• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • PIP cuts latest: almost one third of Labour MPs revolt; concessions to be made on Friday; vote still on for Tuesday

News

PIP cuts latest: almost one third of Labour MPs revolt; concessions to be made on Friday; vote still on for Tuesday

Details

There is no sign of the Labour revolt abating.  In fact, it is still growing and now stands at almost one third of all Labour MPs.

The total number of MPs who have signed the Labour rebels amendment is now 162.  However, with Greens, SNP, DUP and independent MPs also signing, the total no longer represents just Labour MPs.

There have been 6 Labour backbench signatories overnight, it has been reported.  We’ve spotted five of them:

  • Irene Campbell
  • Sarah Edwards
  • Mary Glindon
  • Toby Perkins
  • Gareth Snell

If anyone knows the sixth, please let us know and we’ll add them.

So we think the total is 129 Labour rebels (including 2 suspended), plus 33 from other parties.  [Correction:  thanks to Dee for spotting we had 4 NI politicians in our list.  We hope our numbers are correct now]

You can see the full list of MPs of all parties who have signed the amendment on the parliament website,  but we have our alphabetical list of Labour rebels at the bottom of this page.

Government dismissive of rebels

There appears to be little attempt so far by the government to build bridges with Labour’s rebels. 

Whips and ministers have allegedly threatened dire consequences, both for individual MPs and the government as a whole, unless the rebels back down.  But as a strategy that appears to have been less than successful, with one labour MP removing their name from the amendment and 25 adding theirs, since it was launched on Tuesday.

Keir Starmer probably didn’t help when he described the rebellion as “noises off”, whilst another member of government told The Times, “It’s so depressing to think Keir and Morgan did all that work to cleanse the party of this self-indulgent rubbish, only for it to erupt back.”

Concessions to be made on Friday

It is being widely reported in the media that ministers are working on concessions to the Labour rebels, which will be unveiled on Friday in the hopes of buying them off before Tuesday’s vote.

There is no indication of what the concessions might be and we are going to resist speculating about the possibilities.  Especially as it was being widely reported in the media yesterday that Tuesday’s vote would be postponed.

The only certainty at the moment appears to be that nothing is certain.

Protests to take place on Monday and Tuesday

There’s a  Stop Disability Benefit Cuts rally in Parliament Square on Monday 30 June at 4.30pm and protestors will also be gathering in Old Palace Yard from 1pm on Tuesday, 1 July to make their voices heard as the debate and vote takes place.

More details from DPAC.

Vote to be held on Tuesday . . . possibly

The leader of the House of Commons has confirmed that the second reading and vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill  will still go ahead on Tuesday 1 July as planned.

However, this absolutely doesn’t mean it definitely will happen.  If the concessions supposed to be made on Friday fail to sway the rebels, then the government may still decide to postpone the vote at the last minute.

