Andy Burnham (Almost) Wins

Summary

Newscast – “Andy Burnham (Almost) Wins”
BBC News Podcast | July 9, 2026
Hosts: Adam Fleming, Chris Mason, Alex Forsyth
Key Participant: Ben Chu

---

Episode Overview

This episode delivers a deep dive into two of the biggest UK political stories of the day:

1. Andy Burnham’s imminent ascent to Prime Minister – explaining why his succession is now all but certain, and parsing what this means inside Labour and for the country at large.
2. Welfare Reform Focus – analysis of the Personal Independence Payments (PIP) review led by Disabilities Minister Stephen Timms, exploring the background, growth in claimants, impending changes, and the wider politics around benefits and disability support.

The team brings their trademark clear, conversational style, majoring on inside-info from Westminster and breaking down complex stories for listeners.

---

1. Andy Burnham: Prime Minister in Waiting

The Process and the Numbers ([01:41]-[05:55])

• Chris Mason explains the leadership process:

  • “Nominations opened for people to stand for the Labour leadership... There is only one candidate, which is Andy Burnham.”
    — [01:53]
  • Labour MPs fill out nominations on paper (not digital), with some jostling to be “first in.” Barry Gardiner was first through the door, but David Pinto-Diczinski was first to physically hand over his nomination.
    — [02:27]
  • At recording, Burnham had 322 nominations – just one shy of the number that would mathematically eliminate the possibility of a rival candidate:
    • “Had it been 323, then there wouldn’t have been 81 Labour MPs left who could have nominated somebody else. 81 is the threshold for someone to get onto the ballot paper.” [03:24]
  • Burnham’s support is “highly symbolic.” The process is effectively uncontested.

• Adam Fleming on the significance:

  • “You can now abandon that formula, which was strictly accurate, if not quite true, which is that Andy Burnham was the likely next Prime Minister. You can now say he’s going to be the next Prime Minister.” [04:17]

• Chris Mason on transition plans:

  • Burnham and team are “deep in the process of access talks” – prepping to take over government machinery, review policy, legislative programmes, etc.
    “[I]n 10 days’ time he’s going to be Prime Minister.” [05:14]

Burnham’s Messaging and Next Steps ([05:26]-[06:59])

• Burnham posts on X:
  “Their support comes from across the parliamentary Labour Party and reflects a shared belief that Britain needs a new approach to politics. This is the circuit breaker I am offering: power out of Westminster, an economy rewired for ordinary people and good growth in every postcode.” [05:26]

  • Low-key celebration; focus on “circuit breaker” for British politics.

• Adam Fleming on remaining formalities:

  • Burnham needs nominations from unions and affiliated groups; a hustings will occur next week with him as solo candidate.
    — [05:56]
  • Timeline: becomes Labour leader likely on Friday, July 17, and Prime Minister by July 20 (unless delayed by the football World Cup final).

• Speculation around which Labour MPs refrained from nominating Burnham, and what that might mean for internal party dynamics (“awkward squad”). [08:11]

Notable Quotes

• “It is quite something to get 322 MPs... when you haven’t got any other contenders.”
  — Chris Mason [08:46]
• “It is something else, I think, to decide that there is only one candidate and you’re still not going to nominate them.”
  — Chris Mason [09:00]

Foreign Policy Positioning: Burnham on Gaza ([09:50]-[12:51])

• Chris Mason highlights Burnham’s deliberate break from Keir Starmer’s language:
  • Burnham’s social media video admits Labour “got it wrong” in its initial response to Gaza and apologizes.
  • Chris: “I think he is speaking... intently, if you like, to the Labour Party in saying that it is his view that how Keir Starmer handled things wasn't right.” [12:21]
  • However, Burnham’s substance on Middle East policy may not differ greatly—mostly a tonal shift designed for the Labour selectorate.

---

2. PIP (Personal Independence Payments) Review – Crisis, Controversy and Reform

Why Is There a Review? ([14:43]-[16:23])

• Alex Forsyth situates the review in political context:
  • Government tried to restrain welfare bill rise, especially around PIP eligibility, resulting in a dramatic Labour backbench rebellion and public backlash.
  • Govt “had to climb down completely,” and set up a co-produced review led by Stephen Timms and involving disability advocates.

Who Gets PIP, and Why Claims Are Soaring ([16:35]-[19:05])

• Ben Chu on the numbers:

  • 4 million people now claim PIP (~up from 2.4 million in 2020).
  • Main driver of increase: neurodevelopmental/mental health conditions (e.g., ADHD, autism).
  • Spending has gone from £32bn/year today to a projected £41bn by 2030; non-pensioner disability/sickness benefits could hit £80bn.

