Burnham: Is the Media Tempting Fate by Jumping the Gun?

If you cut PIP - say to large numbers of young people, you have to fund back to work support plans etc, or better, like they had back in my day when younger, community work experience schemes or similar. Will much be saved?

A younger friend at the gym who works on the front line says on general benefits said people get just 10 minutes and in that time computer boxes have to be ticked and there is no time for encouragement or support

I am familiar with the PIP forms and they could change them to be much more carefully selective. They are currently based on a points system per difficulty that goes up as in 2,4,6,8,

then adds them up,

but if you add more subtleties as in 2345678 graduated assessments and so on....

If they want to cut the bebefits bill they can stop giving so much to landlords. Andy Burnam is the only politician I can think of who has acknowledged how much of the money goes on rent payments.

I suspect many who did similar work to me will have seen too much benefit fraud to simply dismiss the need to have the conversation Galaxy proposes.
Yes I’m aware of tax fraud, shouldn’t be impossible to tackle both

It would have to be a very wide ranging conversation, but before that I think that the very purpose of benefits should be established. We have, over time, gone from looking at benefits as something to tide people over a bad patch to regarding them as something to force them into work, by making them very hard to live on. Similar to the Victorian Poor law which forced 'the poor' into intolerable conditions in the workhouses if they weren't in work.

What about those who are utterly incapable of work?

There is also Wyllow's point about the cost of alternatives...

While Iam seems to imply that benefit fraud is rife, official govt. statistics put it at less that 3% of benefit money paid out.

I don’t read my comment as suggesting benefit fraud is rife. I saw too much of it.

Iam64

I don’t read my comment as suggesting benefit fraud is rife. I saw too much of it.

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to reconcile those two statements.

No need to apologise especially when not meant. We disagree that’s ok

Do you mean you saw too much of it Iam64 because you worked in a job that involved you in benefit fraud cases? Or do you men you saw people around you committing benefit. fraud?

That's what I was wondering, LemonJam.

If you 'saw too much of it', Iam do you have any thoughts on how it could be countered? Or on how people can get away with it? I know there have been some spectacular frauds publicised over the years.

It is pretty much nothing to do with saving money for me ( I appreciate the government and others don't take that approach) it is about writing off a section of society ( young people especially) to much much worse lives than many of us have.

I have numerous examples but wary of listing in case it’s possible the people involved could be identified / or I could be.

I’m a believer in a solid welfare state. People living for example in former mining areas have been left with very limited work opportunities. This is so wrong and led to increased substance misuse, obviously leading to physical and mental health problems. Couples claiming pip and other benefits often have more disposable income than their working neighbours. I’ve heard “I’ll never work again it’s a mugs game” said as a matter of fact. Bad back but working cash in hand.

My understanding of Gordon Brown’s increase in disability benefits was to help people get to eg substance misuse, mh services. The existing services were slashed by austerity. Galaxy’s spot on comment about young people applies to many adults . We all know working is good for mh

Iam64

I don’t read my comment as suggesting benefit fraud is rife. I saw too much of it.

What does that mean?

As a proportion of all benefit spending in 2024–25:

Around 96.9% of benefit expenditure was paid correctly.
About 2.2% was lost to fraud.
About 0.9% was due to mistakes (claimants and DWP combined).

I'm not sure what you are suggesting Iam.

Thanks for your explanation, Iam.

I can’t help feeling that it would be better policy to make work pay more than benefits than, as the tories did, to try to make benefits worse than already poorly paid work.

Which may sound as though there is no difference between the two statements. What I am trying to convey is the idea that all wages should be well above the subsistence level of benefits but that benefits should not be punitive.

We agree on policies to make work pay more than benefits and that benefits should not be punitive, MaizieD.

When I was about 14, my paternal grandpa told me about applying for poor law relief in the 1920/30’s when my dad was a boy. The mills were shut, so no income. They were turned down and told to chop up and burn my gran’s pride and joy, her side board. Grandpa said the experience was so humiliating they would never apply again. Wanting an improved system doesn’t equal wanting a return to the idea of the deserving poor.