Full alphabetical list Labour MPs who have signed the amendment

Abbott, Ms Diane

Abrahams, Debbie

Al-Hassan, Sadik

Ali, Tahir

Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena

Arthur, Dr Scott

Baker, Richard

Bance, Antonia

Barker, Paula

Barron, Lee

Beales, Danny

Beavers, Lorraine

Begum, Apsana

Betts, Mr Clive

Billington, Ms Polly

Bishop, Matt

Blake, Olivia

Brash, Mr Jonathan

Burgon, Richard

Burke, Maureen

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, Ian

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, Irene

Coleman, Ben

Collinge, Lizzi

Cooper, Andrew

Cooper, Dr Beccy

Craft, Jen

Creasy, Ms Stella

Davies, Paul

De Cordova, Marsha

Dean, Josh

Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh

Dixon, Anna

Duncan-Jordan, Neil

Eccles, Cat

Edwards, Lauren

Edwards, Sarah

Efford, Clive

Ellis, Maya

Entwistle, Kirith

Eshalomi, Florence

Evans, Chris

Fenton-Glynn, Josh

Ferguson, Patricia

Foster, Mr Paul

Foxcroft, Vicky

Francis, Daniel

Furniss, Gill

Gardner, Dr Allison

Gilbert, Tracy

Glindon,  Mary

Gwynne,  Andrew Labour suspended

Hack, Amanda

Haigh, Louise

Hall, Sarah

Hamilton, Fabian

Hamilton, Paulette

Hayes, Helen

Hillier, Dame Meg

Hinchliff, Chris

Hume, Alison

Hurley, Patrick

Hussain, Imran

Jermy, Terry

Jogee, Adam

Johnson, Kim

Jones, Lillian

Jones, Ruth

Kelly Foy, Mary

Khan, Afzal

Lamb, Peter

Lavery, Ian

Leishman, Brian

Lewell, Emma

Lewis, Clive

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Maskell, Rachael

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John   Labour suspended

McKenna, Kevin

Midgley, Anneliese

Mishra, Navendu

Mohamed, Abtisam

Morris, Grahame

Mullane, Margaret

Myer, Luke

Naish, James

Naismith, Connor

Newbury, Josh

Nichols, Charlotte

Onn, Melanie

Opher, Dr Simon

Osamor, Kate

Osborne, Kate

Owen, Sarah

Paffey, Darren

Perkins, Toby

Pitcher, Lee

Platt, Jo

Quigley, Mr Richard

Qureshi, Yasmin

Ranger, Andrew

Rhodes, Martin

Ribeiro-Addy, Bell

Riddell-Carpenter, Jenny

Rimmer, Ms Marie

Robertson, Dave

Rushworth, Sam

Shah, Naz

Smith, Cat

Snell, Gareth

Sobel, Alex

Stainbank, Euan

Stewart, Elaine

Sullivan, Kirsteen

Trickett, Jon

Tufnell, Henry

Turner, Laurence

Vaughan, Tony

Webb, Chris

Western, Matt

Whittome, Nadia

Williams, David

Witherden, Steve

Yang, Yuan

Yasin, Mohammad

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Gingin
    · 1 months ago
    ‘Massive concessions’ being reported by Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/starmer-offers-massive-concessions-on-welfare-bill-to-labour-rebels
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Edwards
      · 1 months ago
      @Gingin So,they may save existing claimants, that is until the next election when it will start all over again, reforms stance on welfare is there shouldn't be any welfare ( more or less,they said 3 months help didn't they)which is absolutely useless, anyway here we are,hopefully getting a reprive after our mental heath has taken a battering already as its dragged on and on for over 14 months because it started for me in April 2024 with sunaks little speech,sent me totally off my head and spinning into a mh crisis, little did I know my cbesa would also be threatened by Labour and carers too,I hadn't thought of that one ,anyway here's hoping ,if this is true though, it's only saving us , and not our kids who could be subject to this horrendous idea should they need sickness  benefits.  like I said,another government in 4 years time another idea and we'll be back on this topic sooner or later 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 1 months ago
    Apparently Starmer had made concessions which will win many of the rebels over. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 months ago
    From the Guardian.  These concessions don't  sound like what we were wanting to hear:


    Starmer offers ‘massive concessions’ on welfare bill to Labour rebels
    Exclusive: Leading rebels say they have been promised significant changes to planned cuts which could help bill avoid defeat

    Keir Starmer has offered Labour MPs “massive concessions” on his controversial welfare bill in a move that looks to have won over key rebels and may have saved the prime minister from a damaging Commons defeat next week.

    Leading rebels told the Guardian they had been promised significant changes to the planned cuts that could cost the government several billion pounds over the next few years but look set to shore up the prime minister’s precarious authority.

    The compromises, which are understood to include moderating the bill to make it easier for people with multiple impairments to claim disability benefits, were offered during a tense day of talks in Downing Street.

    They would mark a major reversal from Starmer, who had insisted for weeks he would not change course, but appears to have been forced to back down after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kill the bill.

    One of those leading the opposition to the bill said: “They’ve offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.”

    Other, more hardline rebels were urging their centrist colleagues not to drop their objections, but with ministers insisting they would hold the vote on Tuesday, more moderate MPs were understood to be backing the government’s proposals.

