Labour’s welfare revolt shows politics always catches up with policy

good morning. The rebellion over planned welfare cuts for workers continues to grow. How many troubles is the government suffering? I think it’s quite a bit. Some thoughts about the following:

Death by a thousand cuts

He signed his name to a reasonable amendment submitted by Meg Hillier, the Finance Department’s Selection Committee Chairman, and refused to hand over the government’s planned cuts to welfare. The importance is both mathematical, and over 83 lawmakers will have to rebel to defeat the government – and politically List of signers Includes all members of the Workers’ Traditions and Sects.

Both give the rebellion a great deal of momentum and impulse. Voting against it no longer represents a) fruitless gesture. The latter concerns several ambitious lawmakers.

Ahead of next week’s voting (the first major legislative clash on measures), the government still has cards to play many cards. In particular, it has the looming prospects of a loss to fame and a fall re-shuffle if it loses its vote.

However, there are still major issues for the government. While Labour lawmakers support most of the planned welfare reforms (e.g., changed pathways to working for claimants from employment, new approaches to younger people), most say, “These do not consider them legitimacy of individual independent payment changes (PIPs) beyond changes that could force us to actively and actively score.

In fact, that view is shared by the country, according to the latest votes with more commonalities. Most voters hope that the government will reverse the planned pip cuts.

As I said before, that’s one of the reasons why everything is true! The government is right to worry that while the UK is spending more on benefits (except pensions) now, just as it did during the financial crisis, it is less effective in reducing poverty than it was back then. But most government spending cuts do nothing to solve this problem. They only bring about a rather arbitrary and cruel change in eligibility for some people with disabilities.

Under the proposal, the claimant must earn at least four points in at least one of the “everyday life” activities to qualify for the PIP component. The new requirements are designed to target PIPs of people with “high needs” but accumulating lower scores across multiple activities could eliminate those who are currently eligible. For example, individuals who need to wash their hair and body under the waist (2 points), prepare their lower body (2 points) outfits (2 points) (2 points), and manage their toilet needs (2 points) (2 points) (2 points) will not meet the new single activity threshold despite a total score of 8 points.

It is not clear why it can be argued that if someone who needs assistance to get out of the bath or shower can wash it up rather than under the waist, it is less. When faced with the details of the government’s proposal, most people react from them.

Whatever happens next week, it reminds us of the old truth. Ultimately, politics is about catching up to policy. Even if this is an increasingly larger “if” governments will see the rebellion and sooner or later will need to change their approach.

Try this now

This week I mainly listened to Heim’s new album. I quit While writing my column. I agree with Ludovic Hunter Tilney in his review: That’s not very good.

Today’s top stories

• “What they’ve experienced is devastating.” |A series of terrible reports has begun a national survey of NHS Maternity Care in the UK. It will start this summer and end by December 2025.

• Sounds familiar |The much-anticipated industrial strategy is attempting to tackle the obstacles facing eight strategic sectors as businesses seek to expand. However, some of the highlighted initiatives are not new. Reporters will unpack the 160-page document here.

• Spain exit | Keir Starmer pledges to NATO that Britain will raise national security spending to 5% of GDP within 10 years as its members try to persuade President Donald Trump to stick to the alliance (this new promise would increase core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035). Almost every member of NATO had agreed to the spending levels promoted by NATO Executive Director Mark Latte, but Spain took a blow to the group’s cohesion on Sunday.