Starmer's Welfare Reform Paralysis Risks Opening Door to Reform UK Government
Keir Starmer is displaying profound political cowardice by refusing to grasp the nettle of essential welfare reform. If his Labour Party fails to get its act together swiftly, it will only guarantee more economic pain later – and potentially usher in a Reform government that possesses the political will to make difficult decisions, writes John Rentoul.
A Leadership Under Siege and the Politics of Fear
It has been evident for some time that Keir Starmer is running scared of substantive welfare reform. This stance stems from a toxic blend of political cowardice and short-term tactical calculation. The cowardice is glaringly apparent. By last summer, Starmer was already fighting desperately for his political survival.
Angela Rayner remained as deputy prime minister, her reputation still intact before questions emerged about her tax affairs. It was obvious that if she could muster public support from 81 Labour MPs to trigger a leadership contest, Starmer would be finished, destined to lose a vote among the party membership. With far more than 81 MPs vehemently opposed to any welfare reductions, prudence and a series of further policy U-turns to appease demands for higher public spending became the governing principle of Number Ten.
The Tactical Retreat from Legislation
In defence of Starmer and his Work and Pensions Secretary, Pat McFadden, there exists a tactical argument for avoiding new legislation. Legislation necessitates votes in the Commons, and votes provide opportunities for backbench rebellions. However, skilled ministers can achieve significant changes without handing their MPs a chance to vote against the government.
Henry de Zoete, one of Michael Gove's most accomplished former special advisers, recently outlined his advice for effective government. A key tenet was: "Do not legislate unless you really have to. It takes forever. And once every MP and Lord has their say you won’t get what you wanted in the first place."
Ministers already possess extensive powers under existing laws and can frequently enact changes by issuing new guidance or utilising statutory instruments – a form of secondary legislation that typically passes through parliament by default. For instance, the requirement for face-to-face assessments for disability and incapacity benefits, rather than remote Zoom interviews, could be altered without primary legislation. Similarly, if assessors are perceived to have incentives to award benefits rather than deny claims, this can be addressed by rewriting contractor agreements.
The Price of Inaction and Political Danger
McFadden is aware of these mechanisms, and some incremental changes will likely occur. But they must be implemented rapidly and proclaimed loudly so that taxpayers feel they are not being taken advantage of. There is currently an excess of review and a deficit of decisive action.
Ultimately, this situation may require taking calculated risks with Labour MPs. They must comprehend that a disability budget which is expanding rapidly – without reflecting any genuine increase in disability prevalence – is handing a powerful political weapon to Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Starmer, understandably, has no appetite to revisit the scene of his humiliating defeat by his own backbenchers last year. A threatened rebellion forced him and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to abandon a plan to reduce the annual increase in Personal Independence Payment (PIP) spending by £5 billion.
Critics labelled it a "cut", and because the proposal, devised by then Work Secretary Liz Kendall, was crudely structured – reducing or removing benefits from existing recipients – it would indeed have constituted a cut for those individuals. Consequently, Kendall retreated, and Reeves was compelled to impose even higher taxes in the subsequent November Budget than initially planned.
A Department in Hibernation
Kendall was subsequently moved to tackle the moral panic surrounding social media at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. McFadden, a fellow Blairite ultra but with sharper political instincts, was installed at the Department for Work and Pensions with a clear mandate: do not poke the hornets' nest again.
Is it any surprise, therefore, that McFadden's department is not expected to trouble parliamentary draftspersons with new welfare legislation in the foreseeable future? It should be noted, however, that the DWP's failure to secure a slot in the recent King's Speech – the government's legislative agenda – does not permanently close the case. Nothing prevents the Prime Minister from deciding later that legislation is necessary to curb benefit expenditure.
Nevertheless, at some inevitable point, Starmer and McFadden must demonstrate genuine leadership. They will have to confront their parliamentary party and explain a stark political reality: if Labour does not reform the welfare system, a future Reform UK government most certainly will.
