In the slow unravelling of Labour’s Welfare Reform Bill, something revealing happened — not just about policy, but about power. For all the promises of “stability” and “competence” that Keir Starmer had promised a year ago, we instead saw a government conducting itself like an actor who forgets their lines but insists on taking centre stage anyway.
The Bill, in its first draft, was a monument to both arrogance and clownish stupidity. The Government insisted for weeks that its plan would still go ahead for economic and social necessity, despite the mounting rebellion that they faced.
Under pressure — moral, political, and parliamentary — the government stumbled backwards in a desperate attempt to save face. Concessions were made. Even more new commitments and concessions emerged as the Bill was being debated. They conceded in the last hurdle that the Stephen Timms Review will now be conducted before the changes to Personal Independence Payments are implemented, although, there is not yet a timetable for this, nor is it actually written into the Bill.
What manner of government operates like this, by surprise and stumble? What arrogance thinks it can turn the lives of carers, disabled people, and the chronically ill into footnotes in a budget sheet? This is no way for a Government to conduct policy, making changes as the clock was ticking towards the time for them to huddle around the voting chambers. It is something you would expect from a “Thick of it” or “Yes, Minister” episode – not pantomime played in the real world of politics.
And amidst it all — the voices of carers, as ever, ignored. Except, thankfully, by Liberal Democrat MPs. I watched with pride as they rose to speak truth to power. Quiet dignity, when the government offered only bureaucratic cruelty. A moment of clarity in a chamber fogged with doublespeak.
But what struck me most in all this wasn’t just the chaos — it was the cracks in Labour itself.
Here was no united front. No discipline. Instead, Labour rebels found their voice. The government needed late-night meetings, last-minute amendments, and frantic hand-holding to scrape enough of its own backbenchers into the aye lobby. It was a spectacle less of leadership, more of damage control.
This, I suspect, will be remembered as Labour’s own ERG moment. A clumsy parallel, perhaps, but a revealing one. The European Research Group with the Conservative Party, the once-sidelined faction that brought Prime Ministers to their knees — was not born from strength, but from fracture. From a party that no longer pretended and was even hostile to speak with one voice.
And now, it is Labour’s turn.
We once — wrongly — assumed, even those of us most critical of Labour, that “the grown-ups were finally back in the room” to borrow a line from my good friend Mathew Hulbert. I once joined him on that, and like Mathew now eating those words as we see those words as we see depressingly obtuse this Government is. We thought competence would replace chaos. That Starmer’s party would govern in contrast to the spectacle of Tory disarray. But this Bill has shattered that illusion.
Because what is “grown-up” about Labour who scrambled on the last hurdle to rewrite legislation in the chamber just to appease their own MPs? The Government dig their heels in, them scrambled last minute concessions getting in endless knots in a desperate attempt to save face.
Labour’s rebels, like the ERG before them, have now had a taste of leverage. And they will remember it. Their power is no longer theoretical.
Labour could have taken the opportunity to just pause for a moment: to reflect, be humble, and regroup. Instead, it embarrassed itself. To bring a flagship Bill to Parliament without the backing of your own benches is not just amateurish — it’s concerning. And it begs a larger question: who, exactly, is steering the ship?
I find it bizarre — almost poetic — that a government which promised “grown-up politics” is now paddling with one oar and pretending it’s sailing.
Government policy and the way it conducts itself should be about people — not parliamentary theatre. But here we are: a Prime Minister who cannot even carry his own party without compromise written in red ink.
What Labour has shown this week isn’t leadership. It’s fragility. A glass house of policy, already cracked by its own stone-throwers.
And what kind of government emerges from such chaos? Not one of vision. Not one of courage. Just one trying to hold the seams together, while pretending they were never frayed at all.
* Andrew Chandler is the Digital Officer for North Staffordshire Liberal Democrats
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1383
A quartet of Lib Dem wins in council by-elections
Corso Street event tomorrow! #dundeewestend
Details needed on Welsh rail investment
The 'elevator pitch' for solo consultants
Mick Taylor
Simon McGrath
Lin Macmillan
Richard Dickson
Nigel Quinton
10 Comments
Everyone wants to talk about Carers.
No one wants to talk to people with Disabilities who have to live with their conditions, day in and day out. Why?
If they did so, they may find that disabled people don’t need Carers, they need Personal Assistants to help them with all aspects of their lives, not just their basic Personal Care Needs.
That means helping them with administrative support in the work place as well as academic support with study.
It also means providing Campaign Support to help disabled candidates get elected as Councillors and MPs.
All while providing the Personal Care a disabled person needs throughout the day.
Can we find a way to fund a Personal Assistant regime to assist disabled people like me with these tasks.
To do so you need to talk to disabled people themselves, not just Disability Organisations like Scope, Leonard Cheshire or even our own LDDA.
As a disabled member of many years standing I am more than happy to discuss this matter with anyone in the party who can make this happen.
It’s time that matters relating to disability are made with the disabled person themselves, not with those who think they know what disabled people want but don’t really.
