As we go to press, it appears the government has performed a partial U-turn on PIP (Personal Independence Payment) reforms.

From what we understand, current recipients of PIP will continue to receive their payments. However, new applicants with identical medical conditions may not qualify, as new eligibility criteria will now apply only to future claims. The result is a two-tier PIP system: one rule for existing recipients, and another, harsher standard for new applicants.

Some Labour MPs who had previously demanded a reversal now say they are satisfied. This may allow Keir Starmer to pass a revised version of the bill in Tuesday’s vote. We’re told that the new version of the bill will give the Chancellor some “fiscal space” — although significantly less than originally intended.

But remember: Rachel Reeves only faces a “fiscal space” problem because she adopted a self-imposed fiscal rule. This rule requires day-to-day government spending to be fully matched by tax revenues — and she pledged in the Labour manifesto not to raise income taxes during this parliament.

Faced with a gap in the public finances, Reeves had a choice. She could have increased taxes on the rich, citing extraordinary global events: the £22 billion shortfall left by the previous government, the economic effects of the war in Ukraine, or even the threat of Trump’s tariffs. Any of these could have been used to justify revisiting her manifesto commitment.

Instead, she chose to cut support for the most vulnerable. First, she targeted the winter fuel payment — vital to many low-income pensioners — and now she’s restricting access to disability benefits.

This decision reflects a disastrous mix of political cowardice and economic short-sightedness. At a time of deep inequality, to spare the rich while squeezing the poor is not just morally indefensible — it is economically irrational.

If Labour is serious about fairness and fiscal responsibility, Starmer should replace Reeves with a Chancellor willing to increase taxes on the wealthiest, rather than balancing the books on the backs of those with the least.  We doubt he will have the wisdom to do that.