A Level Politics This Week
Week commencing 30th June 2025
“Is Keir Starmer finished?” “What is he for?”
Those were opinion piece headlines in ‘The Times’ and ‘PoliticsHome’ last week. Why? Because Starmer did an enormous u-turn on his planned reductions in welfare spending – one that ended up turning draft legislation that was supposed to save money into one that will (probably) cost the government more.
‘The power of the Prime Minister to dictate events’ is a key topic in both EdExcel and AQA Politics specs. And hence the relevance of this week to you, as students of the subject. Does Starmer, as the current PM, actually have the power and ability to control very much at all at the end of this last week? Three factors (at least) have been at the heart of much of the commentary.
Firstly, backbenchers. Starmer had to abandon the most controversial elements of his proposed reforms because numerous Labour backbench MPs were set to defy party instructions and vote with opposition MPs to defeat the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill at its vital Second Reading in the Commons. Remember, Starmer commands a theoretical majority of 165. Had the government pushed ahead, it is impossible to know exactly how many backbenchers would have rebelled (or ‘defied the party whip’, in political parlance). However, before Starmer started his slow-motion climb-down over a week ago, over one hundred had indicated that they were prepared to rebel – more than enough to wipe out the government majority. Why can’t Starmer control them? Principally, because a large number genuinely believe that cutting welfare for some of the poorest and most vulnerable in society runs counter to core Labour values: ‘this is not what Labour was elected to do’. As explained in last week’s blog, though, this week’s defiance is part of a longer-running trend in UK politics for backbenchers of both parties to demonstrate their independence from their party leaderships.
Secondly, Starmer is increasingly at the mercy of ‘the bond markets’ – the international financiers who lend money to governments around the world to keep countries running. These financiers did not force the climbdown this week, but they are helping to shape what happens next. Put simply, if the bond markets think a government is living beyond its means, failing to keep expenditure in order, then they demand a higher rate of interest in return for their lending. The UK cannot afford to pay this sort of increased interest rate on its government debt. To avoid that fate, and because Starmer and Rachel Reeves were not able to cut spending in the way they hoped this week, it is increasingly likely that the government will need to put up taxes in the Autumn budget. (Just as a footnote: It was also the bond markets that reacted badly when Liz Truss introduced her ‘mini-budget’ in September 2022 - cutting taxes and pushing up debt – and forcing her u-turn and subsequent resignation. As UK governments struggle increasingly desperately to balance their spending and taxation, the influence of unelected financiers over elected politicians looks to be a growing theme in western politics.)
And thirdly, many commentators are suggesting that the power of the PM to dictate events is affected most of all by, er, the abilities of the Prime Minister himself. From newspaper editorial, to podcast, to mainstream media interview, the ability of the PM to ‘craft a narrative’, ‘explain the big picture’, ‘sell a vision’ has been questioned this week. When tough decisions are needed – so the argument goes – the ability to explain ‘why’ is key, and that is what many argue has been lacking. ‘The Economist’ put it this way: “Having run a ‘small target’ election campaign that included as few details as possible, Sir Keir has never sought to tell voters why he wants power.” Starmer himself is reputed to have once said, “There is no such thing as Starmerism, and there never will be!” He was still giving ‘the vision thing’ another go, mind you, the morning after ‘that vote’ in an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson. (You can make your own mind up how effective he was, here.)
A clash of rights.
While all the attention was on Starmer and the welfare debacle, it was also actually an interesting week for A-Level Politics students when it comes to the protection of rights and the impact of pressure groups.
One of the more traditionally socialist policies of this Labour government is to increase protections for workers. The draft Employment Rights Bill includes, for example, provision for protecting employees against unfair dismissal from day one of their employment. The measure was supposed to be implemented in 2026 but following concern from businesses that the Bill would discourage businesses from taking on new workers, it has now been announced that unfair dismissal protection, as well as guaranteed flexible working and a ban on 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts, will come into force in two years' time instead. It provides a good case-study of the tussle for influence between pressure groups with differing objectives.
Elsewhere, there was an announcement by the government that the amount of time off (and pay) that parents can claim after the birth of a new child will be looked at as part of a new review. The announcement follows a report earlier this year by the Women and Equalities Committee which criticised the, “outdated gender stereotypes,” underpinning existing arrangements that fail to respect paternity rights as effectively as those of mothers. Pressure group ‘The Dad Shift’ celebrated the proposed review as, “the best chance in a generation to improve the system.”
Ps. If you are feeling just a little geeky as the summer holidays approach, check out the information on the Women and Equalities Committee on Parliament’s own website. It is a Non-Departmental Select Committee, designed to provide scrutiny of an area of policy that cuts across the work of more than one government department. Its June 2025 report that helped lead to this shift in policy is an up-to-date, niche example of the impact of backbench scrutiny. Just the sort that examiners like, then.
Politics ‘Shorts’
Parliamentary procedure. After the government climbed down and gutted the Universal Credit and Welfare Bill of its most contentions components, most rebels withdrew their opposition. A hardcore of forty-two Labour MPs pushed on, however, and still voted against what was left of the original government proposals, using a mechanism known as a ‘reasoned amendment’. Rather than simply rejecting a bill outright, a ‘reasoned amendment’ offers specific reasons for doing so, in this case, “Because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers. Because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025. Because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these provisions, including 50,000 children.” (Making their views clear there, then.)
How many rebels could the government afford? It was unusual, to say the least, that a government which won a landslide majority just twelve months ago faced defeat in the Commons last week. If you want the detailed rundown of just how big the Labour majority is, how it has edged down a little since the election, and some comparators with other governing majorities of recent years, read this.
And finally…Back in the days when Jeremy Corbyn led the Labour Party (2015-2020), a group of more moderate Labour MPs broke away to found a new Parliamentary grouping known as ‘The Independent Group’, which rebranded as ‘ChangeUK’, and then disappeared without trace within about a year. Corbyn himself was later suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, deselected as a Labour candidate and the 2024 General Election, and only won his Islington North seat as an independent. This week he hinted at the potential formation of a new left-wing political party, along with Zarah Sultana, MP for Coventry South, who has just announced she is quitting Labour in protest at the government’s policy on Gaza (amongst other issues).
Go Deeper
Listen to…An interview with Baroness Hale, the President of the Supreme Court when it declared Boris Johnson’s attempted prorogation of Parliament as illegal and void. Great insight into some of the issues behind recent clashes between the executive and the judiciary in the UK.
Watch…Probably the most talked-about PMQs for a long time, as Starmer faced Badenoch’s criticism for his welfare u-turn, Rachel Reeves visibly broke down in tears behind him, and the bond markets immediately hiked the interest rate they would charge for lending more money to the UK government. Reeves later explained her upset as having been due to a personal matter.
Read…An interesting opinion piece that suggests our leaders should not always be criticised for u-turns. Margaret Thatcher was famed for her famous conference speech – and later catchphrase - when confronting rebels within her own party over her economic policy: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” But as Stefan Stern notes in his piece in ‘The Guardian’, Thatcher made her share of tactical retreats too. “U-turn if you want to,” Stern adds, maybe with an eye on Starmer. “Perhaps you should. It beats going full steam into the rocks.”
Thanks for reading this blog over the last six months. It is clear from the gradual ticking up of subscribers here on Substack - and the various likes, emojis, comments and DMs in response to Facebook links - that this little initiative has been valued a range of students and teachers. ‘A Level Politics This Week’ is now taking a break until next term. If you want to make sure you catch the first blog of September, then feel free to add your email below. To teaching colleagues and students alike, enjoy the break!