• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • DWP escapes Burnham reshuffle

News

DWP escapes Burnham reshuffle

Details

The DWP has escaped the Burnham reshuffle, with Pat McFadden confirmed as remaining in post as secretary of state for work and pensions and no sign of Timms being replaced as DWP disability minister.

Whilst it is good news that McFadden has not been supplanted by someone with even harsher views on benefits, many claimants will be disappointed that he was not replaced by someone with a more claimant-friendly attitude.

Meanwhile, the appointment of the former defence secretary, John Healey, as chancellor of the exchequer has alarmed some readers, who fear his commitment to increasing spending on defence may lead to him proposing cuts to other budgets, including benefits.

In his statement following his resignation, Healey told MPs in relation to defence spending:

“I appreciate how hard this is for Cabinet colleagues, and I am very grateful to those who support what is required, but not all needs to be done by cutbacks elsewhere. There are credible ways of meeting the mid-term funding challenges, working multinationally and as other nations in Europe are doing, that could allow us to protect the ability to deliver our Labour missions across Government.”

But for now, it looks like claimants must continue to wait for the results of the Timms review to discover what may be in store for the future of disability and incapacity benefits.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 15 hours ago
    When the pip timms review is finished will they start to remove pip from every one I am so scared at the moment 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    N.B.C
    · 2 days ago
    Posts not puts...oops
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    N.B.C
    · 2 days ago
    Btw what happened to the positive/negative ratings that puts used to have?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 5 days ago
    I am disabled from a work accident I fell 30 feet at work and smashed both feet and sick of being attacked because I get benefits.not my fault 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James h
      · 4 days ago
      @Wayne @Wayne it can happen to anyone at anytime I had a health scare during the bank holiday and just suddenly dropped dead in the street I went down unconscious like a sack of spuds luckily I recovered it was a heart rhytham issue my mum has the same 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tintack
    · 6 days ago

    Apparently Labour members have a "tougher" view on welfare than you might think. This sounds odd, until you read this line:

    "Three-quarters of Labour’s members said they had backed Keir Starmer in the 2020 party leadership contest".

    The survey was done by ThinkLabour, which is a rebranded version of Labour Together, the McSweeney/Lord Yum Yum faction of the party. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bob
      · 6 days ago
      @tintack In the Labour leadership contest Starmer only got 56.2% of the vote. The poll showing 75% of current Labour members voted for Starmer in the leadership contest. Maybe indicative of a awful lot of Labour members leaving since Starmer became leader. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    N.B.C
    · 7 days ago
    Just when I get some breathing room through a successful pip application, then just about everything this government either has done, is doing or is going to do just seems hell bent on ruining it for me and so many other people who just ridh they could be left in peace coz they genuinely can't live any other way.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Matt
    · 8 days ago
    Apologies for the awful post (in terms of spelling and grammar). My old phone has given up the ghost so have new phone now 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 8 days ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4v6e9d2go

    Paying more money but on another and taking pip of people disgusting 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Matt
    · 8 days ago
    awll thise talk about inexorable rise is due to a: thyr increasing cost of the state pension, the triple lock and the general level of taxation. Wait until Healey bursts thye Burnham bounce. Uktimately, it's thyr City that runs Britain, not the Govt.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 6 days ago
      @hrh
      " the amount spent on pensions and other benefits is rising because of inflation but the percentage of the GDP spent remains the same. however much the government and newspaper want you to believe otherwise, the amount spent on welfare is not increasing."

      Yes, I know, I mentioned that, though the triple lock is also driving the increasing proportion of the budget that goes to pensioners, but the "slash welfare!" brigade won't go anywhere near it: there's a lot of talk about "tough decisions on welfare", but even looking at a big driver of the biggest part of the bill is apparently a bit too tough. Since overall spending on benefits as a proportion of GDP is flat there is no need to slash spending. Unfortunately the claim that it's "spiralling" or "ballooning" is usually allowed to pass unchallenged.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      hrh
      · 7 days ago
      @tintack the amount spent on pensions and other benefits is rising because of inflation but the percentage of the GDP spent remains the same. however much the government and newspaper want you to believe otherwise, the amount spent on welfare is not increasing.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 7 days ago
      @Matt
      "awll thise talk about inexorable rise is due to a: thyr increasing cost of the state pension, the triple lock"

      That's virtually never mentioned though. They'll talk about the overall size of spending on benefits while deliberately not mentioning what the biggest part of that spending is. Then they'll say that other, much smaller parts of the budget have to be cut. On the rare occasions that someone does mention the cost of the triple lock it's immediately made clear that they won't go anywhere near it. So the proportion of the DWP budget that goes to pensioners is the part that "rises inexorably" while the working age population - and in practice that usually means mainly the sick and disabled - get shafted time and time again.