    Downing Street declined to comment.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Leprechaun
    · 1 months ago
    Oh Starmer is resorting to shouting now. Totally unfit for the job.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Jay
    · 1 months ago
    how can they be bought with consessions?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John Rice
    · 1 months ago
    Peter Dowd MP for Bootle has posted that he won't be supporting the government bill but hasn't signed the amendment so is playing sementics and will probably abstain with 20% of his constituency receiving PIP. I suspect a classic flip flop!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Paul
    · 1 months ago
    'Starmer offers ‘massive concessions’ on welfare bill to Labour rebels'


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/starmer-offers-massive-concessions-on-welfare-bill-to-labour-rebels
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tintack
    · 1 months ago

    It looks like we're stuffed. This doesn't sounds like "massive concessions" to me. But it sounds like they'll be enough to win the vote.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    James
    · 1 months ago
    So here we are at the 11th hour waiting to see what concessions are going to be offered by Keir Starmer & Co to the disabled and ill community in order to win over more support. The twelfth hour will come on Monday the 30th  of June. If these concessions do not remove the 4 point ruling and do not stop the LWC & LWCWA from the majority of people who are actually too ill to work than this government will be exposed for what it is and I hope not only is it defeated during the 2nd bill's debate but that a follow on no confidence bill occurs to challenge Keir Starmer's government itself for being incompetent from ruling the country as it has stepped into several major issues one after the other that has literally attacked the very supporters the labour party claims to be representing not only the poor workers but also their families who and those who can no longer or will not be able to work. Using clever sound bites like "the clue is the name" is disgusting double speak when we all know Labour means those who work for their families. 

    Our fight is no where from over, indeed it has only just begun. We know we have the support of a vast number of labour MPs and also the support of other parties and hopefully even some in the opposition party. This issue should not be based on a 3 line up whip by either side but should be left as an open vote for all MPs on both sides as it is a moral issue rather than a money issue! 

    Should the bill pass then we will work with those politicians to repel this ghastly and evil bill that never set out to help anyone but to in fact do just the opposite and destroy them instead. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Barneyboy
    · 1 months ago
    Starmer, Kendall, Reeves and Rayner should all resign with immediate effect. These are not labour values. The one I am
    Most disappointed in is Rayner I thought she had morals but seemingly she is happy enough to go along with starmers plans, the other two I am not surprised at all proposing these brutal cuts which are simply bullying and disability harassment. Surely under human rights law the disabled cannot be targeted in such a fashion, perhaps Mr Starmer should consider that. 
    Will a leadership contest throw up anything different I doubt it. 
    Maybe a general election is the best plan and whilst we know reform will
    Do well and they have even
    More savage cuts planned they would only be in a coalition hung parliament and not a big deal would be done. 
    If this is tried to be slipped through as a money bill that falls at mr hoyles discretion and I can’t see that happening but you never know. 
    Has starmer done a dirty deal with the tories to get this through and it won’t become apparent until Tuesday. Bottom line there for
    Labour is if you lay with a dog you get fleas. 
    Minimum compromises must be
    Mandatory 4 point rule gone
    No vote until after the printing of the impact statement. 
    The unrealistic date of imposing this of nov 26 should be kicked down the road by a good number of years and in all honesty be scrappped. 
    If starmer thinks he can get away with this now and in 4 years time at election we will forget he is gravely mistaken. 
    This cabinet and leadership are not real labour at all. They hitched themselves onto the labour train as it was their best chance of claiming high office. As soon as starmer took power he done a purge of anyone
    On the left and got rid of them
    Including the great man Jeremy corbyn. These cuts and bullying would never have seen the light of day under a corbyn premiership. Stay strong folks we can beat this email your
    Mps. They want us to think we cannot impact this but we can we may be disabled that doesn’t
    Mean we are stupid not have no voice. 
    Kill the bill Starmer and do the honourable thing and resign as you are not fit to lead nor has the Labour Party members confidence in your leadership. Maybe when he is gone and I see the party returning to traditional labour values again I might rejoin.
    Also it’s time For proportional representation voting in the general
    Election and never again can one party hold such a majority again and try and do what they have tried. Let’s see what happens and let’s get them
    Numbers
    Against rising. If you are an mp reading this do not be bought of cheaply by false promises that are empty simply to get your approval
    Of this heinous bill. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    john
    · 1 months ago
    According to City A.M. the free business newspaper for the City of London. If the government fails to go ahead with its disability benefit cuts it will lead to higher taxes and higher interest rates. So tax payers and mortgage payers unite against those too ill or disabled to work I guess. Not the rich. Oh no not the rich, they're the wealth creators and job creators don't you know.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      godgivemestrength
      · 1 months ago
      @john
      @john

