Suddenly, this is a serious crisis for Sir Kire Stmper, perhaps the largest of its year in Downing Street.

Politically, it seems very difficult for the government to move forward with its major welfare policies.

Economically, it is very difficult to see how the government cannot move forward.

Labor whips, I have been told, jumping above and down over the weeks, trying to warn his colleagues in 10 and 11 Downing Street that rebellion (or, depends on which wing of the Labor party, the welfare deduction) on welfare reforms (or, depends on the welfare deduction).

Nevertheless, the numbers involved Amendment published overnight – 123 and Rising – Breathing.

One year after the Prime Minister wins a landslide of extraordinary magnitude, he could not be sure to win an important parliamentary vote. This is the kind of story that is familiar to the collapse of governments, not new.

This is a little dissatisfaction to call what rebel MPs have signed up for “amendment”. This is not a minor twist.

A so -called “logic” modification, it would stop the bill in its tracks, for some time and perhaps for good, for welfare schemes, which government, and especially Chancellor Rachel Reves and Work and Pension Secretary Liz Kendal tested their own cruelty a few months ago.

The purpose of changes is to save the government £ 5BN in a year by 2030, and more generally helps them meet their economic rules.

As it stands, the government means bringing the bill – which changes personal freedom payment (PIP) and universal credit for a vote on Tuesday next week.

It is difficult to see how it can happen now.

This is not our view, this is almost everyone’s approach that we have spoken on every wing of the party at the Labor Party this morning. A labor MP said that they feel “fury” from “those who want to succeed this government”.

A few hours later an update came. “I can’t see how the bill is no longer removed”.

This is a simple arithmetic reality. The number of labor MPs who publicly named their names publicly for this effort is sufficient to defeat the votes, assuming that they have joined opposition parties.

The fact is that the amendment will defeat the government, there is a possibility of motivating opposition parties simply to do so.

Possibly, conservative calculations will be calculated that it would make the political pain of the labor more intense if they decided to decide to decide to vote with the starrer – which means that their major policy would pass only because of conservative support.

This would only make the Prime Minister’s political prediction worse, and possibly promote another rebellion from Labor MPs, who entered politics due to intensive disagreement with conservatives on the nature of the welfare state.

In fact, the first question to face conservatives is whether they want to revise an alternative “logical” for their own modifications.

If they do so, it is rarely likely that Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle decided to hold a vote on the revision of Labor Rebels.

For that reason, conservatives can catch their fire well. Sir Lindsay, who has faced allegations of helping Sir Keir in the first moments, will also have to be sensitive to any perception of helping the Prime Minister out of a bond.

A prominent signator said that some people signed amendment in the expectation that it would not be called by the speaker.

They wanted to highlight the strength of Bhavna-with a very public petition being something with the reconciliation, and in the hope that some people in the cabinet would use it to try to convince the Prime Minister and Chancellor to think again.

How did things get at this point? Its part is fundamental.

The way in 1997, many new labor landslide generations enlisted in politics in Thacherism, this intake was brought into politics by protests about conservative welfare policies.

A person involved in attracting these reforms said Welfare state was for labor MPs what Europe had for conservative MPs.

The government’s argument is that it is absolutely due to the importance of the welfare state that these measures are necessary-to ensure that it is inexpensive and maintains public support in a long term.

Finally, the deduction is slowing down only to slow down the estimated rate of increase in welfare budget, rather than cutting it overall.

At this point, there are some more worldly to bring this argument. Many labor internal sources said this morning that the amendment reflects the poor handling of the parliamentary labor party, when the Stamor came to the office about a year ago.

A signatoror – a former frontbane – told us: “The party management has been properly frightening from the beginning. Not the same to hold meetings – they have not heard us. He has been very disappointed.”

A similar point is made about himself by another rebel. “The thing is, he does not listen. He does not spend anywhere in Parliament near enough time here. Tony [Blair] And gordon [Brown] It did a lot – and it matters. ,

Among the leading signators, an internal source said, “Originally there is a burden of people who found that they were not ministers on Twitter last July”.

This can happen, but it does not clarify the desire of so many members of the 2024 consumption to convince the person leading that election campaign.

However, how much firm the signators support for amendment is? The fact is that they have not only criticized the government, but in fact signed an amendment on the order letter of Parliament, it would suggest that it is very firm.

One of them told us: “People have crossed one line – this is not a letter of some whip where names are never leaked.”

One of the people behind the amendment told us that if it is not finally selected by the speaker to vote, it would be a bigger to expect people to vote – and potentially votes below – their own government law, and it was difficult to know what the final figures would look, but still there would be a sufficient rebellion.

If the government proceeds with the vote next week, the only way to reduce the number, he argued, will be to give concessions.

But a complex factor is that not all potential rebels want equal changes.

Therefore more concessions are being offered, whip – we have been told by now – giving rebels a ‘node and one eyelid’, which will not lose people with disabilities – that there is no cut in the prescribed pips by 2027, there is a place to pursue the details without closing the next week’s vote.

There are people in the government who believe that if they face them, then some goals from those rebels will come. For now, it seems to plan in Downing Street.

The bets are impossible. Drawing the bill will raise serious questions about the Prime Minister’s right. Pressing and losing further would increase even more.

The Prime Minister’s credibility and rights are on the line as before.