      If they were really serious about cutting the bill (not that there is any great need to, given that the % of GDP we spend on benefits has been virtually static for at least the last 15 years and is projected to remain so for at least the next 5 years), they would look at the biggest part of that bill. That would mean reforming the triple lock to focus it on poorer pensioners - after all, disability cuts are always "justified" on the grounds of "making sure help goes to those who really need it". But woe betide anyone who suggests doing something similar with the triple lock.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Wibblum
      · 7 days ago
      @Matt So that means the City demands Welfare Cuts.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 9 days ago
    Well if it's rising 'inexorably' it can't be controlled. So good luck with that.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bob
    · 10 days ago
    In other news we now have the Chancellor Healey doing the media rounds saying amongst other things that "the inexorably rising welfare bill must be controlled".

    Presumably so more money can be spent on defense.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 9 days ago
      @Bob Again, just flat out lying about spending on benefits being out of control. Let me guess - he wasn't called out on it and was allowed to peddle this claim with no pushback.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    robbie
    · 10 days ago
    There's such a lot of talk, noise flying at us from all directions, It really all comes down to whether and when disability-hostile views are acted upon. Even if the Timms review final report goes against us there will be opposition. Recommendations will have to be debated, and accepted decisions incorporated into the system.

    It's going to take a long time.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bob
    · 11 days ago
    In other news according to the Independent newspaper the DWP is about to restart sending letters to working age DLA claimants notifying them their DLA claim is being ended and inviting them to apply for PIP. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Bob
    · 11 days ago
    In other news. Baroness Casey who is heading up the government's review on social care has been doing the media rounds. Saying tough questions have to be asked about disability benefits. That it is too easy to claim disability benefits and even she who is not disabled would qualify according to a DWP survey she did. Simple as that.

    But the survey she is referring to appears to be the same one she referred to earlier this month in her speech to the LGA.

    "there is something else happening too.

    DWP carries out an annual survey, designed to look at peoples’ income and circumstances. That survey also includes questions that allows DWP to track disability. The survey does not ask someone if they consider themselves disabled. Instead, it asks two questions designed to match the language we use in the Equality Act to define disability:
    a) Does the person have a physical or mental health condition or illness lasting, or expected to last, 12 months or more?
    b) If yes, does the condition reduce the person’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities?
    If the person answers “yes” to the first question and says their day-to-day activities are limited (either “a little” or “a lot”) in the second question, they are counted as disabled.

    According to the survey, 25% of people in the UK reported having a disability in 2023/24, up from 19% a decade earlier. If correct, that means there would be 16.8 million people in the UK who would consider themselves as disabled, 4.9 million more than a decade earlier. This is at the same time as we are seeing a big increase in disability benefit claims. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit.

    And much of that is linked to mental health conditions. Reported mental health “impairments” have more than doubled over the last decade. Mental health “impairment” is reported in 48% of disabled adults.

    I think the public would be shocked if you told them a quarter of people in this country could be defined as disabled. And they would ask some difficult questions.

    In nearly every council area we have visited, and feedback from ADASS’s recent survey has told us, that more and more of the social care budget is moving away from the elderly and moving towards working age adults. The number of older people receiving long-term public support has more than halved over the last twenty years. Not because there are fewer older people
    It is because older people are getting less help.

    So, we have one part of the system where more older people are needing support, but fewer are getting it. And another part where demand from working-age adults is rising in ways we still don’t properly understand. We are moving towards something that feels lopsided."

    I maybe being paraniod but it looks to me like not only are working age disabled people looking at the possibility of having their disability and incapacity benefits removed or reduced but at the social care they receive being cut. As the government rhetoric points to them implying the working age are not really disabled especially those with mental health conditions and wanting to prioritises pensioners benefits and social care. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 10 days ago
      @Bob I wonder if Casey will be asking "tough questions" about the many people who died after having their "too easy to claim" benefits wrongly removed. I'm going to stick my neck out here and hazard a guess that she won't.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 13 days ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/28/young-people-new-work-support-mcfadden-benefits

    Don’t know how I feel about this

    I spoken to so many disabled people who parents treat their disability benefits as their own personal atm and the teenagers/young adults don’t have the support to challenge it.