• PIP is not means-tested and can go to those both in or out of work.

How PIP Works: The Points System ([19:05]-[20:57])

• Adam Fleming:
  • Describes the DWP activities/descriptors/points system (e.g.: for “washing and bathing,” extra points if you can’t act independently).
• Alex Forsyth:
  • Previous reform would have made it harder to qualify—this is what caused the outcry.

Stephen Timms’ Interim Report ([20:57]-[23:21])

• Clip:
  “The process of applying for it, the assessment... requires you to set out lots of things you cannot do. People find that very unpleasant... quite fearful at the prospect of being reassessed in the future... so PIP has become, for quite a lot of people, a barrier to participation, which is obviously not the intention... [it] hasn’t kept pace with changing understanding of ill health/disability over the last 13 years…so we do think fundamental change is needed.”
  — Stephen Timms, Minister [21:10]

• Alex Forsyth:

  • Stark contrast in tone compared to earlier Labour approach; this review is co-produced with people who have lived experience.
  • Timms is signaling “fundamental reform” is likely, but being highly cautious; not flagging specifics yet.

• Ben Chu:

  • Radical reform possible, e.g., tailoring support by age, with under-25s getting services (therapy/training) rather than cash.
  • A fifth of PIP claimants are actually in work; fear of benefit loss may discourage work.

Political and Fiscal Dynamics ([27:28]-[31:29])

• Ben Chu notes:

  • Despite “soaring” sickness/disability benefit costs, overall welfare as % of GDP has been stable (and is below 2010 levels due to earlier cuts in other areas).
  • “A lot of this rhetoric about the welfare system bill is out of control... is a bit misleading because that’s only looking at one part of the bill.” [29:17]
  • Policy experts: cutting elsewhere may just incentivize people to move onto disability benefits.

• Alex Forsyth and Ben Chu:

  • Timms is at pains to avoid “crude cuts.” The shadow Conservative minister says Labour is in denial about the seriousness of the bill.

The Big Picture: Burnham’s In-Tray ([31:29]-[33:22])

• Adam Fleming highlights that Burnham will come into office with three big ongoing welfare/sickness reviews (Mayfield, Milburn, Timms), all with interconnected recommendations.
• Alex Forsyth:
  “These aren’t... one specific issue... here, come up with a suggestion, put it in place in six weeks and it’s fixed. These are big areas, complex areas.” [32:38]
• Ben Chu: Burnham wants to save on welfare (possibly to fund more for defence), but major changes that hinge on higher employment will take longer to pay off.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Chris Mason on Burnham’s Momentum:
  “Here is someone who, in Andy Burnham, [has achieved] something of a coup in terms of his by-election performance and clearly has a vast amount of momentum behind him…” [08:26]

• On Potential Holdouts Among Labour MPs:
  “It is something else, I think, to decide that there is only one candidate and you’re still not going to nominate them.” — Chris Mason [09:00]

• Stephen Timms on PIP Assessment:
  “The process... requires you to set down lots of things you cannot do. People find that very unpleasant... it’s become, for quite a lot of people, a barrier to participation, which is obviously the opposite of the intention.” [21:10]

• Alex Forsyth on Disability Policy Consultation:
  “[This review] is a whole steering group of different people, some of whom have real life experience in this area and they’ve come up with this together.” [22:13]

• Ben Chu – On Political Narratives:
  “A lot of this rhetoric about the welfare system bill is out of control and unaffordable is a bit misleading... total non-pensioner welfare spending is not out of control and is not up on where it was 15 years ago.” [29:17]

---

Key Timestamps

• Andy Burnham’s uncontested nomination process: [01:41]-[05:55]
• Burnham’s social media post and next steps: [05:26]-[06:59]
• Discussion of who hasn’t nominated Burnham/awkward squad: [08:11]-[09:44]
• Burnham’s post on Gaza and Labour’s shifting tone: [09:50]-[12:51]
• Personal Independence Payment (PIP) review – background and growth: [14:43]-[19:05]
• How PIP works (point-scoring): [19:05]-[20:57]
• Stephen Timms’ interim report (policy approach): [20:57]-[23:21]
• PIP and disability welfare spending dynamics: [27:28]-[31:29]
• Burnham’s policy in-tray and future challenges: [31:29]-[34:32]

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is brisk, dryly humorous, and insight-rich, frequently referencing inside-baseball parliamentary processes and Westminster etiquette. The presenters blend analysis, lived-political experience, and clear explanations, making the complex intelligible—while not shying from gently mocking the quirks of UK politics.

