Minister Andy Burnham is prepared to back tougher welfare rules for young people as Labour looks to rein in the soaring benefits bill and drive more people into work, according to close ally Lord Blunkett.

The intervention comes ahead of a major review into youth unemployment expected to recommend sweeping changes to support for 16 to 24-year-olds, including stricter work-related conditions and possible limits on benefit entitlement.

Lord Blunkett

Pressure builds for reform

Lord Blunkett, a former Cabinet minister and one of Burnham's long-time political allies, said the Prime Minister is "wholeheartedly" behind proposals being developed by former minister Alan Milburn.

He argued that Britain can no longer sustain a welfare bill that continues to climb, pointing to forecasts showing spending could rise from £333bn today to around £400bn by the end of the decade.

Blunkett suggested future reforms should focus less on cash payments and more on helping young people into work through training, education and improved mental health support.

No appetite for 'crude cuts' – but hard choices ahead

Burnham has previously insisted he wants to reduce welfare spending by reforming education and employment support rather than imposing blanket cuts.

However, Blunkett indicated that difficult decisions over eligibility are unavoidable. He questioned whether some claimants would benefit more from healthcare, practical assistance or employment support than direct financial payments, arguing Labour must become "the Labour Party, not the welfare party."

He also backed stronger conditionality, saying claimants should engage with training or employment support in return for receiving benefits.

McFadden's survival sends clear signal

Blunkett said Burnham's decision to retain Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden following his Cabinet reshuffle demonstrated the government's commitment to welfare reform despite McFadden's close ties to former prime minister Sir Keir Starmer.

McFadden has already hinted that Milburn's review could recommend restricting benefit access for some younger claimants or attaching new work-related conditions to payments.

The review's final recommendations are expected in the autumn.

Campaigners warn of unintended consequences

Mental health charity Mind has urged ministers to proceed cautiously, warning that tighter benefit conditions could discourage vulnerable people from seeking work rather than helping them into employment.

The charity welcomed proposals to improve employment and health support but rejected suggestions that reducing financial support alone would encourage more people into jobs.

The Department for Work and Pensions said tackling youth unemployment remains a central government priority, highlighting a £2.5bn programme aimed at creating 500,000 opportunities for young people to train, earn and enter the workforce.

Blunkett: Burnham is prepared to limit benefits for young people

Lord Blunkett looks like a cariciature of a council estate benefits slob.

9 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Lord Blunkett looks like a cariciature of a council estate benefits slob.

Blind from birth, it's extraordinary what he's achieved in life, especially as his family were left in dire poverty when his father died in a works accident and the family was refused compensation for 2 years.

For all you Pakistani, Somalian, and Afghan illegal arrivals don't worry it's not you, we need our youngsters footing your and your future dependents arrivals bills,

1 hour ago, Tidal wave said:

For all you Pakistani, Somalian, and Afghan illegal arrivals don't worry it's not you, we need our youngsters footing your and your future dependents arrivals bills,

In the words of Obama, "It's the right thing to do."

Blind' leading the blind' has never been clearer' nothing will change except for the tax you pay its the Labour way 🤔

9 hours ago, temuFarang said:

In the words of Obama, "It's the right thing to do."

And the Iranian agents in disguise are OK to?

2 hours ago, Tidal wave said:

And the Iranian agents in disguise are OK to?

2 hours ago, Tidal wave said:

And the Iranian agents in disguise are OK to?

It was probably in their briefing packs weeks before it was released to the UK press!

there all unemployable phone zombies covered in tattos ,tatts on their faces make it unlikely they wil get a job except dustbin man

14 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

there all unemployable phone zombies covered in tattos ,tatts on their faces make it unlikely they wil get a job except dustbin man

I love the smell of discrimination in the morning.

Cracking down on welfare cheats would be a lot easier with a national ID card, yet, he scrapped it.

Burnham to scrap digital ID to focus on 'helping with cos...

A spokesperson for the incoming prime minister says his government would “put its focus where people need it right now”.

looks like norman wisdom

17 hours ago, bannork said:

Blind from birth, it's extraordinary what he's achieved in life, especially as his family were left in dire poverty when his father died in a works accident and the family was refused compensation for 2 years.

Extraordinary because he demonstrated that a vision impairment was no obstacle to corruption or adultery? The man you elevate to sainthood was caught breaking the ministerial code of conduct and removed from his cabinet position.He admitted to 3 improper acts. Do you think his 3 children share your glowing opinion knowing that he betrayed their mother and fathered a child with his mistress, which he initially denied? He fits right in with some of the council flat benefits people, or at the very least a character out of the Bill.

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Extraordinary because he demonstrated that a vision impairment was no obstacle to corruption or adultery? The man you elevate to sainthood was caught breaking the ministerial code of conduct and removed from his cabinet position.He admitted to 3 improper acts. Do you think his 3 children share your glowing opinion knowing that he betrayed their mother and fathered a child with his mistress, which he initially denied? He fits right in with some of the council flat benefits people, or at the very least a character out of the Bill.

Blunkett had been divorced from the mother of his sons since 1990 when he started his affair with Kimberley Quinn in 2001 so his relationship with his three sons survived:

do David Blunkett's children hate him for taking a mistress? - Google Search

• Strong Relationships: Media reports and interviews confirmed that Blunkett remained "close" to his three adult sons throughout the fallout.

• Unconditional Support: In a December 2004 interview with The Guardian, Blunkett shared that his inner circle—including family and friends—offered unconditional love. He noted they told him, "Looked at from outside you've been a bit of a mug, but we love you".

• No Broken Bonds: Because Blunkett had already been divorced from his first wife since 1990—long before the affair began—the scandal did not involve the breakdown of his sons' immediate parental home.

Starmer tried this. Starmer predictably U-turned immediately at the whiff of backbencher dissent. Starmer had the spine of a jellyfish.

Burnham is trying this. Since he is dealing with the same backbenchers, all of whom put him in, he will also fail to address the issue.

Everybody knows this situation is absurd, untenable and greatly damaging for the economy, but nobody has the courage to do anything about it and I include the Tories when they were in power.

14 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Starmer tried this. Starmer predictably U-turned immediately at the whiff of backbencher dissent. Starmer had the spine of a jellyfish.

Burnham is trying this. Since he is dealing with the same backbenchers, all of whom put him in, he will also fail to address the issue.

Everybody knows this situation is absurd, untenable and greatly damaging for the economy, but nobody has the courage to do anything about it and I include the Tories when they were in power.

Burnham needs to call the left's bluff.

If you won't support me,we'll have an election and you'll lose your seats.

Same with immigration and the 2 child cap.

11 hours ago, bannork said:

Burnham needs to call the left's bluff.

If you won't support me,we'll have an election and you'll lose your seats.

Same with immigration and the 2 child cap.

You are right but he has ruled this out (after you posted).

I sense a nickname will be invented at some point along the lines of Backtrack Burnham.