Reeves is proving she’s no Thatcher, Gwyneth Dunwoody , Barbara Castle , or Alice Mahon.
Toughen up.
Well, to be frank, if Liberal Democrats want – as I think most sane people do – constitutional reform and more power for MPs as representatives to debate measures and have a meaningful impact, that means more negotiating during the legislative process.
Maybe not quite as panicky and last-minute compromises on finance measures like today, but I would have thought Lib Dems would welcome compromise and change during the debate. It’s a bit rich when people who don’t like hardline whipping from governments ridicule governments for not having controlled and drilled its MPs well enough.
Equally I think badmouthing Rachel Reeves is in poor taste. Even if her decisions are unwise.
This has been an unedifying process from start to finish and left Labour looking silly and dividing itself at least three ways. But please lets have all kinds of politicians and activists refrain from all kind of cheap shots based on dodgy foundations.
The LibDems need to learn from this. The Coalition, exposed lines of fracture in the party. I expect any return to having a significant number of MPs and potential for a role in government will result in the creation of fractions. I am not saying having fractions is bad, just that it is probably best to plan for it to happen and so work accordingly and thus be seen to be in control.
Also given how “the media” et al seem to be wanting quick decisions, there is going to be some negative kick back at the amount of negotiation any form of coalition or truly democratic government will be carrying out in public rather than in private.
@Matt (Bristol)
Respectfully Matt, I hope when you said people “bad mouthing Reeves” was not directed at me?
Where in my article did I say that. I have been a strong opponent of the kind of sexist, vile and derogatory remarks made against her. Check my twitter/X posts today! Did you read my article? At no point do I reference her and I deplore the LibDem activists who have been been badmouthing her.
Could you perhaps correct or clarify the record?
Andy
This week has provided one of those occasions when I have been inclined to insist that what we need is more politics, not less! By that I mean that there are fundamental components of democratic politics that you ignore at your peril – a mature understanding of civilised conflict resolution, sheer political nous that is alert to what is coming down the track and taking seriously those elected representatives who do not have aspirations to high office but can provide warnings like the canary down a mine when necessary.
In the years running up to the 2024 General Election some of us were well aware of Labour’s internal problems, knowing full well that they would always ultimately try to hold divisions together with strict control from the top. I like to think that one of the strengths of Liberal Democrats is the way we talk to one another as we campaign together and attempt to hold to deeply held values in a changing world. Thus I tend to agree with those who suggest that we should soberly learn from this week’s Government farce. There will no doubt be others during the course of the parliament.
Labour’s U-turns all come from giving the Chancellor, and by extension the Treasury, too much control. Labour got away with it during the Blair-Brown years only because the economy was in a healthy place with big income streams from the financial sector meaning they didn’t have to make difficult decisions on tax and spend; not least because Gordon Brown was always extending the economic cycle so that he never had to invoke his Golden Rule.
Today is a very different economic situation. Since the 2008/09 crash growth has been anaemic, not helped by leaving the EU, and the big income streams from the financial sector has dried up. Thatcher’s TINA would now be telling us that there is no alternative to raising taxes and not only on the rich but on the majority of taxpayers; there are simply not enough of them paying higher and additional rates of income tax to fund the changes we need. We should be campaigning on the slogan of fairer taxes not just higher taxes; it is not fair that someone who works for an employer has to pay a marginal rate of 28% on every £ they earn above their Personal Allowance, while a landlord only pays 20% on rents received after expenses, and someone who has enough capital to invest it can pay even less on their capital gains. The pound in your pocket buys exactly the same wherever it comes from; it should be taxed the same.
Any technology improvements in our service and finance based economy don’t seem to get passed on to consumers at all. In fact prices of such as insurance, council tax and energy just go up every year. Combined with massive housing costs either rent or mortgage, people do not have the disposable income to give us a buoyant economy. The problem of mental health of both young and old is quite understandable in this environment.
No Andy Chandler, sorry, I should have been more clear. In that part of what I wrote I’m reacting to the commenter whose comment immediately precedes mine, and I’m not suggesting you were attacking Reeves.
@Matt (Bristol)
Aye, okay. To be honest, when I read it again about a few minutes later I did think you we’re perhaps making light at the commentary circling around. Apologises extended, although I am glad it clarified. It’s a shame you can’t have a ‘delete’ comment because when I sent it I did immediately think – should I have been a bit more open-ended in my questioning. Went a bit KBW.
I completely agree with 100%. And since you come from Bristol, I imagine you shared my disappointment from the Youth Bristol LibDem Group’s twitter which was posted making jokes at that expense. That was certainly not on.
But yes, but coming back to your other remarks. This does suggest to me we need constitutional reform and better empowerment of MP’s. However, what we saw was not proper protocol, even though I did agree the “principal” of the change although I still think withdrawing it and starting again would have been preferable. Basically doing last minute deals was a bit shameless. This is the sort of thing that turn’s people off Proportional Representation because of “back-room” deals shtick. If Government cannot conduct itself in proper manner then what hope does it give us to make a positive case for Electoral Reform.