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone following the transition in UK politics, and for those interested in how government recalibrates social policy amid changing political and social realities.

Transcript

[Adam Fleming]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

Two milestones, the first of which is Chris Mason is back in the uk.

[Chris Mason]

Hello.

[Adam Fleming]

How was Turkey?

[Chris Mason]

It was. It was fine. It gives you a sense of the kind of heat wave that some of us are experiencing right now, that in conversations I was having with my family about being in Ankara, the reflections were, I think it's cooler where you are than it is back home.

[Adam Fleming]

And we learned that Keir Starmer did not bring his personalized revolver. He was given as a gift by Erdogan back to the uk because that would be an illegal, illegal firearm. So it was deposited in the British Embassy where it's being decommissioned and then will be brought to the UK to sit on a mantelpiece somewhere or be in an archive.

[Chris Mason]

So said revolver was customised for each NATO leader with their name upon the revolver. There was live ammunition included, although it didn't extend to names being added to the ammunition. And, yeah, this was a gift. He decided he would leave, leave where it was or at least leave in the country, at least for. At least for now.

[Adam Fleming]

And the second milestone is not that Keir Starmer left his personalized revolver behind in Ankara, it's that Andy Burnham is very close to now being definitely, definitively, absolutely no questions asked, the Prime Minister of the uk next. And we will explain why in this

[Alex Forsyth]

episode of Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

[Adam Fleming]

I will resign as leader of the Labour Party.

[Alex Forsyth]

And what will you do?

[Chris Mason]

Stare at a wall? Humanity's next great voyage begins.

[Adam Fleming]

You know, I like my buses. I'll come on to them.

It's supposed to be me as a doct.

[Alex Forsyth]

Ooh la la. Thinking about it like a panter helped. Do we play music now or what do we do?

[Adam Fleming]

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio

[Chris Mason]

and it is Chris back at Westminster

[Adam Fleming]

and we're recording this bit of this episode of newscast at about 20 past 7 on Thursday. And Chris, just explain why, as we can say almost categorically that Andy Barnum is going to take over from Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.

[Chris Mason]

Well, we should say that we could almost have said almost categorically for quite a while, so. So we shouldn't load Jeopardy. Where Jeopardy doesn't exist. However, to walk through the process after all of the chat since the by election, today was actually the day Thursday where nominations opened for people to stand for the Labour leadership. There is only one candidate, which is Andy burnham. And Labour MPs could then go along and fill in the piece of paper. And it's quite a sort of old fashioned pen and paper type thing rather than being any sort of snazzy online portal or anything like that. And they could go in from 9 o' clock this morning in the Labour Party's parliamentary office in Westminster, the parliamentary Labour Party office. And there was people there at 9 o' clock the minute it opened. In fact, there was even a bit of a thing about who would be first in. So Barry Gardiner was the first in to the office, but David Pinto Diczinski was actually the first to fill in the piece of paper and hand it over the desk. So Westminster can even manage to create something of a race even when there isn't a contest. But anyway, we fast forward to 20 minutes ago as we record and we have got the number. And the number as of the end of day one of this process to have nominated Andy Burnham is 322. And the reason that matter, that number is intriguing is that had it been 323 then there wouldn't have been 81 Labour MPs left who could have nominated somebody else. And 81 is the threshold for somebody to get onto the ballot paper were there to be a contest. Now, as I say, we shouldn't get overly excited because there aren't any other candidates and There are other MPs who have said they are going to nominate Andy Burnham and just haven't done yet, perhaps because they weren't around at Westminster today. So there's. Yeah, there's, as I say, there's no jeopardy.

[Adam Fleming]

Highly symbolic.

[Chris Mason]

It's highly. Exactly. But the number is one shy of the number he would need to ensure that there couldn't possibly be anybody else who would run. Not that there is going to be any Olsen who could run. I had a sense that this number was going to be pretty big because I was speaking to someone who would have wanted it to be big, who had suggested to me about an hour and a half ago that, well, wouldn't it be quite something if it was over 250? And I thought, well, if they're saying that it's going to be comfortably over 250, I think. But yeah, there we are.

[Adam Fleming]

And it does mean that when you're on the news you can now abandon that formula, which was strictly accurate, if not quite true, which is that Andy Burnham was the likely next Prime Minister, you can now say he's going to be the next Prime Minister.