    If the gov is going to ‘bribe’ neets this way (which I’m not convinced is the best use of money - too high a bribe and has the potential to be as abused as Covid grants) it needs to go to the person doing the legwork

    (Also you can’t cut disabled people welfare to pay for this imo
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bob
      · 12 days ago
      @D It is not intended to be a bribe for the family it is intended to offset the loss the family would otherwise suffer. And it is intended to reduce the amount of money families ask their children for.

      The change is based on the findings of the Social Security Advisory Committee.

      When a child stays in education the family carries on getting benefits for the child. But, if the child instead opts for an apprenticeship the family loses benefits for that child. And instead the child gets a £225.49 a week wage. This wage is designed to be enough to offset the loss in family benefits.

      But there are major flaws with the current system.

      1. It assumes the family is not just looking at the loss in family benefits if the child opts to not stay in education and instead takes up an apprenticeship.

      2. The apprenticeship wage is not actually enough to offset the loss in family benefits in some circumstances. Especially for disabled children. So can create a large financial disincentive for the family. Causing the family to want or need the child to stay in education and not take up an apprenticeship.

      3. Even when the wage is enough to completely offset the loss in family benefits. Families cannot rely on the child being happy to give the family the money. And if the child does it reduces or removes the financial incentive, the reward for working of opting to take up an apprenticeship. So makes the child less likely to take up an apprenticeship and carry on going to work as an apprentice.

      The solution the government has opted for is to announce the loss in family benefits will in future be offset by an additional bursary paid to the family.

      It is on the face of it a good announcement. At least it would be if not for the announcement including references to conditionality. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    wibblum(real one)
    · 13 days ago
    Hard Times Ahead.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Diceman
    · 14 days ago
    Hope I’m wrong but will these extensions on pip reviews it wouldn’t surprise if this government will get rid of pip altogether to bring in a totally different disability benefit where are local councils take over care needs and support and us disabled people get no money extra at all I just I’m so so wrong but I can see the government are putting seeds down to grow this ideal good help us all 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Marty
      · 6 days ago
      @Diceman Yes I agree Andy Burham believes in taking power away from No 10 and devolving everyong, much akin to Thatcher privatising anything she could get her hands on. Devolvisation is useful then the government can cliam it local councils who aren't paying not the UK Westminster Government even low they will cut their budgets which has been ongoing for decades 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 13 days ago
      @D The second line of your post below literally said that, referring to the possibility of a replacement benefit,:

      "It would only deal with new claimants at first and it would move existing claimants over slowly".
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      D
      · 13 days ago
      @rookie @rookie    Never said that.

      I was saying IF the gov opted to create a new benefit to replace pip it wouldn’t be the worst news for existing claimants as history shows it takes years for the dwp to move pre-existing claimants to a new replacement welfare award so any changes probably wouldn’t effect them straight away

      I was responding to someone else’s post that was wondering if a new benefit to replace pip was a possibility

      And as I implied at the end of that post I think the most likely course of action by the dwp under will be to reshape pip into something it was never meant to be (turning it into a ‘Frankenstein’ looking disability welfare award if that makes sense - trying to force jigsaw pieces from other puzzles to fit!)

      I’m not certain of anything but I can make observations, look at history to make semi educated guesstimates and keep track of disability commentators insider tips 

      But I don’t think we’ll know any more solid details till this autumn

      It would hurt though for individuals being stressed out by all the mp quotes and rumours on the subjects to contact their local mps (or neighbouring mp if your mp is unempathetic) over the summer recess (better to try and stop the more dystopian policies before they even get officially announced)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 13 days ago
      @D "It would only deal with new claimants at first and it would move existing claimants over slowly"

      We don't know this.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      D
      · 14 days ago
      @Diceman Introducing a replacement benefit to pip may not be the worst thing as a existing claimant point of view.

      It would only deal with new claimants at first and it would move existing claimants over slowly

      Just look at the esa to pip and esa to uc migrations - both of which have taken years to bring over pre existing claimants.

      Much of what has come out in the timms review & the neet study initial findings suggests that they should replace pip with a new benefit as none of their ideas represent what ‘personal independence payment’ is or should be and/or pip should be split into 2 separate benefits - one for the neets & under 30-35s and one for middle aged/older pip claimants.

