John Rentoul answers your questions on Labour’s future – from welfare U-turn to Corbyn comeback – UK Times

Keir Starmer has spent much of his first year in office trying to prepare the public for pain.

But as our recent Independent Ask Me Anything Q&A revealed, it’s the government now feeling the heat – politically bruised, economically cornered, and increasingly exposed on its central promise: stability in exchange for tax rises.

Rachel Reeves’s tearful moment in the Commons, followed by a Labour rebellion that forced a U-turn on welfare reform, summed up the bind.

The “slate” Reeves claimed to have wiped clean last year has filled up again – and the bill, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, could soon run to £40bn in new tax rises. Not exactly the clean break with austerity Labour once promised.

In this context, Starmer’s new 10-year NHS plan looks less like a policy announcement than a political lifeline: Labour’s equivalent of the early 1980s recovery that rescued Margaret Thatcher. The plan’s launch was designed to answer the question Reeves and Starmer still haven’t resolved – what’s the reward for all this pain?

Meanwhile, discontent on Labour’s left is turning into open revolt. Zarah Sultana, suspended for opposing the two-child benefit cap, has quit the party to co-lead a new political movement with Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn says “discussions are ongoing”, but the direction is clear. Labour’s internal tensions – over welfare, war, and public services – are no longer just ideological. They are electoral.

Below is more from the Q&A that explores what the left’s breakaway movement and the looming autumn Budget could mean for a government now grappling with a welfare reform crisis and mounting pressure on Keir Starmer’s leadership.

Q: Are there now two Labour parties: Starmer’s leadership circle vs the rest?

Criticaleye

A: There has always been a tension between the party in the constituencies and the party in parliament. Sometimes the boundaries shift; as now, a lot of Labour MPs aligned with party members on the disability benefits issue. But the most successful period of the party’s history was when a fairly small group around Tony Blair controlled the party and maintained a coalition of support among Labour MPs and members. Always worth remembering that party members voted for David Miliband rather than his brother in 2010. Starmer has failed to build such a broad coalition in the party.

Q: If Rayner became PM, would she try a different economic approach – and would the markets tolerate it?

Paul Kearney

A: I don’t believe that Rayner would try a different economic approach if by that you mean changing the fiscal rules. The rules are not arbitrary or foolish self-imposed restrictions designed to prevent a Labour government from doing nice things. They are essential to maintain the confidence of the markets. Rayner is a pragmatist, and I think she understands that instinctively. Her advantage is that she might be able to communicate the rationale for the economic strategy better than either Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves.

Q: Will Corbyn’s new party attract Labour defectors?

Jase

A: I think one of the reasons Jeremy Corbyn has been reluctant to launch a new party is that he understands the British electoral system better than most. He knows that he can win in Islington North as an individual with long name recognition, but that parties to the so-called left of Labour are more or less doomed to irrelevance. The last time a left-wing party, as opposed to famous individuals, won seats in the House of Commons was the Communist Party in 1945, and both those seats were lost in 1950.

Since then, George Galloway has won seats as an individual, but his Workers Party has not.

Q: Is Angela Rayner emerging as Labour’s real leader?

Sophieeeeeee

A: She has a better instinctive grasp of politics and is a better communicator than the prime minister. Not only did she lead the second capitulation to the Labour rebels over the disability benefits bill, seeing that it was necessary to avoid the risk of defeat, but she made sure that the world knew that she was pushing for it.

It has been suggested that she pushed Keir Starmer to ditch the PIP section of the bill when the government was going to win the vote as a way of weakening the prime minister. I doubt that this is true: I think her argument was correct that the vote was on a knife-edge and the government could not afford the risk of losing – it was better to postpone and fight another day.

Q: Should Starmer reshuffle his top team – and should Kendall go?

BBenB

A: In my view, reshuffles never work as a way of recovering government popularity, and often have the effect of moving good ministers just as they are gaining momentum. I think Kendall was asked to do the impossible, but that she should have had a plan ready in opposition for going back to in-person assessments for disability benefits, tackling the rise in mental ill-health claims, and so on. But she should be replaced only if there is someone who could obviously do a better job.

Q: Was the welfare reform ever viable?

Loz

A: It was doomed from the start, and Alan Campbell, the chief whip, told Keir Starmer so in March, when it was launched. It was forced on Liz Kendall by Rachel Reeves, who needed to find £5bn a year by the end of the parliament to keep the public finances on a sustainable footing. Kendall couldn’t offer changes such as switching back to in-person assessments instead of telephone/Zoom interviews, which should reduce the number of claims granted, but which couldn’t be counted by the Office for Budget Responsibility as savings because no one could be sure of them. Hence, the cuts to the amounts that could be claimed and restrictions on claiming them, which were unacceptable to enough Labour MPs to wipe out the government’s majority.

Q: Why won’t Labour get rid of Starmer now?

Dave Smith

A: Party members would like to get rid of him already, a year after he delivered the second-largest parliamentary majority. A Survation/LabourList poll at the end of May found 42 per cent of members want a change of leader before the election; 40 per cent did not; the rest didn’t know.

The most popular alternative among party members is Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, but as he is not an MP, he is out of the running. There is currently no constituency in the country that Labour could be sure of winning in a by-election to get him back into parliament.

So the members are arguing, in effect, for Angela Rayner to take over. It is not an outrageous idea: she is one of the few in cabinet to have enhanced their reputation in the first year (see below). But she is not very popular with the public. Would she really change Labour’s fortunes dramatically? Perhaps we should wait and see how many houses have been built by 2028.

Q: Should Morgan McSweeney go?

Ben Brown

A: I broadly agree with the prime minister: McSweeney won the election for Labour ministers, who should therefore pipe down and do what he says. Beyond that, anyone calling for the PM’s adviser to go is really calling for a change of PM. I think it is too early for that.

These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by John Rentoul at 2pm BST on Friday 4 July. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.

For more insight into UK politics, check out John’s weekly Commons Confidential newsletter. The email, exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, takes you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more.