[Chris Mason]

Yeah, I've been diluting the caveats for a little while and almost saying it definitively, but I think there will be a hardening of that. And I think what we'll also see from Mr. Burnham himself perhaps next week, is a shift towards a greater sense of him being Prime Minister presumptive or Prime Minister designate. I mean, there's no official title here, just in terms of how he conducts himself as opposed to purely the MP for Makerfield who will be seeking nominations when the opportunity arises. You know, clearly we're going to move beyond that as far as Team Burnham are concerned. They are deep in the whole process of what are known as access talks. In other words, having to work out remarkably quickly what government looks like and what, you know, if you like, the books and the numbers and the policy proposals that are trundling through and the legislative program, etc. Etc. How do things look? Because in 10 days time or so, he's going to be Prime Minister.

[Adam Fleming]

And Andy Burnham has posted on X saying their support comes from across the parliamentary Labour Party and reflects a shared belief that Britain needs a new approach to politics. This is the circuit breaker I am offering. Power out of Westminster, an economy rewired for ordinary people and good growth in every postcode. And then some more things that he's already said already. But he's clearly celebrating, but in a low key way. Yeah. And just in terms of the timeline, Chris. So he still has to get some nominations from trade unions and affiliated organizations because that's like a separate nomination process within the Labour family.

[Chris Mason]

He does.

[Adam Fleming]

And then there' that hustings next week where he will be the only person on the stage.

[Chris Mason]

Indeed. So there's. There are a few formalities to jump through. There'll be more MPs making their nominations, you know, public or they will become public in time at the beginning of next week, as you say, that hustings event. Andy Burnham will then have to decide how much he wants to be seen out and about in public in the week before he becomes Prime Minister in terms of, you know, making an argument beyond the Labour Party. Whilst the trade off, if you like, in terms of his time being how much time you spend working up, how things are going to look and what you're going to say at the point that you become Prime Minister. So that's the trade off he's got to work his way through next week. What will happen then a week tomorrow. So in a week's time on Friday the 17th, is it 18, 19, 20th? Yes, the 17th of July, end of next week, is that he will in all likelihood, I'm still using that phrase, just a habit, become the leader of the Labour Party, which Of course, is the vacancy that he is contesting. Having become the leader of the Labour Party, you are then the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons and therefore he can become Prime Minister. And that is due to happen a week on Monday, on July 20, with the one caveat that were England to make it to the World Cup Final, which is the night before, one assumes the Prime Minister will go. I think we can assume that will happen. The current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister. You wonder if he might, you know, take a plus one, which very well might be his wife rather than Mr. Burnham. But does he take Andy Burnham as well? Who knows? But then in that scenario, which obviously is hypothetical at the moment, does that delay things by 24 hours? I don't know. Maybe it could. Because if he's there until irrespective of the results, if he's there for the final on the evening of the Sunday, he's the Prime Minister, that is Keir Starmer has got to get back across the Atlantic and go and see the king, etc. Etc. So I don't know, does that potentially mean a delay for 24 hours? I don't know. And it may be entirely hypothetical. So let's see. But that's, that's the timetable.

[Adam Fleming]

As things stand, the cynic in me is also thinking, oh, the then handful of people that don't nominate Andy Barnum, can we then use that as the beginnings of our list of a potential awkward squad?

[Chris Mason]

The journalistic march is always to look one step ahead and yeah, but yes, I mean, I think that's. I think that's right. I mean, look, we should say, shouldn't we? Here is someone who, in Andy Burnham who something of a coup in terms of that his by election performance and clearly has a vast amount of momentum behind him and it is quite something to get 322 MPs or be.

[Adam Fleming]

Oh, yeah, huge.

[Chris Mason]

You know, we're. When you haven't got any other contenders, et cetera, et cetera. But yeah, I mean, ultimately, you know, it is one thing, isn't it, in a political party to take the principled decision that you are going to back candidate X because you think they are better than candidate Y, but you accept the will of your colleagues and find yourself on the losing side of a democratic process and you say, well, I did back the other person, but now I support the person who's won. It is something else, I think, to decide that there is only one candidate and you're still not going to nominate them. Now to be fair to those who have not yet done so, it's only day one. They've got the best part of a week when they can still. Can still do this. But it will be intriguing to see who doesn't nominate. Now, outgoing leaders don't tend to, but of those who intend to be around and present and have a pretty active role to play, you know, either in government or on the backbenches, it'll be.

