Can Andy Burnham avoid another Labour welfare rebellion?

Andy Burnham has pledged to reduce the welfare bill, fully aware that the political risks involved are significant. The repercussions of last year’s welfare rebellion remain fresh, having contributed to the decline of his predecessor’s standing in Downing Street. When Sir Keir Starmer attempted reforms, over 120 of his own MPs—amounting to more than a quarter of his parliamentary party—threatened to oppose the changes. This forced Sir Keir to assure existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main disability benefit in England and Wales, that they would be protected from cuts. Despite this guarantee, 49 MPs still voted against their own government.

An upcoming review by Alan Milburn, a former New Labour cabinet minister, is poised to stir potential controversy within Labour once again. Over the past year, Milburn has been investigating ways to decrease the number of nearly one million young people who are not in employment, education, or training (NEETs). In a recent interview, he revealed plans to recommend reductions in benefits for certain 16-24 year-olds currently receiving PIP or the enhanced health-related element of Universal Credit. Typically, proposing benefit cuts to Labour’s Parliamentary Party might be met with strong resistance, but current indications suggest a more measured response.

One reason for this relative calm is the shift in allegiances within the party’s ranks. Two key figures—Louise Haigh and Anneliese Midgley—who were instrumental in organizing last year’s welfare rebellion are now supporting Burnham rather than opposing him. Additionally, Meg Hillier, who played a leading role in the previous rebellion, has expressed willingness to give Milburn’s proposals a “fair wind.” There are also differences in approach compared to last year’s reforms. They no longer present welfare reform primarily as a cost-cutting measure with fixed savings targets. Instead, the plan involves significant upfront investment to support unemployed young people, with any net savings expected over roughly a decade, favoring gradual changes over immediate shocks. Furthermore, whereas last year’s reforms would have affected all age groups, the current benefit cuts would focus solely on those under 25, who represent about 11% of PIP claimants.

Among government ministers, there is noticeable buy-in for the current approach, including those who previously expressed concerns about earlier reforms proposed by Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall. One minister emphasized that with sufficient safeguards—such as assured jobs and training opportunities—MPs would be “fine” with some benefit reductions, provided those genuinely unable to work are protected. Milburn’s proposals may even include enhanced payments for young people who cannot work, as well as additional allowances for those losing PIP to help cover living expenses. The process has been praised for its level of engagement, not only from Milburn but also from Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, who has actively consulted MPs on the reform principles. Nevertheless, some caution remains, with a minister noting that support for any benefit reductions will depend heavily on the wider package, which may include recommendations on early childhood policies and NHS mental health treatments.

Among MPs who opposed last year’s reforms, opinions vary. Rachael Maskell, MP for York, expressed a desire to see detailed proposals rather than piecemeal media reports, concerned about the stress misinformation could cause young people. She regards removing PIP for young claimants as “like a sledgehammer to crack a nut” and worries about its impact on disabled individuals who rely on it to maintain employment. Maskell also emphasized the need to address employers’ responsibilities in hiring young people. Another rebel from last year, Simon Opher, representing Stroud, acknowledged the “crisis” of NEETs and found Milburn’s plan credible, but stated that benefit cuts should remain a “last resort.” He voiced worries over restricting access to the health element of Universal Credit, noting that a quarter of young claimants currently receiving it are not classified as NEETs, concluding that “the devil will be in the detail.”

Political timing remains critical. Some ministers and sceptics anticipate that Milburn’s proposals will be more favorably received if robust support systems are in place before any entitlements are withdrawn. However, some Labour MPs consider reducing payments to current claimants a red line. Bell Ribeiro-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, expressed uncertainty about backing cuts, arguing that removing PIP does not help disabled young people into work. Likewise, Brian Leishman, a left-wing MP, told the BBC that he opposed cuts amidst the ongoing cost of living crisis. While a welfare rebellion seems inevitable if Burnham endorses Milburn’s recommendations, it appears unlikely to match the scale or political danger of last year’s revolt against the Starmer government