2 hours agoShareSaveIain Watson, Henry Zeffman and Harry FarleyPolitical correspondentsShareSaveReutersAngela Rayner has declared that the government will go ahead with its controversial legislation, aimed at reforming the welfare system, next week.But a well-placed source told us it could still be pulled: “It’s a live discussion.”Conversations are continuing at the heart of government on the least worst course of action in the face of a significant backbench rebellion.More than 120 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped, making an embarrassing defeat for the government possible.Ministers are exploring whether some potential rebels can be won over with concessions or whether it’s better to avoid next week’s vote entirely, and postpone until the autumn.Sources suggest the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is “digging in”. They fear concessions, if any, would only be offered from the dispatch box on Tuesday if defeat looms.But some in government believe this is seen as too much of a high-wire act, and don’t want to risk defeat. Even if the reforms stumble through, one leading rebel predicted dire consequences. The subsequent bitterness in Labour’s ranks, they suggested, would make it all but impossible for the leadership to handle their own parliamentary party.Labour’s landslide election victory was just a year ago, so how could it now be even at the remotest risk of defeat on a flagship policy?Here are a few factors.Ignoring the signalsThis rebellion has been a long time in gestation.What ignited the flame of rebellion was the government’s own assessment in March that its welfare changes could force 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into relative poverty. This did not take in to account new measures to get more people in to work, because these have yet to be implemented, but that headline figure made many MPs shudder.That the government had a problem with party management should have become obvious when backbenchers were called in to meet officials in Downing Street to be briefed on the welfare changes early in March. Some of these usually loyal MPs emerged unhappy. One of them told us: “People won’t wear it. The costs of being disabled aren’t going down. They can’t just force this through like the winter fuel cut.”Another said they had made a “heartfelt” plea for a change of course.Alarm bells should possibly have rung when welfare ministers – including Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall – held a series of sessions with concerned backbenchers, and some of the testy exchanges were leaked.The next milestone on the road to rebellion was in May when 42 Labour MPs wrote to the Guardian pushing for postponement of cuts and a rethink.But the sirens should have wailed when more than 100 Labour MPs wrote to the government whips last month.When only very small concessions – or “olive branches” as Department of Work and Pensions sources preferred to call them – emerged, discussions began behind the scenes among MPs on drawing up a ‘reasoned’ (at Westminster, this is a euphemism for ‘wrecking’) amendment – when dissenters would display their discontent in public.One cabinet minister told the BBC: “Some of those who signed the amendment did so thinking that the Speaker wouldn’t select it, but that it would make the strength of feeling clear and bring the government to the negotiating table.”But the government hasn’t sat down at that table and the cabinet minister believes that if next week’s welfare vote goes ahead, “the Speaker would be mad not to select it” – placing the government in danger of defeat.Wrong way roundA chunk of blame is being apportioned to the chancellor’s fiscal rules – and …
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
[mwai_chat context=”Let’s have a discussion about this article:nn2 hours agoShareSaveIain Watson, Henry Zeffman and Harry FarleyPolitical correspondentsShareSaveReutersAngela Rayner has declared that the government will go ahead with its controversial legislation, aimed at reforming the welfare system, next week.But a well-placed source told us it could still be pulled: “It’s a live discussion.”Conversations are continuing at the heart of government on the least worst course of action in the face of a significant backbench rebellion.More than 120 Labour backbenchers have signed an amendment calling for the proposals to be scrapped, making an embarrassing defeat for the government possible.Ministers are exploring whether some potential rebels can be won over with concessions or whether it’s better to avoid next week’s vote entirely, and postpone until the autumn.Sources suggest the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is “digging in”. They fear concessions, if any, would only be offered from the dispatch box on Tuesday if defeat looms.But some in government believe this is seen as too much of a high-wire act, and don’t want to risk defeat. Even if the reforms stumble through, one leading rebel predicted dire consequences. The subsequent bitterness in Labour’s ranks, they suggested, would make it all but impossible for the leadership to handle their own parliamentary party.Labour’s landslide election victory was just a year ago, so how could it now be even at the remotest risk of defeat on a flagship policy?Here are a few factors.Ignoring the signalsThis rebellion has been a long time in gestation.What ignited the flame of rebellion was the government’s own assessment in March that its welfare changes could force 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into relative poverty. This did not take in to account new measures to get more people in to work, because these have yet to be implemented, but that headline figure made many MPs shudder.That the government had a problem with party management should have become obvious when backbenchers were called in to meet officials in Downing Street to be briefed on the welfare changes early in March. Some of these usually loyal MPs emerged unhappy. One of them told us: “People won’t wear it. The costs of being disabled aren’t going down. They can’t just force this through like the winter fuel cut.”Another said they had made a “heartfelt” plea for a change of course.Alarm bells should possibly have rung when welfare ministers – including Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall – held a series of sessions with concerned backbenchers, and some of the testy exchanges were leaked.The next milestone on the road to rebellion was in May when 42 Labour MPs wrote to the Guardian pushing for postponement of cuts and a rethink.But the sirens should have wailed when more than 100 Labour MPs wrote to the government whips last month.When only very small concessions – or “olive branches” as Department of Work and Pensions sources preferred to call them – emerged, discussions began behind the scenes among MPs on drawing up a ‘reasoned’ (at Westminster, this is a euphemism for ‘wrecking’) amendment – when dissenters would display their discontent in public.One cabinet minister told the BBC: “Some of those who signed the amendment did so thinking that the Speaker wouldn’t select it, but that it would make the strength of feeling clear and bring the government to the negotiating table.”But the government hasn’t sat down at that table and the cabinet minister believes that if next week’s welfare vote goes ahead, “the Speaker would be mad not to select it” – placing the government in danger of defeat.Wrong way roundA chunk of blame is being apportioned to the chancellor’s fiscal rules – and …nnDiscussion:nn” ai_name=”RocketNews AI: ” start_sentence=”Can I tell you more about this article?” text_input_placeholder=”Type ‘Yes'”]