[Alex Forsyth]

Yeah.

[Chris Mason]

Intriguing to see by this time next week who doesn't do.

[Adam Fleming]

And Andy Burnham has been saying extra stuff tonight. In addition to that post on social media about the nominations, he's done a post on social media which is a video talking about his position on Gaza and what the UK government should do and what the UK government has not been doing.

[Chris Mason]

Yeah. And I think this is interesting. It's intriguing. It's a, if you like, a reorientation, certainly in language, a sort of pivot around the stance of the Labour Party and therefore we can assume the Labour government within a couple of weeks as far as the Middle east is concerned. What it is a particular reference to is an interview that Keir Starmer gave as Labour leader, who was the leader of the Opposition at the time, at the Labour Party conference, not long after the atrocities of October 7, back in 2023. It was an interview he gave to where the Prime Minister talked about Israel having a right to defend itself and it could do everything it can to secure the return of hostages. And he was asked by Nick Ferrari, the LBC presenter, would that include cutting off water and power supplies? And the Prime Minister talked about, I think that Israel does have that right. Everything should be done within international law. Now, the argument that was made by Keir Starmer at the time was he'd slightly got mangled between an answer he was giving and which question he was answering. But what happened off the back of that, particularly once the interview had been clipped up and was circulating in WhatsApp groups, et cetera, et cetera, is there was a backlash. There was real anger within certain parts of the Labour Party. Some Labour councillors resigned their Labour Party membership. There are friends of the Prime Minister who say that actually the difference between what Keir Starmer has said and done and what Andy Burnham is saying and saying he would do is. Is more about tone than about substance. The Labour government has recognized Palestine as a state, as recognizing it, the Palestinian state in government, for instance. And the Prime Minister has always talked about Israel operating within international law. But I think, yeah, Andy Burnham's language saying that Labour's initial response to the treatment of Gaza caused huge hurt and we got it wrong. I'm sorry about that. He talks at the tail end of the video about that, the potential for war crimes having been committed. He acknowledges that's not a judgment a politician should come to, that other international bodies should arrive at that judgment. But he's willing to float the idea. So, yeah, I think he is speaking as he currently is, intently, if you like, to the Labour Party in saying that it is his view that how Keir Starmer handled things wasn't right.

[Adam Fleming]

Although what he'll actually do as Prime Minister Burnham doesn't sound that different to what Prime Minister Starmer might be doing in two or three weeks if he'd stay on. Little parallel universe, indeed.

[Chris Mason]

To what extent is this about language and positioning in what is currently an internal party contest versus how in reality he would govern differently around the Middle east compared with karma? I think that's a totally fair question.

[Adam Fleming]

Right, Chris, good to catch up and welcome home.

[Chris Mason]

Thank you. And thank you.

[Adam Fleming]

And there was another big story at Westminster today, what to do about personal independence payments, or PIPs. This is a review that's being conducted by Stephen Tims, the Disabilities Minister, although not just him. He's involving lots of people in his review too. And he has published his interim reports with his initial findings into how PIP is working, or crucially, not working, which I was discussing with two members of the newscast family earlier.

[Alex Forsyth]

How has America shaped the World? I'm Asma Khalid, host of the Global Story podcast from the BBC. As the United States marks its 250 year anniversary, we've been exploring the surprising and often hidden ways the US has shaped the modern world. And today on the show we answer your questions about this moment and what to expect in the years to come. From the BBC, it's the United States at 250. Listen to the Global Story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Did you know Fred's appliance has been family owned and local since 1962? Come check out all LG appliances on sale and in stock today. From induction ranges to dishwashers to washers and dryers and so much more, you'll find exclusive sales on all LG appliances. Plus save up to $800 in rebate when you buy more. Save more this 4th of July at Fred's we have thousands of items in stock making us the smartest and most convenient choice. Stop by today and make your home celebration ready with appliances built to keep up with every season.

[Adam Fleming]

Well, let's discuss it now because Alex Forsyth is at Westminster. Hello, Alex.

[Alex Forsyth]

Hello, Adam.

[Adam Fleming]

And also from BBCVerify Policy and Analysis correspondent Ben Chiu. Hello, Ben.

Hello, Adam.

Right, we're talking about this review that's been done by the Minister, Stephen Timms, into PIP personal independence payments. Alex, remind us just why this review exists in the first place and why it was born in quite difficult circumstances for the government.

