little as £6.40. So pre-order a copy now to get yourself all of that extra content, and support the journalism that we do here at TLDR every single day.