      It’s becoming increasingly clear that it would be impossible for the gov to mold pip into a totally new award that it’s not designed to be - it’s simpler to build a new award from scratch (or even reform dla as that seems closer to the vision the gov seems to have)

      But I imagine Labour will try and take shortcuts and try to reform pip into a Frankenstein type bodge job! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Stiv
    · 14 days ago
    Burnham also said he was opposed to “crude cuts to benefits to get the welfare bill down”. He said:
    The thing I’m just pushing back on is this idea that we go to a kind of crude approach, crude cuts to benefits to get the welfare bill down.
    Often that just pushes people into even more crisis and then even more public spending in another part of the system. We need a system that sets people up for success rather than pays for failure.
    He said this, In his BBC Interview.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rookie
      · 14 days ago
      @Stiv Sure he said it, but once in play they're like the England football team, heeding history, never repeating the same mistakes until they always do.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Wayne
    · 14 days ago
    How much harder can they make pip be to get  it's already hard to get  government r disgusting to disabled 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 14 days ago
    I think this may be burnham officially throwing the disabled under the bus (there are 4m ppl on pip - you add those disabled unsuccessful in claiming plus loved ones that 5-10 million voters burnhams decided he doesn’t need - thought he was smart, empathetic and would learn from Starmers mistakes) guess it’s up to us to backlash like we’ve never done before and destabilise another gov as that’s the only way that seems to stop the self sabotage 


    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/27/andy-burnham-vows-to-use-his-political-capital-to-fix-social-care-system

    Burnham has also promised to overhaul the wider benefits system, a process begun under Keir Starmer, which has included a review into payments for people with a disability or illness, as well as a study of how to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment, or training.

    Asked how he hoped to balance any changes, Burnham said: “It’s about changing the nature of the support and making some of the support conditional upon people taking opportunities that are presented in front of them.

    “So you might increase the conditions required to receive benefits. I think it’s a good thing that the government has given guarantees of opportunities for young people.

    “And I think we need to continue down that approach, and where mental health support is needed, for instance, it’s provided in work to support people in an opportunity. Let me just say something more, though, about what you’re driving at, which is the welfare bill. I think we’ve got to get really serious as a country at getting welfare down.”


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      D
      · 14 days ago
      @tintack That’s probably the best way of putting it

      It’s unclear if Labour will get all their reform plans through or fail (though we expect a few dodgy cuts to get through)

      What is more clear is that if Labour go down this route of targeting disability finances again more traditional labour voters (plus those who loaned Labour their vote in ge2024) will move their support over to greens and Lib Dem’s (I imagine strategic voting for constituency will have an impact on that coin flip) or even the right wing lot if they do the ‘anyone but Labour strategic vote.

      Even if Labour under Burnham went totally insane and axed disability benefits altogether (a fictional dystopia that not even farage would go that low) I don’t see it attracting anywhere near enough reform voter to counteract the loss of voters (and traditional Tory voters are the most loyal so that’s pointless to try and tempt them)

      Andy Burnham needs to go on his summer holiday now as at this rate his premiership is going to unravel before parliament resits in september
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bob
      · 14 days ago
      @D Conditionality just reeks of thinking people are just making bad lifestyle choices, and need a bit of stick to encourage them in the right direction. While the support offered by the DWP just reeks of thinking there is not much wrong with people, that their health conditions can be easily overcome with a bit of positive thinking and a bit of help. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 14 days ago
      @D
      " Let me just say something more, though, about what you’re driving at, which is the welfare bill. I think we’ve got to get really serious as a country at getting welfare down.”

      But again, not going anywhere near by far the biggest portion of that bill, given his commitment to keeping the triple lock. So apparently we don't need to get that serious about it. And of course, this comment shows he's willing to peddle the claim that spending on benefits is out of control, despite that claim being well and truly debunked.

      "there are 4m ppl on pip - you add those disabled unsuccessful in claiming plus loved ones that 5-10 million voters burnhams decided he doesn’t need - thought he was smart, empathetic and would learn from Starmers mistakes) guess it’s up to us to backlash like we’ve never done before and destabilise another gov as that’s the only way that seems to stop the self sabotage"

      A repeat of last year's backlash would certainly seem to be on the cards. I suspect more cuts will pass, but if so, Labour will lose even more of its base to the Greens, and will probably be genuinely surprised about it.

PIP Extensions - Get The Latest News

Stay updated with our free, fortnightly newsletter.

Over 140,000 claimant and professional subscribers.

 
iContact

Latest news