Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain reversed course on proposed changes to a key social welfare benefit on Friday after pressure from critics, the latest in a series of political retreats that have shaken his leadership.
Confronted by a rebellion from its own lawmakers, the government announced that it would weaken proposals to change the eligibility requirements for payments to disabled people, a move that was expected to affect hundreds of thousands of people.
The proposed legislation is designed to reduce the country’s ballooning welfare bill. The government is hoping that its concession will be sufficient to win a vote in Parliament, scheduled for Tuesday, that it had looked almost certain to lose.
Mr. Starmer’s reversal follows a similar retreat over a plan to restrict payments to help retirees with winter fuel costs, and a change of heart when he opted to hold a national investigation into child sexual exploitation and abuse — an inquiry that he had previously rejected.
The welfare changes were proposed in the hope of reducing government spending by 5 billion pounds, about $6.9 million. But Friday’s turnabout leaves the government, despite its large parliamentary majority, in a political crisis less than a year after achieving a decisive general election victory.
Opposition critics have predicted that to make up the shortfall, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer, will have to raise taxes, cut government spending elsewhere or break her self-imposed rules on borrowing.
Despite clear signs of opposition from more than 120 lawmakers within his governing Labour party, Mr. Starmer had insisted for days that he would press ahead with the initial plan, and even dismissed the protests.
The government put its best spin on its concessions, which were announced in the early hours of Friday, arguing that negotiations with lawmakers had strengthened its plans.
“We are moving forward with our reform plans, but we’re going to get it right,” Stephen Kinnock, a minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, told Times Radio. “My experience is the public really likes it when politicians listen, engage, recognize where changes are needed and take action accordingly.”
Under the revised plans, changes to the eligibility for some welfare benefits — including one known as personal independence payment, or PIP, which assists people who have both long-term physical and mental health conditions — will now apply only to future applicants, not to existing claimants as had been proposed.
A package of financial help to support people who are able to work to get back into employment is also expected to be fast-tracked.
Britain’s welfare costs have been mounting, and the government says that since the coronavirus pandemic, the number of approved PIP payments has more than doubled — rising from 13,000 a month to 34,000.
That surge has been largely driven by an increase in the number of people who report anxiety and depression as their main condition, and the government predicts that spending on working-age disability and incapacity benefits could increase to about £70 billion a year by 2029.
Ministers argue that, in addition to curbing the welfare system’s rising costs, they want to help people who can work to get back into employment.
Meg Hillier, one of the most prominent Labour rebels, said she would now support the legislation, an indication that the concession could be enough to win Tuesday’s vote. She described the move in a statement as a “positive outcome that has seen the government listen and engage” with the concerns of Labour lawmakers.
But some Labour lawmakers are unhappy with the changes, because new claimants for disability payments will be treated differently from those who currently receive the aid. One Labour lawmaker, Peter Lamb, wrote on social media that the concessions were “insufficient” and that he would vote against the bill.
The opposition Conservative Party similarly pointed to that split between current and future requirements.
“The latest ‘deal’ with Labour rebels sounds a lot like a two-tier benefits system, more likely to encourage anyone already on benefits to stay there rather than get into work,” Helen Whately, who speaks for the Conservatives on work and welfare-related issues, said in a statement
Within the Labour Party, some critics are blaming Ms. Reeves, because she was the driving force behind the plans to curb winter fuel payments that prompted the first retreat, as well as some of the proposed welfare cuts.
Stephen Castle is a London correspondent of The Times, writing widely about Britain, its politics and the country’s relationship with Europe.
The post Starmer Backtracks on Planned Social Cuts, Raising Doubts About His Leadership appeared first on New York Times.
