Why The Conservatives Should Have Backed Starmer’s Welfare Reform

More than three weeks on from the vote on Keir Starmer’s welfare bill, I still can’t shake the feeling that there was a serious error of judgment made in the way events unfolded.

Not from the government. Not from the backbench rebels who forced changes to the legislation. But from Kemi Badenoch. 

The Leader of the Opposition appeared to be in a position of real strength. And yet, somehow, the Conservatives have failed to capitalise on the debacle. 

The welfare bill was an attempt by the Labour government to overhaul parts of the welfare system, most notably Personal Independence Payments (PIP), tightening eligibility criteria and curbing what they argued was unsustainable long-term spending. While the government framed it as a fiscally responsible reform aimed at getting more people back into work, it sparked a significant backlash from backbench MPs, particularly those on the left of the Labour Party, who accused the leadership of turning its back on the vulnerable. More than 120 Labour MPs signed an amendment aimed at thwarting the proposed bill, posing a serious threat to Starmer’s plan.

Against this backdrop, Badenoch had three possible alternatives. The option she chose was to sit somewhere in the middle, offering her party’s support to pass the bill, subject to three conditions, demanding that Starmer make commitments to reduce the welfare budget, get people into work, and commit to not raising taxes. Starmer opted not to be held to ransom and instead succumbed to the pressure of the Labour rebels, granting massive concessions that completely decimated the bill. Badenoch’s Conservatives, meanwhile, ended up voting unanimously against the reconsidered bill.

Badenoch’s chosen strategy was not the only option available. Alternatively, she could have either rushed to support the welfare bill or staunchly opposed the reforms.

Opting for the former could have been the optimum choice. It was a rare opportunity for the opposition to cause chaos for the government, while also implementing a policy that traditionally aligns with their values, and recouping some of the voters who abandoned the Conservatives at the last election.

With 120 MPs, almost exactly the strength of the Labour rebels, the backing of the Conservatives might have prompted Starmer to attempt to pass his original bill. It has become abundantly clear that this bill was fundamental to the government’s fiscal plan, and its defeat has meant that the chancellor can’t now rule out tax rises in her autumn budget, a politically risky notion given that the public isn’t overwhelmingly supportive of higher taxes: a YouGov poll conducted in mid-July found that 40% of people felt that the government was already taxing too much and spending too much, in comparison to 27% that favoured more taxes and spending. As such, Starmer could have taken a calculated risk, wagering that, with Conservative backing, the rebels would not be strong enough in number to defeat his reforms.

If this were the case, the Conservatives could have found themselves as a much stronger force in Parliament. It’s likely that, if the bill had failed anyway, Starmer would have been forced into, at best, a reshuffle of his cabinet, and at worst, a leadership election. Had the bill passed, we would likely have seen several Labour MPs split from the party. No longer bound to support the Labour government, the loss of these MPs would have simultaneously increased the power of the Conservative party, allowing them more influence in crucial policy decisions that are sure to arise over the rest of this parliament. Thus, if Badenoch had gamed the prime minister into ploughing ahead with his original bill, it's highly likely that she’d have gained in the political game.

Shifting away from the opportunity for political deviousness, it made sense for the Conservatives to back these reforms regardless.

The welfare bill was, at its core, a Conservative policy. The ‘biggest shakeup’ of Starmer’s welfare bill was to make changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP), intending to tighten up the qualification requirements for the ‘living’ component of PIP payments. This already sounds like a policy that the Conservatives would favour. A policy of this nature was even a commitment the Conservatives made in their 2024 manifesto. Although officially Rishi Sunak’s policy, Badenoch, as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade at the time, ran under these welfare policies. The party’s manifesto declared that the Conservatives would “improve PIP assessments to provide a more objective consideration of people’s needs and stop the number of claims from rising unsustainably”. Thus, Starmer’s welfare bill, although maybe not the exact implementation that the Conservatives would have opted for, would have been a general policy victory for the opposition.

Furthermore, the welfare bill was more popular amongst voters that Badenoch should be looking to appeal to. According to a YouGov poll conducted on 2^nd July 2025, 40% of Conservative voters believed the government was wrong to scrap or postpone much of its proposed series of changes to disability benefits. Higher still, 44% of Reform UK voters thought the government got this wrong. By comparison, only 25% of Labour voters shared this opinion. 

In other words, support for these reforms was strongest amongst the voters that the Conservative party will be looking to either hold on to or win over going forward. We only need to look back to the devastating local election results of May this year, where the Conservatives lost 674 councillors, the bulk of whom were replaced by 677 new Reform UK councillors. In 2026, Badenoch will have to navigate a significantly more substantial set of local elections, and the threat posed by Reform UK will need to be addressed. A strong stance on the welfare bill could have been the start of this. 

The case for the Conservative Party supporting the welfare bill is, therefore, quite compelling. Badenoch had the chance to disrupt her opponent, whilst also having a scarce opportunity to bring about a policy that aligned with her party and the voters it might be looking to capture come the next election. Her refusal to either support or oppose the bill left the party adrift in the middle of one of the most consequential policy debates of the summer. The result? Labour watered down its proposals and alienated parts of its support base but still managed to survive the week and avoid a serious crisis. The Conservatives, meanwhile, got nothing, and no one will remember their actions to either support or stop the bill. 

Part of leadership is about recognising an opportunity and acting on it. This was an opportunity, and Badenoch appears to have missed it.

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion