Most commentators have assumed that the Conservatives would always vote in favour of anything that resembled a benefits cut. But there now seems to be a possibility that the Tories are planning to support Labour rebels and vote against Labour’s Green Paper.

On 18 May, Conservative MP Helen Whately told the Standard: “Labour’s plans dodge the difficult decisions on welfare, leave more people out of work than they put in and will hit some of the nation’s poorest people.

“The sickness benefits bill is spiralling out of control and these rushed reforms will make things worse, not better.

“These plans are cruel, careless and clumsy. And it seems that even some of the people closest to Reeves agree with us, not her.”

What makes this total condemnation of the Green Paper particularly noteworthy is that Whately is the Conservative shadow secretary for work and pensions.  It seems unlikely that she would have been so outspoken in her criticism without party approval.

It is clear that the rebellion on Labour’s back benches has been growing in the two months since the Green Paper was published.

On 1 April, the Labour List website published the names of 27 MPs who said they would rebel against the government and 15 more who had expressed opposition to the Green Paper.

On 8 May, 42 Labour MPs wrote to the prime minister to say the cuts were impossible to support.

On 15 May, ITV reported that 50 Labour MPs were set to rebel, including the 42 who had signed the original letter.  100 MPs had also signed a private letter to Starmer urging the government to delay the changes and rethink its proposals. At least 6 MPs signed both letters.

Which suggests that somewhere in the region of 130 Labour MPs oppose the cuts, though there is no suggestion they would all vote against them.

The labour leadership are said to be considering a number of ways to buy off the rebels.  These include changes to the winter fuel payment means-test, changes to the two child limit or changes to the benefits cap. 

The idea will be to tell rebel MPs that the government doesn’t have the cash help these groups and also to drop its Green Paper cuts.

Whether this is a pitch that will work, remains to be seen.

But there seems to be at least a possibility that the Conservatives are now positioning themselves to take advantage of Labour’s disarray.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Commentary in Guardian today:

    Did Starmer’s supporters expect such an agenda – one as gruesomely reactionary as it is bereft of an obvious electoral base of support? Did they believe it would prove so devoid of principle as to allow Farage to dictate the national political conversation before they’d even completed one year in power?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    It is right these cuts are ill thought out and not desgined to assist those that may be able to work into work,as the system is just not set up to deliver tailored help, nowhere near it.  It needs to be accepted that some will never work and a consultants evidence should be enough to support that, without endless assessments, trying to trip you up.  And fine if the Conservatives those that choose to vote against these proposals, but yes theirs were abysmal.  I have written to my MP a Tory against their proposals, and again regarding Labours abomination.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    With regards the Tories they would vote against labour and with the rebels as it would then lead to a vote of no confidence and renewed elections if the government lost the no confidence vote. That is Real Politicks 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    There needs to be a sickness element to UC/New Style ESA as this really has nothing to do with a person's disability and there needs to be a proper PIP form that takes into consideration weakness and difficulties in leading a normal life. The questions need to be entirely different based on illnesses be it mental or physical based on real world illnesses that make it difficult to work and the ones for PIP has to take into consideration a far more holistic view of a person and what makes it hard for them to do normal things. I don't think the UC/New style ESA should be dependent on PIP and they should continue to be separate and not dependent on if a person gets PIP or not! These are the areas where a complete overhaul and reform is needed not tinkering around with the questions which do not reflect real situations in a modern world
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    "These plans are cruel, careless and clumsy" Bit rich when the Tories basically wanted to scrap PIP for most claimants and for those left replace it with vouchers or one of payments. And wanted to scrap the WCA and make everyone fit for work and at the mercy of DWP work coaches. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    She is right in saying theybare cruel, Careless and clumsy.  Notwithstanding their effects on us, they are a complete shambles. Little to no sense in them at all, not even in trying to achieve the budget savings.  There is no "narrative" to them, in that they the elements of cuts don't support or relate to each other.  

    There were other ways to save money that wouldn't have been so damaging to us or Labour.  There could have been a third, lower tier of Daily Living at about half the money that the standard element is now.   There could be a benefits cap introduced for the disabled.  No, we wouldn't want either, but it would have been less devastating for us, and easier to bring in transitional protection, which they seem to not know how to implement as things are.

    Would that have saved the same amount of money?  No, but it could at least be seen  as humane and less politically damaging.  As for the Tories, they want to make Labour squirm, even if they believe in wider  cuts. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    How can I PM Benefits and Work?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @YogiBear Email them: 
      info@benefitsandwork.co.uk
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    there needs to be a review of the system to see that it is working well without cuts. are everyone who is entitled getting everything they are entitled to? crack down on the fraud first, suspend the managed migration from leggacy beneifits to Uc while this is going on. then, once the dwp have collected all fraud, mostly from UC and pension credit and housing beneifit at last count, they can then continue with the roll out of UC to existing claments. that's what a review should do, and I hope the disgust around what labour has done will result in a vote down of the paper.