      "If the government fails to go ahead with its disability benefit cuts it will" be an excuse for higher taxes is what. Then blame the scrounging sick and the disabled dossers. Meanwhile the rich get more interest on their capital.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 1 months ago
      @john The taxes should be levied on the high earners by 1% and it should most definitely be levied on corporates such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and others to make them pay for their share in order to operate in our markets
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Dez
      · 1 months ago
      @john I've said since the beginning that this is exactly what the government wants to happen. Have taxpayers and benefit claimants tear into each other so we don't unite and protest and demand they tax their rich buddies.

      I don't have any pity for taxpayers who buy into it, however. They seem to have endless amounts of excuses for not taxing the rich when it's brought up as an alternative but every excuse for going after disabled people just barely getting by because they feel they're losing out. Funny how that works.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Ilo
    · 1 months ago
    My Tory MP Sir Alec Shelbrooke (who also has a hearing impairment) has announced to his constituency today that he is voting 'YES' to the welfare cuts. I told him what I thought and so did others.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Ilo Shellbrooke the MP who years ago put froward a private members bill to stop paying welfare benefits in cash and instead pay them as credit on a government card that restricts purchases to only essential goods and services. With the aim of stopping feckless welfare claimants wasting taxpayers money on Sky TV, booze, cigs, and scratch cards while their kids go hungry. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 1 months ago
    If Starmer has to rely on Tory votes to pass this his position will become untenable. The optics of Labour having to rely on the Tories to cut disability benefits will be Starmer's Poll Tax moment. 

    The British public do want a reform of the benefits system but they want disabled people protected, they want people who can work to find work, people who could work to go into avenues opening up that possibility but they want people who truly can't work to be left alone. That is the message I get, completely the opposite of what Labour, Reform or the Tories say. 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Helen Galloway
    · 1 months ago
    So he’s going to put the pressure on hoping that he gets it through with a few concessions because of the tightened timescale. Oh they are good at this shameless  but the MP’s should also be old hands at it. If he comes the game call his bluff. Because we wouldn’t be getting much more to lose. He  Reeves Kendall and co have though. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Vic
    · 1 months ago
    What will happen next will be Labour giving tabloid story leaks that if The Benefits reforms dont happen how they want them to will mean workers will pay higher taxes  .
     
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 months ago
    Sorry, the url on the Ruth Fox reply post should have been : 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 months ago
    The IFS have published a report this afternoon about possible concessions.  It says the following:

    There is significant speculation that some of the measures may be scaled back. In this press notice we briefly discuss some of the government’s options.

    Adjust the personal independence payment (PIP) health assessment plans. Under the proposals, as well as scoring at least eight ‘points’ at the PIP health assessment, a claimant must get four or more points on at least one ‘daily living activity’ to receive the daily living element of the benefit. One adjustment would be to reduce the four point requirement to three. Compared to the bill as it stands, this would increase eligibility by 190,000 and spending in 2029–30 by £0.8 billion.

    Protect existing PIP recipients indefinitely. The bill proposes reassessing existing claimants under the tighter system at their next health reassessment, meaning some will lose eligibility. If the tighter system was only applied to new claimants it would increase PIP eligibility by 370,000 and spending by £1.5 billion in 2029–30 compared to the bill as it stands. This would increase the incentive for PIP claimants to remain on PIP, as once they stop claiming it would be harder to restart a claim. In the very long run it would deliver the same savings as the current bill.

    Reduce the cut to the universal credit health element (UCHE) for new claimants. Claimants of universal credit (UC) who cannot work due to ill health receive an extra element in their UC award. Under the bill’s proposals, that amount will be (in today’s prices) £4,620 per year for existing claimants, and £2,370 for new claimants, of which there are expected to be 700,000 by 2029–30. Giving new claimants £3,370 instead would, compared to the bill as it stands, increase incomes for those 700,000 by £1,000 per year and increase overall spending by £700 million in 2029–30 and significantly more once the policy is fully rolled out.