Agreement is good, Iam

My mother told tales of people being told to sell their pianos in the 1930s. Which would be like being told to sell your TV set now.. I think many people would do anything to avoid being means tested then.

But I think the notion of the deserving and undeserving poor still runs quite strongly alongside the ideal of social welfare for all... the tories seemed to run with it without much objection.

MaizieD

It would have to be a very wide ranging conversation, but before that I think that the very purpose of benefits should be established. We have, over time, gone from looking at benefits as something to tide people over a bad patch to regarding them as something to force them into work, by making them very hard to live on. Similar to the Victorian Poor law which forced 'the poor' into intolerable conditions in the workhouses if they weren't in work.

What about those who are utterly incapable of work?

There is also Wyllow's point about the cost of alternatives...

While Iam seems to imply that benefit fraud is rife, official govt. statistics put it at less that 3% of benefit money paid out.

Benefit fraud sky rocketed during COVID, as did fraudulent claims to HMRC for both self employed and company furlough payments.

After lockdown special departments in both DWP and HMRC were established to shut down and attempt to recover fraudulent payments.

In my personal experience and that of my daughters, having both worked for the DWP, between us from 2009-2024, fraud isn’t as prevalent as some people appear to believe and I’d agree with the published gov statistics.

There are many ways to “defraud” benefits payments, from doing casual cash in hand work and not declaring it, could even be as little as 1 or 2 pub shifts a week, right up to the thousands that have been claimed fraudulently in housing benefits, bogus children and faked illnesses.

Nevertheless incidents of serious fraud are pretty rare and are picked up often reasonably quickly. As with fraud in any area, there are gangs working together and some are pretty clever.

In terms of not paying housing benefit in the future, what’s the proposal for housing those who are currently living in privately rented properties?

I was chatting to my ex husband last night whose partner. He cycled from John o Groats (sp) to Lands End a few years ago and said ( he also has a partner who comes from the north) people down south have absolutely no idea how much poverty there is in the north. Along with that a dearly departed friend of mine used to say that everyone thought that poverty was an urban problem but is just as prevalent in rural communities. At least the EU tried to pump money into poorer communities, but they were the very ones that voted to leave because they didn’t think to blame central government. I don’t know what the solution is because of the few places I know local factories that were the backbone of their communities are still closing (in Berwick the two main factories closed ) and industry everywhere is all but gone, along with the mines. We can’t have a nation of delivery drivers and nail technicians can we? Maybe Burnham does see and understand this? Because it’s going to take more than just moving No 10 to Manchester. (Apologies for rambling on and stating the obvious).

Work v Benefits is a balancing act, yes you can increase the minimum wage but that the increases the cost of basic services and food because the low paid predominate in these occupations.
It's not about delivery drivers and nail technicians they can be trained in a week or two, it's the skills that take 2 or 3 yrs to learn, apprentiships if you like, to become an electrician, car mechanic an accounts technician or a chef. Employers are desperate for skilled workers.

Benefit fraud at 3% I dont really believe that, it's only an estimate in any case, there are a great many who claim a bad back or depression because it's easier than low paid work, many other ways to cheat the system. Prosecution for cheating the system are at an all time low, there are few sanctions that can be applied so very little disincentive to cheat.

MayBee70

I was chatting to my ex husband last night whose partner. He cycled from John o Groats (sp) to Lands End a few years ago and said ( he also has a partner who comes from the north) people down south have absolutely no idea how much poverty there is in the north. Along with that a dearly departed friend of mine used to say that everyone thought that poverty was an urban problem but is just as prevalent in rural communities. At least the EU tried to pump money into poorer communities, but they were the very ones that voted to leave because they didn’t think to blame central government. I don’t know what the solution is because of the few places I know local factories that were the backbone of their communities are still closing (in Berwick the two main factories closed ) and industry everywhere is all but gone, along with the mines. We can’t have a nation of delivery drivers and nail technicians can we? Maybe Burnham does see and understand this? Because it’s going to take more than just moving No 10 to Manchester. (Apologies for rambling on and stating the obvious).

