The Guardian view on Labour’s disability benefits rethink: concessions suggest strategy not a change of heart | Editorial

R.It is rarely modesty for the Prime Minister next to him is a vibrant scene, but at least it indicates a pulse in the parliamentary system. Sir Kerr Starmer has now done Three clear retreats: Over the course of fuel payments in the winter, on gangs of gangs and now – the most dangerous – on comprehensive changes to the advantages of deficit. Two of these repercussions followed Backbench disorders. This week, around the face around the pioneer of the government The Welfare Bill It seems less like a complete transition from partial climbing designed to avoid open rebellion.

While he took Sir Kiir to retreat On benefits changes, which affect the most at risk in society, the result is similar to controlling textbook damage. The concessions, which were made as a reaction to initial pressure, are similar to the reserve options preserved in the reserves of moments of internal disorder.

The first is that the current claims to pay personal independence (PIP) will be avoided new assessments – at least at the present time. But about 430,000 It is still in front of the new demands who will qualify under the current rules excluded when the most stringent standards arrive in November 2026. The second is that the health component healthy component will not be frozen for the current recipient. But the owners of the new claims – many also Well To work – it will be placed on a reduced rate unless it meets a higher limit. All PIP awards are re -evaluated periodically, which means that all beneficiaries can eventually face the new scheme.

The result is that the current demands will be protected, but the future forces are facing tougher bases. Two people with identical conditions can happen on support, according to Institute of Financial StudiesThis varies up to 6560 pounds annually – due to timing. This, we were told, is sympathy. The savings – which decreased to 2.5 billion pounds annually – come by emptying the cost on the demands in the future. Representatives are truly afraid of this locks in a system of two levels that are deliberately harshest than disabled people.

The deputies of the older workers Party will remember this playing book. A decade ago, Ian Denkan Smith He was a pioneer in a slow -procedural tightening of luxury – hitting new demands first, and then reassessing the rest – specifically to defuse the resistance. She opposed her work after that. Today, control the same way. It is a non -step feeling with Britain after the guardianship that is struggling with the cost of the living crisis.

a lot Work deputies We believe that these are still wrong reforms and will vote against the bill when it returns to the House of Commons next week. It is clear that the tight eligibility and the two -level system may exclude many of those who need support. If the government wants to raise money, you may ask more of those who have the widest shoulders – not those who suffer from navigation devices, care and audacity plans to request a fair deal. If the ministers really believe that they are behaving properly, they must publish Impact evaluation Be honest about the consequences.

Perhaps the most prominent lesson is not related to political details, but rather a political mood. Modern governments are always pressure to look financially bound. However, whether – or how they choose to fulfill this pressure reveals what they appreciate, and those who believe that it can be asked for costs. The welfare state has always relied on approval, and on a basic meaning Fairness. If the work government is unable to defend this principle, it risks more than Backbench’s disorders; It risks the erosion of confidence that makes reform, essential in any variable society, is possible in the first place.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you want to provide a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered to be published in our Messages Please section Click here.