‘The whole policy is wrong’: rebellion among labor MPs has increased by more than £500 million in welfare | Benefits

Labor MPs oppose huge benefits cuts from the government said they would refuse to support legislation that would implement the legislation, even as ministers provide more money to alleviate children’s poverty in order to win them.

The legislation will be introduced to the House of Commons in early June to allow cuts to take effect. They will include tightening standards for individual independent payments (PIP) for persons with disabilities to limit the number of people who can request it. Under the variation, for example, people who cannot clean the lower half of the body will no longer claim PIP unless there is another restriction.

Although Whip and government ministers tried their best to talk to MPs, the major rebellion in the labor seat seemed to be in the labor seat rather than surrender.

One idea as an idea to win the insurgents is to have ministers publish their long-awaited child poverty strategy shortly before the critical sharing vote, and provide extra money for poor parents of children under five. It is understood that Minister of Work and Pensions Liz Kendall is working on a proposal for the youngest children at a cost of less than the £3.6 billion required to completely abolish the controversial two-person welfare payment limit. Now, the government believes that the cap cannot be lifted in the short term given the public finance situation.

Many of the dozens of Labor MPs are angry at the cuts of their party and will refuse to participate in any “trade” involving children with poverty and disabilities.

“You can’t compromise by trade-offs,” said Rachael Maskell, a member of York Central Parliament who plans to vote on legislation. “You say you’ll take more children from poor families by putting more disabled people into poverty. That’s simply wrong.

“The government does really need to start listening to members of Congress, civil society and the population as a whole, because there is indeed a widespread opposition to these policies.”

The minister and the labour whip have been in talks with the MPs concerned in recent days, but they found that the power of the feeling has not diminished. It is understood that a group of MPs are ready to break the cover by calling for a complete reconsideration. “If anything, I think it’s more than before. It’s not cooperating for many of us,” a government source said.

Another major complaint from Labor Councillors is that they will be asked to vote on legislation to implement the impact assessment of the impact of welfare cuts (OBR) on what they will have on the impact of disengaging people from welfare and labor – the stated goal of the cuts. The OBR report does not expire until the fall.

Last month, Keir Starmer said there was a case of “morality” and economic reform of welfare systems. “This is economically and morally irrefutable, we must, we will reform it. We will have clear principles and we will protect those who need protection.

“We will also support those who can work again, but labor is the working party – we are also the party of equality and equity.”

Another Labor MP opposed the layoffs, Neil Duncan-Jordan won the Poole seat in Poole last July, winning a 19,000 Conservative majority with just 18 votes, saying he has more than 5,000 seats.

He said he could not support any compromise or “trade of weight”. “There is no need for hierachy,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. Needless to say, if these benefits are cut, I will toast on this seat.”

Duncan-Jordan said it would make no sense to ask members of Congress to be asked to vote on layoffs before the OBR report on the effectiveness of returning people to the workplace. “We were asked to take a leap of faith. It doesn’t make sense.”

“The full impact of these policies is very uncertain given the complexity of how health, demographics and economic trends interact with welfare institutions (as explored in our 2024 Welfare Trends 2024 report).

“In many cases, welfare reforms that have been included in the OBR forecasts have saved much less than originally expected, such as the transition from a living allowance for persons with disabilities to PIP, or take much longer than expected, as is the case with the introduction of universal credit.”

“We will conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential impact of green crumb policy on the labor market before the next forecast,” the OBR added.