Parliament has changed – Keir Starmer’s welfare reform challenge won’t be a one-off

Ahead of Tuesday’s scheduled second reading of the government’s Welfare Reform Bill, amidst concerns over the fairness and impact of cuts to personal independence payments (PIPs), a backbench campaign has succeeded in pushing the government into significant policy reversals.  

Countless column inches have been filled with analysis of the differences within the Labour Party and mistakes in political handling which led to these reversals, just weeks after another embarrassing climbdown on means testing winter fuel allowance. Alongside the dangerous precedent these u-turns have set, so early in its first term, there are other characteristics of this parliament which mean the challenge Starmer has faced is unlikely to be the last.   

Backbenchers have fewer incentives to be loyal

First, the incentives on today’s government backbenchers have changed, meaning they are less inclined to be loyal to party leadership. There has been a long-term trend across all parties towards MPs becoming more focused on their constituency role, and less focused on passing government legislation and campaigning in parliament. And today’s government backbencher is having far less comfortable conversations with their constituents than his or her New Labour predecessor – who had the luxury of discussing ministers’ generosity to public services. Many Labour MPs are keener now to be seen to be representing the concerns of the constituents (who are jamming their inboxes with worries about losing their winter fuel subsidy or PIPs) than to help Rachel Reeves balance the books. 

That incentive to prioritise their constituents is even stronger for MPs who feel insecure about their chances of holding their seat at the next election, and there was a very large rise in the number of very marginal seats at the 2024 election. Nearly one in five seats (115) were won by a margin of 5% or less of the total votes cast, and 51 of these most-marginal seats are now held by Labour.

Alongside their principled views on tax and welfare, being seen to oppose government cuts might feel like a rational individual choice for an MP hoping for a second term (especially looking at recent polls), whatever the consequences for the national party.

Add to this the admirable permanency in Starmer’s ministerial team – something the IfG has shown improves policy stability and delivery – combined with the sheer numbers of Labour MPs, and those hundreds of backbenchers have another weakened incentive to stay loyal. Given their chances of being rewarded with a ministerial role in this parliament look slim, building a career as a principled backbencher and constituency defender looks like a more realistic option for many. 

Backbenchers have noticed that organising works

Another difference from the New Labour years is that today’s backbenchers have learnt lessons from more recent examples of successful backbench organising. Backbench groups such as the high-profile European Research Group (ERG) became prominent during the Brexit years, exerting significant pressure of Theresa May and Boris Johnson, and were followed by successors such as the Covid Recovery Group, the Northern Research Group and the China Research Group. ⁴ https://ukandeu.ac.uk/northern-research-group-faction-or-tendency/

As Johnson also found, even a substantial majority is no longer a guarantee that a government can get its business through if its own backbenchers are opposed and have worked out how to work together. And the rebellion on the welfare reform bill seems to have been very well organised – rapidly achieving strength in numbers which made it harder for whips to pick off individuals and persuade them to withdraw their support for the ‘reasoned amendment’.  New communications tools, such as WhatsApp, make it far easier to organise this type of campaign – even when MPs are scattered in their constituencies – than in years past when a rebellion would have to have been organised laboriously in person, and been easier for the whips to detect and challenge. 

Ministers need to learn the right lessons from this challenge

During Brexit and covid, parliamentarians became used to the accelerated passage of bills, squeezed opportunities for scrutiny and increasingly liberal creation and use of delegated powers. These were existing trends which were amped up by the time pressures exerted on parliament by these two external challenges. But Labour now needs to make good on its pre-election promises to reverse them. 

Over hasty policy making, introducing legislation without adequate preparation and minimising opportunities for MPs to look at policy are bad ways to govern and less likely to produce the long-term outcomes any government wants. This is the lesson the government should take from its attempt to introduce significant welfare cuts in response to an adverse OBR spring statement forecast and without adequate groundwork. 

For a government with large numbers of independently minded backbenchers with time on their hands and weakened incentives for loyalty, persisting with an over-hasty approach to policy development and implementation is going to be a recipe for dissatisfaction and rebellion. 

Today’s ministers need consciously to discard the precedents set over the last decade and think carefully about how to involve MPs in the development of their plans. Ministers – including the prime minister – should ensure they are accessible to their colleagues and investing personal time in parliament so that they are aware of concerns emerging. Parliament might have got used to passing legislation fast, but proper consultation, pre-legislative scrutiny where possible and a generous approach to select committee engagement  are far more likely to build and sustain support for the government’s plans. 

In the current fiscal and geopolitical context, there are lots of other difficult choices the government is going to have to need its backbenchers to back. Without a better approach, this backbench challenge will certainly not be the last.