The mistakes Keir Starmer made over disability cuts – and how he can avoid future embarrassment

Labour MPs have forced a major government climbdown over disability benefit cuts, in an embarrassing turn of events for Keir Starmer. The prime minister has blown a hole in his budget by agreeing to scrap plans to tighten eligibility criteria for disability benefits via the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.

In return, MPs passed what was left of the bill – although 49 of them still rebelled, voting against the government. The bruising encounter bodes poorly for the future. Starmer’s Number 10 operation has been shown to be unable to communicate effectively with MPs. The team was neither able to win MPs over when the bill was being developed, nor bring them into line when agreement could not be reached.

The question now must be whether Starmer will ever be able to push through any difficult legislation in the future. He now needs to give serious attention to his relationship with MPs.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

The government has insisted that welfare costs are becoming unsustainable. Back in March, it unveiled plans to cut sickness and disability benefits in order to save £5 billion a year from the welfare budget by 2030. However, the government’s own figures suggested that 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty because of the changes, which led to criticism from many Labour MPs and disability charities.

The threat of rebellion forced a partial u-turn by the government which appeased the vast majority of rebels. Although the remaining rebels failed to pass their wrecking amendment in the end, the fact the government was continuing to negotiate and offer concessions well into the debate on the night of the vote shows that the whips still felt there was a prospect of defeat. This behaviour during the debate is highly unusual and could all have been prevented.

Whenever there is disagreement between the government and its own backbench MPs, the role of the whips becomes even more vital. The whips have an important role in informing backbench MPs of which way the party leadership expects them to vote during divisions in the House of Commons.

However, this is in fact a two-way channel of communication. Whips are also responsible for reporting concerns and dissension among MPs to the chief whip, who then has a duty to report such issues to the prime minister and cabinet.

There has clearly been a breakdown in this two-way channel of communication in the case of the disability benefits cuts. Reports suggest that whips were warning that trouble was brewing to ministers but were being ignored.

How to avoid a repeat incident

A key complaint among Labour backbenchers was that they were not consulted on the proposals before they were announced. As the potential consequences of the changes became clearer, more MPs raised concerns about them.

A lesson for the government here is that adequate groundwork is needed to get MPs on side with policies. That might mean allowing select committees to have more insight into the government’s thinking. It’s notable that select committee chairs were leading figures in this rebellion.

It might also mean making greater use of departmental groups within the Parliamentary Labour Party to allow backbench MPs to feed into discussions at an earlier stage. Crucially, it also means more one-to-one, informal conversations.

All this helps MPs feel like they have a vested interest in the policy and have had their voices heard. If you implement such a safety valve early on, the need for views and frustrations to be expressed so publicly later on in the process is reduced. Instead, in this case, we’ve had Labour backbenchers revealing to the media that, a year into office, they’ve still never even met Starmer.

We have seen a trend in recent years of MPs becoming more focused on their constituency role. This, combined with the large rise in the number of MPs who hold marginal seats (meaning they are at greater risk of losing those seats at the next election) means that they prioritise constituents concerns over the party line. MPs who are worried about holding their seat at the next election have little to lose from threats about losing the whip.

Labour’s position in the polls over recent months has exacerbated this problem. An analysis by the Disability Poverty Campaign Group in April suggested that for dozens of Labour MPs, the number of people claiming the benefits that were to be cut in their constituencies was greater than the size of their majority. In other words, there was a direct line to be drawn between voting for the bill and election loss.

An additional factor that must be considered is that the sheer number of Labour MPs currently in parliament means that the usual incentives for loyalty don’t necessarily apply. Loyalty is often negotiated with promises of ministerial office in the future, but Starmer doesn’t turn over his team often and, in any case, there simply aren’t enough such carrots to dangle in front of everyone when a party has more than 400 MPs.

Labour would also have to win a second term for such promises to be meaningful and that is currently in jeopardy. All this means there are fewer incentives for MPs to play the long game.

What is clear is that Starmer’s approach to party management is not working. Given how the changing nature of politics in the UK, MPs are likely to get a taste for rebellion – particularly if, as happened in this case, rebellions deliver results. This is something any government should seek to avoid.

Clearly there is a need for more groundwork to give MPs a sense of ownership over policy. There is also an argument for the prime minister and senior members of the cabinet to spend more time doing the rounds in the House of Commons tearooms, speaking to the parliamentary party at large and listening to their concerns directly. This might improve parliamentary party relations and keep the lid on future rebellions.

Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.