Riddle me this: if it’s wrong to expect a disabled person to cope without additional support today, why is it OK for another person with the same disability to go without that support in the future?
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill has been an albatross around Keir Starmer’s neck from the outset. Triumphant after attaining a Parliamentary majority of 174, and keen to deal with potentially controversial matters early in his term, he pushed ahead with the legislation despite the unhappiness of many Labour supporters. The idea seems to have been that by reducing welfare payments he would reveal himself to be a tough leader, not prey to the supposed weaknesses of the left, and would establish Labour as the national party of government.
Getting tough on disability
The public was expected to go along with this because it followed years of messaging aimed at stigmatising the poor. Labour proclaimed itself the party of workers, not the unemployed, and borrowed Conservative Party language characterising those on benefits as lazy and irresponsible. This extended to disabled people, many of whom were treated as if they were faking or exaggerating their symptoms. Starmer and his close allies repeatedly implied that PIP is an additional form of unemployment benefit, when in fact many people receiving it are in work (and some depend on it to stay in work). There was a lot of talk of the ‘spiralling welfare bill,’ likewise misleading. Stephen Timms, Minister for Social Security and Disability, admitted to the Commons Work and Pensions Committee last week that “working-age social security spending as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) isn’t much more now than it was before the 2008-2010 recession,” sitting at around 5% of GDP.
When the bill was introduced, it became apparent that people hadn’t bought into the negative messaging as thoroughly as intended. Labour MPs found themselves besieged by unhappy constituents, many with heartbreaking stories. As a consequence, 126 of them signed a letter stating their intention to vote against the bill. There were thought to be still more sitting quietly on the sidelines, ready to join the rebellion if it seemed likely to succeed.
Amending the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill
When rallying the whips and making a series of desperate late night phone calls failed to win over the rebels, Starmer was left in a difficult position. Going ahead and losing could trigger a leadership contest. Calling off the vote and dropping the changes would make him look weak, also threatening his position. So he sought compromise. On Friday afternoon, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves revealed the details. Everyone currently receiving PIP will remain within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November next year and will only apply to new claims. Meanwhile, adjustments will be made to Universal Credit to similar effect: existing claimants will have their incomes protected.
The immediate outcome of these changes seems to be a realignment of party members with Starmer, leading to the conclusion that the bill will pass. Insiders say that rebels are relieved they can now reassure constituents that they will be safe after all. Talk to disabled people themselves, however, and the picture that emerges is very different. There is a widespread expression of horror that the changes previously announced will go ahead – even if they don’t do so immediately, even if they only apply to other people. Disabled people are not only thinking about themselves.
Majorities, vote share and the politics of numbers
When the rebellion was initially announced, there was delight within the disabled community, and among Labour voters more widely: a feeling that Labour was resuming its true colours, that MPs were at last ready to make a principled stand. Now, as they see those same MPs flocking back to Starmer’s side, they are asking themselves if it was ever about principle at all.
Labour has a large majority (despite losing a few people since the election – its majority is now down to 156), but it has a shallow majority. What this means is that most of its MPs don’t have very large majorities within their constituencies. Almost a third of all current MPs have majorities of less than 10%. Traditionally, disabled people’s votes have tended to skew to the left, as have those of their carers and close family members. In other words, if disabled people withdraw their votes from Labour, a lot of those MPs will be out at the next election. Have the rebels just been trying to save their own skin? Is Starmer’s compromise founded on the calculation that relatively few people will have been impacted by the new PIP rules by the time of the next election?
While MPs worry about their constituency votes, Labour strategists are alert to the fact that, despite its victory, Labour only received 34% of the overall vote – one of those oddities that results from the first past the post electoral system. Having just had a Conservative government, and with Reform UK rising in the polls, they see themselves as caught between right-wing contenders, leading to the belief that electoral survival depends on winning right-wing support. This, however, is a potential miscalculation.
Between them, these two opposition parties polled 38% at the last election. 23% of votes went to parties whose policies mostly skew to the left of Labour. Furthermore, the ground to the right is comfortably occupied by parties which Labour cannot outdo in terms of right-wing policy, while to the left there is a perceived void, with large numbers of people complaining that there is nobody they can vote for who stands a chance of getting in. In other words, if Labour were to move left instead of right – without having to go to extremes – it would find itself on fertile ground. The polls may suggest the electorate is shifting to the right, but that is at least in part an artefact of people on the left having given up on politics.
The problem for Labour is this: if it betrays disabled people, it will not only lose a crucial part of its core vote – it will also risk cutting off any hope of courting those disillusioned left-wing voters, condemning itself to scrabble for a tiny patch of ground on the right.
Disabled people still feel betrayed by Labour
Labour MPs wavering over the vote on the revised Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill need to speak with their disabled constituents again. They need to pay attention to the conversations taking place in disabled communities. They need to understand that outside the cut-throat world of modern party politics, it is normal for people to care about others. Starmer’s compromise may seem adequate to them, but it does not seem adequate to their voters.
There is one more factor to consider here, and it is this: the term ‘new claim’ is an unclear one. How will it apply to people transferring to PIP from Child Disability Living Allowance? What will happen when claims come up for review? What about people whose claims have been turned down, and who are currently caught up in the lengthy appeals process? It’s easy to conjecture as to how the term should be interpreted, but the DWP has a reputation for using every uncertainty to deny people support, wherever it can.
Disabled people don’t trust the DWP. After voting Labour only to be more egregiously treated than they were by the Conservatives, they don’t trust Keir Starmer. And if rebel MPs now vote as Starmer tells them, pretending they’ve achieved something meaningful, disabled people won’t trust them either.
