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.
    · 14 days ago
    so it's workfare. Welcome to USGB. But it'll be popular with tax payers, especially those on min wage or, as Theresa May put it, those just about managing.

    i have ordered, through audible, Paul Johnson's Follow the Money (he is head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies)

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    I put on my TV this morning and the very first thing I hear is that Andy Burnham wants to make benefits harder to claim. Same new Labour. Learn the tax avoiders and go after those most vulnerable. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    I am so glad I got an early DWP offer which I took. Enhanced daily and enhanced mobility backdated to June 2025. The relief I don't have to worry about it till renewal by November 2029 is absolutely wonderful. Thank you for being a place of common sense in a very scary world right now.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    In other news according to the media. Burnham is planning on requiring people under 25 years old who are on LCWRA or LCW to do training or volunteer work. With the aim of reducing those claiming LCWRA or LCW.

    Which I guess would work because many would be incapable of doing training or volunteer work. I am not sure why Burnham does not comprehend the meaning of the words "incapable" "work" "volunteer" .

    And in other news the tax payers alliance wants PIP cuts to target pensioners receiving PIP for bad backs. And wants PIP restricted to those unable to support themselves. So turned into a working age only, out of work, means-tested benefit. With the aim of cutting taxes. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Bob Not exactly just for working age. Pensioners get pip for many conditions, not just 'bad backs'!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    In other news after hearing everyone talking about getting PIP extensions recently, I suddenly got my PIP extension letter in the post today, they have increased the award date until March 2032,  but said they would contact me in March 2031.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Dpb999 They usually contact claimants up to 12 months before their award expiry date presumably because there is such a backlog of cases to get through it would take them that long just to find each individual case.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @keepingitreal @Keepingitreal yes it was a good article deep down I’m still full of worry about if they going to pull the plug or not and then turn pip into some kind of employment system but should know where the wind is blowing in November when recommendations are made public but I have got other worries with my uc lcw interview with a work coach on Tuesday morning which I’m dreading(the same stuff again droning on about workwell which I keep refusing)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Just read a long article in the I newspaper where David Blunkett is interviewed. He believes that cuts will be targeted for 18-24 year olds, with greater conditionality for obtaining benefits, which could mean compulsory talking therapy, or ensuring that medication for mental health conditions is taken as directed, and a greater emphasis on work. As Blunkett states, Burnham is going to have to make some very difficult decisions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Bob I wonder where all of these talking therapy hours will be coming from, I was desperate for talking therapy.... but unfortunately not every mental health issue is suitable, I was refused and it
      Amazes me i didn't realise that all politicians and pundits were actually fully qualified medical professionals or is it the same as so-called pip assessors,(experts at everything) I'm surprised no Dr or consultant bothered qualifying when they obviously don't need a medical school Degree, just become a politician or pundit and you automatically know how to diagnose any mental health illness and whether its obviously over diagnosed, they are so amazing, I'm surprised the medical schools haven't pulled them up for the absolute b/s they spout, total hypercrites. Mental illness is not the same as the blues or occasionally feeling down or low. I've never wished anyone would feel clinically depressed or be mentally ill, but maybe if they actually knew what it's like.... then they would understand.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Matt Is Lord Blunket going to be Labour's version of Lord Mackinlay?
      Doing the media rounds promoting cuts to disability benefits. Using his own disability as a defence from criticism or as a weapon. Born blind and working class worked hard and made a success of life. Now in effect telling young people claiming they are too anxious or depressed to work they need to stop being a burden on society and get a job. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt I can see them cutting benefits and justifying it on the basis of offering more help like talking therapy or help towards and into work. 

      I cannot see them making talking therapy or medication compulsory to receive benefits. Despite the current system in theory enabling assessment on the basis of what someone would be capable of if they had not declined medical treatments.

      The idea of compulsory talking therapy and compulsory medication. Makes me wonder if the ethics boards of the health professionals are going to condone their members treating people who have not freely consented.

      And how would it work? Dear DWP I have failed to attend my mandatory talking therapy for anxiety and depression. As I was too anxious and depressed to attend. As my failure to attend was due to my health I believe that counts as a good reason and I should not be sanctioned. As my mental health condition is not a choice.

      Or they fail to attend and do not contact the DWP. Is that something to refer to safeguarding or to sanctioning? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt How would it be known whether medication for mental health conditions were being taken as directed? Thoughts as to how that might be enforced are horrifying.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt I mean, that is a good thing to an extent, when certain mental health issues go untreated for too long they can take root so deeply that a person will struggle to ever lead a normal life. Intensive early intervention is critical.. At the same time, it's important to realise that some people have chronic conditions which are debilitating and can't be helped by therapy or medication, and those people must be protected and given the benefits they need. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Burnham will have to do better than simply cutting welfare. To do so would be seen as a massive betrayal and be a total shot in the foot.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    Keeping on McFadden and Timms rather than replacing them with better people isn't exactly a good sign.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Bob Burnham will continue with the brutal sanctions regime against claimants and the FEAR Act which allows the DWP to spy on people's bank accounts.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Bob Not sure where I said otherwise? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @pollenpath To be fair Burnham has always been a strong supporter of the Timms PIP Review and the Milburn NEETS review, and a conditional supporter of the Fonagy Overdiagnosis of Mental Health, ADHD, Autism review. And while opposing crude cuts is also a supporter of cutting spending on disability and incapacity benefits. So the idea he would be better than Starmer was always mostly wishful thinking.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Ross I agree. All it does is indicate that Burnham intends to go along with the Timms Review recommendations and the Milburn report. Unsurprising, sadly - he's a Blairite in man of the people clothing, after all. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 days ago
    "Meet the new boss - same as the old boss."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @John Here's hoping they will at least.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @wibblum If they try and force harsh benefit cut they will get rejected by other members like last time and they will end up starting from scratch. We'll have to wait and see come autumn but they can't just rush something threw. I hope they will consult with disability charities to get there input. I. Know it's stressful for the rest of us just waiting so let's just see
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.