    Increase the UC standard allowance further. The bill increases the UC standard allowance by 4.8% in real terms. Doubling this to 9.6% would increase spending by £1.8 billion, benefiting 6.9 million households (both with and without disabilities).

    Of course, there are numerous other ways in which the system could be made more generous compared to current plans. It is worth noting that under any of these proposals there will still be a substantial additional cut as we enter the 2030s and the package is rolled out further.

    Eduin Latimer, a Senior Research Economist at IFS said:

    “The sharp increase in spending on health-related benefits since the pandemic has left the government with some hard questions. The existing bill is one approach to those challenges – to slow, though not stop, growth in spending on health-related benefits, and to shift support away from recipients of those benefits towards other claimants. Scaling these measures back somewhat would boost support for claimants with health conditions but naturally would require the government to raise taxes or find other savings elsewhere. In any case, if it passes in anything like its current form, the bill will imply larger cuts as we enter the 2030s and more and more claimants are assessed under the new rules.” 

    I think it's important that we tell MPs that reducing the 4 points to 3 points is utterly useless, because there are almost no 3 point descriptors!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB There is only one three point descriptor, so until the scoring is changed a 3 point rule can't replace a 4 point rule.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Leah
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB There is one 3 point descriptor that I can see and it involves assistance getting in and out of the shower or bath.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Leah
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB So all the original points that were raised regarding claimants who need supervision with toileting, help with washing and dressing, they will still lose PIP because they are two point descriptors.

      If MP's objected on this basis, then 3 points does nothing to address this.

      Of course, this may not be one of the concessions yet, but just in case.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorkie Bard
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB
      Slb - as I trust the B&W site -  I searched it for 3 point descriptors & could find but one

      4. Washing and bathing.
      Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath or shower. 3 points.

      That's it.

      Doh.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 months ago
    It's been posted here that Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society has called the bill a money bill.  This was on bluesky and reported in the Guardian.  I replied and asked why she thought it was, and she wrote back saying:

    The House of Commons Order Paper says it is expected to be a Money Bill. Ultimately it's the Speaker's judgement and he won't make a decision until the end of proceedings in the Commons so amendments are taken account of. But it's an indicator.

    See 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Slb
    · 1 months ago
    I know it's been reported here that Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society have said the bill is a money bill.  Other commentators have said it isn't.  Fox's comment come from a post on Bluesky, so I have messaged her there to see if I can get clarification.  I can't promise she  will reply, though!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb "A money bill is a bill that in the opinion of the House of Commons Speaker is concerned only with national taxation, public money or loans.

      A bill that is certified as a money bill and which has been passed by the Commons will become law after one month, with or without the approval of the House of Lords, under the terms of the Parliament Acts."

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      john
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb I think the Speaker decides if it is a Money Bill after the third reading in the Commons, before it then goes to the Lords. The Speaker decides at that point if the bill solely contains matters that are in the remit of the house of Commons financial privilege. As amendments to the bill in the Commons could change what the bill encompasses.

      Even if it is not a Money Bill any amendments put forward by the Lords could be deemed on a individual basis by the Speaker to be within the financial privilege of the Commons if the Lord's amendments are not cost neutral. If within the financial privilege of the Commons the government would decided if to waive privilege and accept the amendment or to use financial privilege to reject the amendment. With no debate in the Commons and any further debate by the Lords on the amendment rendered meaningless.    
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 1 months ago
    From Robert Preston on twitter posted about 4pm today:

    The prime minister’s ambition to listen to his MPs who have concerns about his welfare reforms is not going to plan. One of his Downing St advisers had a meeting today with some of the rebels and resorted to shouting, according to one observer. “Some of my colleagues were in tears” said an MP. “It was completely inappropriate.”
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Frances
      · 1 months ago
      @D Gosh I wish he'd shouted at me. Tears would not have been my response 😠
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Helen Galloway
      · 1 months ago
      @D It’s called bullying and they employ them as managers in the Civil Service would be ironic if they end up going sick or resigning bullies like that. I’d stay  to get under their skin 

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact

Latest news

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

Ok Decline
More about cookies