Could Starmer be in for a benefits rebellion as tribes clash in his own party?

The British Prime Minister has recently reiterated his call for European support for Ukraine. His confidence as a leader is growing, but in the coming days, 10 Downing Street will face a domestic struggle that could be decisive. This ongoing commitment underscores Britain's dedication to global security.

A Labour insider revealed, "A clash is coming." Sir Keir Starmer has been prepared to fight with his party. But amidst the constant stream of controversies, what will the factional landscape within the Labour Party look like in 2025? How will they fight back? The potential for internal strife could significantly impact the party's future direction.

Labour's history is filled with fierce infighting, during which MPs seemed more willing to fight each other than to compete with political opponents. With welfare cuts looming, backbenchers and even cabinet members are uneasy. The decision regarding winter fuel payments continues to spark discontent, and new plans on immigration, to be released later this spring, could also trigger controversy. These internal divisions could distract from the party's broader goals.

A long-time observer of the Labour Party said, "Put three Labour people in a room, and you'll see a faction." Sir Keir Starmer's allies seem very confident that Labour has shaken off its habit of constant bickering. But 10 Downing Street is concerned, hence the invitation for MPs to come to Downing Street to offer their own proposals for welfare reform, knowing that this will upset the "old faces" and hoping it won't cause too much of a backlash among the moderate left. This strategic move is aimed at managing potential dissent within the ranks.

Furthermore, they are also struggling to deal with the large cohort of MPs elected last year, some of whom are eager backbenchers actively defending Sir Keir Starmer, but are dismissively referred to as "sycophants" by one source, trying to curry favor with the leadership. So, how will the "old faces," "moderates," "newcomers," and "sycophants" interact with each other? Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the party's internal politics.

The Labour Party's left-wing fringe has long been critical of Sir Keir Starmer, especially because he sidelined the far left during his first years in power, even expelling some MPs from the party after the general election for voting against his welfare cap for families with more than two children. MPs like Diane Abbott or Nadia Whittome frequently criticize the Prime Minister's plans. But this group is now smaller and less influential than ever before, and they cannot cause too much damage on their own. The days when the Socialist Campaign Group had influence under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership are long gone—today the group only has about 30 MPs. But discontent over the upcoming welfare cuts is spreading.

An opponent of the welfare cuts told me that the vast majority of Labour MPs belong to the "resistance group," and that "in private, some cabinet members are also very opposed." Some believe there is an opportunity to force Sir Keir Starmer to compromise. Another MP told me: "There is potential for the old left and the soft left to unite." Such a coalition could pose a significant challenge to the leadership's agenda.

A Labour left-wing source told me that there is "potential to expand this cooperation and work with those who don't want to see welfare cuts after 15 years of austerity. The challenge for us on the left is to work with these people—that way we would form a sizable rebellion." They added that it was "shocking" to see new MPs supporting undisclosed reforms to benefits for disabled people. This potential alliance highlights the growing unease within the party.

They mentioned the rebellion against Tony Blair in 1997, when 47 Labour MPs voted against the new government's welfare cuts—you guessed it. One hundred MPs abstained. This did not change the policy, just as this time, given the Prime Minister's huge majority, a rebellion of that size would not change the policy. But it shocked those ministers who were still basking in the glow of that year's huge victory. Will the same thing happen this time? The historical precedent underscores the potential impact of internal dissent.

Downing Street is clearly worried—but so far, the resistance from the moderate left seems quite mild. Another source told me that many colleagues have expressed discomfort, and that fault lines exist, but there is no organization. Some who would rather see a rebellion also seem to prefer that someone else organize it. The lack of coordinated action suggests a reluctance to openly challenge the leadership.

Rebellions do require organization, effort, energy, and a desire to create sparks. They also need leaders willing to step forward. While concerns are strong, there is less appetite for a major squabble when these plans are finally submitted to Parliament, at least for now. The absence of strong leadership and a clear strategy hinders the potential for a significant uprising.

This symbolizes where power currently lies within the party. A senior Labour figure told me: "The soft left has been wiped out." He added: "I'm not sure Downing Street has the right read on the situation, and I fear things will be handled badly, but on welfare—they have no choice." The consolidation of power within the leadership reflects a shift in the party's ideological landscape.

