Can Burnham avoid another Labour welfare rebellion?
Andy Burnham has committed to reducing the welfare bill, but he understands the high political stakes. He witnessed how last year's welfare rebellion signaled the beginning of the end for his predecessor in Downing Street. Sir Keir Starmer's authority was undermined when 120—more than a quarter—of his own MPs threatened to derail his reforms. To defuse the situation, Sir Keir was forced to guarantee that existing claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the primary disability benefit in England and Wales, wouldn't be negatively impacted. Even then, 49 of the 120 potential Labour rebels still voted against their own government.
Next week, a review from former New Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn could ignite another internal dispute within the Labour Party. Milburn, who spent a year examining how to address the nearly one million young people not in employment, education, or training (Neets), has confirmed in an interview with The Times that he intends to recommend cutting benefits for some 16-24 year olds currently receiving PIP or the enhanced health-related payment of Universal Credit.
Introducing benefit cuts to the Parliamentary Labour Party would typically be a recipe for internal strife. However, my inquiries suggest that the waters within the Labour ranks are surprisingly calm.
'Fair wind'
Two of the most influential organizers of last year's welfare rebellion are now backing the current Prime Minister, rather than opposing the previous one. Louise Haigh, a powerful cabinet minister, and Anneliese Midgeley, Andy Burnham's chief whip, played pivotal roles in the rebellion. Notably, the MP who led that rebellion, Meg Hillier, has stated her intention to provide Milburn's proposals a "fair wind".
There are notable differences in approach compared to the previous welfare reform efforts. Firstly, it is no longer framed as a purely cost-cutting measure with predetermined savings targets. Instead, there will be upfront investments to offer more support to unemployed young people, with net savings expected over a decade—a more gradualist approach. Secondly, while previous reforms affected individuals across all age groups, benefit cuts under the Milburn review would be confined to those under 25, who constitute approximately 11% of PIP claimants.
Some under-25s should get fewer benefits, Milburn review to say
Published 1 hour ago
I've spoken to government ministers who had previously expressed concerns about the changes proposed by Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall. However, this time around, they are supportive. One minister noted that as long as there is adequate support for young people, with guaranteed jobs and training, MPs will be "fine" with some benefit cuts. They added that it is crucial not to negatively impact those who are unable to work. Milburn's review may even suggest enhanced payments for this category, while some young people with disabilities who lose out on PIP could receive an additional "allowance" to assist with living costs.
Another minister, who opposed the previous reforms, praised the comprehensive engagement process this time, citing the involvement not only of Milburn but also Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, who has been briefing MPs on the principles behind the reforms.
While some MPs, like York MP Rachael Maskell, remain cautious, emphasizing the need to see the detail of the proposals rather than "drip, drip" press reports, which could cause "stress and distress" to young people, the general sentiment seems to be one of acceptance.
The 'devil in the detail' will be crucial, as some of last year's rebels find themselves in a similar position.