Andy Burnham is already facing the same rebellion that sank his predecessor, before he has even published a single welfare proposal.
The new Prime Minister wants young claimants to lose their benefits if they refuse to take up training or volunteering, as part of a wider push to bring down Britain’s £333 billion welfare bill.
But instead of applause from his own benches, he is getting a warning shot from the Labour Left, who say they will not tolerate a repeat of what they call the “failed politics of welfare cuts.”
It is a familiar script. Sir Keir Starmer tried something similar last year, tightening the eligibility rules for disability benefits, and was rewarded with a revolt by more than 120 of his own MPs. The climbdown that followed was widely seen as the moment his authority as Prime Minister began to unravel.
Now the same forces are lining up against Burnham. Kim Johnson, the Liverpool Riverside MP, and John McDonnell, who served as Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow chancellor, are among those pushing back hardest. Both were prominent opponents of Starmer’s attempt to strip £5 billion a year from the disability benefits budget.
MP Kim Johnson has accused the new leadership of chasing the wrong target entirely, arguing that squeezing disabled people and low-income families while leaving the wealthy untouched would mean the party had learned nothing from over a decade of what she brands “Tory austerity.” McDonnell, for his part, insists that any changes must offer “positive support” rather than “punitive sanction.”
Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden is not backing down, though. Pressed on the BBC over whether young people should have to engage with training or volunteering in exchange for support, he was unambiguous: yes. He wants to pair opportunity with obligation, arguing it is a fair deal for both the individual and the taxpayer.
Speaking to Sky News, McFadden framed Burnham’s language about “changing the nature of the support” for sickness benefits as part of the same bargain: more help on offer, but an expectation that claimants actually take it up.
The blueprint is reportedly borrowed from the Netherlands, where young benefit recipients can be required to take part in community work such as litter-picking, playground repairs, or spending time with elderly residents. McFadden visited Rotterdam last month and came away arguing that Britain has been “writing off too many young people” and should learn from the Dutch model. Final proposals are not expected until the autumn, once Alan Milburn’s review has reported back.
For Labour’s Left, though, the direction of travel is already clear enough to fight over. Many of the party’s MPs still treat any welfare tightening as indistinguishable from the austerity years under David Cameron and George Osborne, whatever caveats ministers attach to it.
Reform UK, unsurprisingly, is not convinced any of this amounts to real change. The party’s Treasury spokesman, Robert Jenrick, argues that swapping prime ministers does nothing to change the character of the Labour Party, and predicts that families will end up paying more in tax regardless to cover a welfare bill that keeps growing.
Burnham, meanwhile, has tried to frame the reforms as part of a broader rejection of the Blair-era assumption that university is the default path for school leavers, telling voters this week that Britain should value the “hard hat” as much as the “graduation cap.” Whether that framing is enough to hold his own MPs in line is another matter. The last Labour leader who tried to reform welfare found out the hard way that promises of tough love are easier to make from the despatch box than to survive in the voting lobby.
Image: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