MayBee it has been carefully explained on this thread that there is no intention to move "No 10" to Manchester.

"No 10 North" is a proposed extension of the Prime Minister's office based in Manchester, intended to serve as a nerve centre to decentralise government power from London to the regions.

Maybee is right though, she is just using short hand to describe the soundbites. She actually was giving burnham the benefit of the doubt in that post.

I hope Burnham will have different approach to the Palestine question. Not letting Isreal act with impunity. So much suffering there in Gaza.

A doctor Hassam Abu Safiya is in Israel’s prison being tortured been put in another prison, he has told his lawyer they have brought me here to kill me I don't think I will make it out alive.
13 other doctors are in prison.

The UN and red cross says Isreal should release the doctor immediately.

Burnham should have Miliband as Chancellor best bet. And it's the people Burnham chosen to have around him!?

Also climate change, it's getting hotter and hotter needs action.

I think anti Semitism also needs to be tackled. The trouble with Israel’s policies is that it encourages people to think all Jewish people think the same way. Same as those dreadful Iranian rulers - Iranians are not vicious criminals any more than Israelis are but they are judged by their leaders.

From the BBC website:”Andy Burnham has been planning what he would do as prime minister for at least a year, a key ally has said.
Louise Haigh, who briefly served as transport secretary in Sir Keir Starmer's government, has been central to the new MP for Makerfield's operation in recent weeks.
"He has been thinking about this and certainly planning for this, for this moment, for at least the last year," she told the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson.
She added that his route to No 10 only became clear after Labour's disastrous set of election results in May, saying it was obvious "it couldn't continue the way it was continuing."
Burnham is so far the sole candidate to have announced their intention to stand to replace Sir Keir as Labour leader.
Nominations from Labour MPs have now opened and should the former Greater Manchester mayor become PM later this month, Haigh is likely to play a central role in his government.
The MP for Sheffield Heeley is a leading figure on the "soft left" of the Labour Party and has been involved, with Burnham and a handful of other senior figures, in access talks with the civil service, aimed at ensuring a smooth transition of power.
She told the BBC the former Greater Manchester mayor has been thinking about what he would do as prime minister for years, noting that he had twice before run to become Labour leader in 2010 and 2015.
And she denied that he was "unprepared or inexperienced" because of his nine years away from Westminster while Greater Manchester mayor.
"He has spent that time thinking very deeply about how the country is run, what holds regions like Greater Manchester, and therefore most regions and the devolved nations of this country, back.
"He has got very, very clear ideas and a plan to put that right."
She also defended the lack of detail on who might be in Burnham's cabinet, saying he was not "beholden" to anyone - with no need for horse-trading or deals.
"He can set out the agenda... and then build out the people from that. That's the right way to do it, but it's so so rare that you get given the opportunity to do it that way."
We've got a plan: Louise Haigh on her journey back to power”.
I’m not surprised to read this and with no one else standing against Burnham I’ve resigned my membership as I only rejoined the party because of Keir .

I am sorry Maybee, I know you are angry and hurt. What I would say is that being in the labour party ( and other parties I assume) does tend to be a roller coaster. I resigned my membership because of some of the decisions made by Keir, so people within the party will feel as strongly as you do just from a different perspective.
If it is any comfort I think Burnham is a chancer and so far has said nothing that would make me change my mind about the labour party.

It's what happens in politics.
Nothing underhand has happened. Surely everyone in the LP who went to meetings found it was much discussed for over 6 months was aware what was going on, ie the rise of the soft left, unease about LP directions.

Things have changed very very rapidly. Starmer pitched more towards middle right ground generally in some of the policies when we wanted to pick up Conservative votes. The political landscape has completely changed in just 2 years.

But we've gone over the following so many times: Starmer has actually achieved a great deal in smaller measures, but he made some terrible mistakes like Mandelson and having McSweeny at the helm:

he doesnt have the ability to project self or politics with warmth and impact except on the international front

I feel whatever our POV we should give Burnham a chance.

I resigned for a time over Blair just following the USA blindly and going to war with them with Iraq, one of the most damaging things the West has done in the name of regime change - that's a resigning matter?