good morning. Is Keir Starmer’s concessions to Labour enough to avoid a defeat in the House tonight? And, more importantly, are they something good? Some thoughts on both topics in today’s notes.
It was defective from the beginning
There’s something unique here. Taking positively at face value the legislation of the legislation to reduce individual independent payments, namely the importance of long-term sustainability and “reform” in the benefits system, government concessions last Thursday are a wise and practical way to help.
Changes to government bills include committing not to take away benefits from those who have already received them.
Grandfather of changes in benefits to future claimants is how most of the changes in benefits at work and working age were made during the introduction of universal credit. This is a wise way to manage political opposition to change. Fix one of the big problems facing government whips. Neuroworkers from constituencies where the number of people trying to lose in PIP is greater than their majority.
So the government’s concessions to rebels (where government savings drop from almost £5 billion to around £2 billion) should be enough to see a defeat in tonight’s vote. This change, coupled with an increase in other linked benefits, will reduce the law’s otherwise political distress.
But of course, we all know that government justification for these welfare cuts is nonsense. The reason for the plan was to oppose Rachel Reeves’ thin razor headroom against her financial rules. These changes will not allow the UK welfare system to work better. It simply introduces any differences between severely disabled people. The presence of this is one reason why a considerable rebellion is still likely. It will also mark a major setback for the government, increasing the already difficult background for the Prime Minister ahead of the fall budget.
That being said, I don’t think the rebellion is big enough to beat the government. In my experience, parliamentary rebellions need to gain important masses to put the government at risk. It has a majority of 165 Commons working houses. That means around 80 Labour lawmakers need to vote against the Welfare Bill to beat it. The fact that the destructive amendments that forced Keir Starmer to make expensive concessions had adequate signatories encouraged others to participate.
Last night, a new amendment was presented by Labour lawmakers who lamented the bill. But it has only 30 Labour MPs. That is, there is an incentive to take on a transaction and queue.
The original crime here is that it cannot be made based on “if we can get £5 billion from this budget it would certainly be convenient.” You must start at the point of principles about what the state should and should not do. The reason why the government ended up in the background of unpopular policies, re-exit MPs and worsening finances is how it communicates and its organization. All this flows from the basic problem that you can’t create a good policy this way.
Try this now
This week I listened mainly to Anna Meredith’s great 2016 record Varmints, writing columns.
Today’s top stories
Cash Out | Rachel Reeves plans to cut annual tax-free cash ISA allowances next month to move a portion of the £300 million cash pile to UK businesses. FT’s Emma Dan Cree and Jim Picard got a scoop.
Squeeze Hit Home | Disposable income for UK households will drop at the fastest speed in two years in the first quarter, and could knock one of the workers’ main economic goals off the course. Last year, Kiel Starmer said the government will target disposable income from households as a “milestone” to assess economic policy success.
FIRS REAL | China has been excluded from the top tier of the UK government’s new foreign impact registration scheme to track the activities of foreign powers as it seeks to rebuild its relations with Beijing to pursue growth.
First Principles | Think Tank acknowledges the need for welfare reform, but says that ministers, including work and pension secretary Liz Kendall, have mismanaged the process that demonstrates the danger that sensitive policy changes will be driven by the need to meet arbitrary voluntary fiscal rules. “Concentrating reforms on one of the benefits systems is like squeezing balloons,” said Stephen Evans, CEO of Learning & Work Think-Tank.
“Very cruel” | The grieving husband criticized the Home Office for holding thousands of pounds in the visa fees he paid to his wife, despite the fact that she died before she arrived in the country, Guardian’s Diane Taylor reports.
Recommended newsletter
Last week – Start every week with a preview of what’s on the agenda. Sign up here
Newswrap – A summary of our business and economics. Sign up here