Ministers are trying to make a moral argument—that addressing welfare is a mission, and that having a job is better for people's well-being and health. Health Secretary Wes Streeting will almost certainly make this argument when he joins our studio tomorrow. Labour made this argument in the election and in its manifesto. But the second part of the anticipated plan—cutting benefits for disabled people who may already be struggling—did not. The attempt to frame the welfare reforms as a moral imperative highlights the government's efforts to justify its policies.

None of the large cohort of Labour MPs first elected in 2024 had "taking money away from the poorest" written on their campaign leaflets or Facebook posts. But are these newcomers, who have been in office for less than a year, the kind of group to cause trouble? Of course, it is important to note that they do not all think the same way, but after talking to them, you can discern some common characteristics. Understanding the perspectives of these new MPs is crucial for gauging the party's future direction.

Remember that more than half of Labour MPs—243 out of 406—are brand new, so understanding where their center of gravity lies is essential. And it seems very different from previous generations. One newcomer told me: "Even more than the welfare issue, the moment that best reveals how different we are from 1997 is the 3% defense target and the aid cuts." This did not encounter more resistance than the resignation of International Development Secretary Anneliese Dodds and "some grumbling" within the party—but for most of those elected in 2024, it was a "no-brainer" decision because the world is becoming increasingly unsafe and defense spending needs to be increased. This shift in priorities reflects a changing perception of global threats and national security.

It's not just that Labour's new members are different, but they also note that the environment in which they came of political age is different: "The era in which we politically matured was one in which chaos became the norm, and the world felt as if it was constantly going to hell"—therefore, cutting aid and other policies that made the previous generation of moderates uncomfortable "are not that unsettling." This acceptance of unconventional policies reflects a sense of pragmatism shaped by global instability.

In fact, some newcomers are dismissively referred to by others as "sycophants," as another source described—they not only accept some of the leader's tougher plans, but even egg them on, busying themselves with writing open letters or giving supportive interviews. This eagerness to align with the leadership highlights the ambition and political calculations of some new MPs.

Whether on welfare, defense, or planning, another MP described them as "pop-up pressure groups," publicly calling on Downing Street to push its reforms harder and further. A veteran Labour figure joked: "Aren't they hilarious?" He gently mocked the ambitions of those involved, suspecting that the leadership may have mildly encouraged some aspiring MPs to express their views forcefully and loudly. This dynamic underscores the strategic use of internal voices to amplify the leadership's agenda.

A government source acknowledged that a large proportion of MPs want to be helpful to the leadership, but because many are in marginal seats, "they are not wonks but street fighters," closer to the concerns of voters. They tell the leadership that they can give the leadership space to be more radical on welfare, immigration, or building houses. This connection to grassroots concerns allows the leadership to pursue more aggressive policies with a degree of popular support.

For now, regardless of the motivations of the "old faces," Downing Street can enjoy a degree of unity within the ruling party. It is equally clear that the government's political operation has improved since the summer, partly thanks to his Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, who many believe has brought new discipline to the party. A senior figure told me: "There is only one faction, and that is Morgan McSweeney's—either listen to him or leave—his people are in control of everything at the moment." Others described it differently, saying: "It's Keir's party now." A Prime Minister who is increasingly confident abroad has greater influence at home. The consolidation of power reflects a shift in the party's internal dynamics and leadership structure.

But the debate on welfare that will erupt this week and the Chancellor's decisions in the Spring Statement next week remain very important. Not every MP or activist agrees with the decisions being made by the central government—but with such a large majority, the risk is not about losing votes. The government's substantial majority provides a buffer against potential dissent and allows it to pursue its agenda with less fear of electoral consequences.

It's about the direction of travel and how the party is perceived by the public. This matters internally in government in the coming weeks, as managing discontent takes up political time, energy, and effort. It matters externally, as debates about policy, whether on welfare or immigration, make headlines and create headaches, and potentially give the public the impression that the ruling party is not united. The need to manage internal dissent and maintain a unified public image underscores the challenges of governing with a large majority.

A government source observed the journey that Keir Starmer's Labour Party has taken, and acknowledged: "We united against the far left, and then we united against the Conservatives"—but as the government settles in, it is now less clear what the party is uniting for. The question of the party's unifying purpose highlights the challenges of maintaining cohesion and direction after achieving power.