[Alex Forsyth]

Yeah, very difficult circumstances. So you've got to cast your mind back to when the government decided that it wanted to make changes to the welfare system and effectively cut the welfare bill or at least stop it rising as quickly. So cut some numbers off. How much? It was expected to go up by over a period of time. So they came up with some proposals and part of those proposals were to change the eligibility criteria for people who receive these personal independence payments. And these are payments that are meant that go to people who have got ill health or disabilities conditions which affect their ability to get on with day to day life. And it's meant to be payments that support them in independent living. Government came up with these proposals. Labour mps did not like them. There was this huge backlash, a rebellion on the Labour backed benches. It was like a day of drama in Westminster. The government had to climb down completely from those proposals to change the welfare system and particularly personal independence payments. And so as a consequence of that, what they said was, okay, look, we hear what you're saying. LABOUR BACKBENCHES we understand that you are angry about this. So we're going to have a review of these payments. It's going to be led by a man called Stephen Timms, Labour Minister and mp, and he's going to look at this system carefully and he's going to do it in conjunction with disability groups and people that work in this sector and really understand it so that we don't end up in a situation where we're angering you labor backbenchers, but also causing a lot of concern, as there was at the time, about people who are in receipt of this benefit.

[Adam Fleming]

And before we dig into what Stephen Timms has been saying today in his interim review, Ben, it's probably worth just doing a bit of a revision lesson, even though exam season is over for most people into how the PIP system actually works, at least the current version of it.

Yeah, so I've had my head in a lot of spreadsheets when it comes to pip, just trying to get my head around the overall figures because they are really important for grounding this whole debate about the cost and the reform of it. So there's about 4 million people in England and Wales today claiming PIP and that's up from about 2.4 million in 2020. So a considerable rise over the past six years and the official projections suggest that by 2030 that number is going to rise to 5 million. So between 2020 and 2030, more or less a doubling of the number of people on pip and the biggest contributor to that increase in recent years there's been a lot of coverage about this, but it is borne out by the statist been people with mental health or what's called neurodevelopmental conditions. So obviously that's things like anxiety, depression, but also ADHD and autism. So they have been a growing share of the total number of people claiming pip. And it's number that's really caught quite a number of headlines is that there are now 100,000 people with the main condition being listed as ADHD, and that's up from only around 27,000 in 2020. So that is rising really rapidly. Now it's not clear why it's listed as their main condition because a lot of people have multiple conditions, but certainly something that's caught the eye of people in the media and politics. And this, Tim's report and others are trying to get to the bottom of why that is and what's the best way to reform the system. So those are the overall numbers of people claiming in terms of the cost on it. Just briefly, PIP is costing around 32 billion pounds a year at the moment, and by 2030 it's projected to be costing around 41 billion pounds. So that's going to be a 20% increase in cash terms over those years. So that's one of the reasons why there's concern about the rising cost of it. And of course, let's put it in an even bigger context. PIP is just one element of working age, sickness and disability benefits. It's not, it's the fastest growing part, but it's not the only part. And that overall bill is projected to go to roughly about 80 billion pounds by the end of the decade. So that's the overall figures and that's why there's a lot of focus on trying to stop those costs going up as rapidly as they have been over the past six years or so.

And we'll come on to the storyline around the cost in a second. But it's worth just remembering how the system actually works, isn't it? So there's a, there's a document on the DWP website, it's about seven pages. And it's got a list of activities like preparing food, taking nutrition, managing therapy, washing and bathing. And each activity has got a list of things called descriptors. And each descriptor is a sort of list of things that a person can do in that category. And each, each descriptor then comes with a certain number of points and you have to get a certain number of points to qualify for pip. So, for example, on the washing and bath activity, descriptor A is can wash and bathe unaided, zero points.

[Chris Mason]

Right.

[Adam Fleming]

the other end, descriptor G is cannot wash and bathe at all and needs another person to wash their entire body. And that's eight points. And then in the middle of the table you've got D which says needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. And Alex, what, what the government's previous reform was doing was saying, well, you needed to score a higher number of points or more activities to be able to get the payment in the first place.

[Alex Forsyth]

That's right. And that's what had caused so much of the concern among people who are in receipt of this benefit, but also Labour MPs and also people who support people with disabilities, they were effectively saying, you're going to make it harder to get this benefit. And as a consequence, people who really need it and might rely on it to help them live independently or to help them work in some cases. Because it's also worth remembering that this is not a means tested benefit, this is something that is paid to people who need the benefit for support with day to day living or living independently. It doesn't depend on whether you're in work or not. And so what people were saying is, if you tighten the criteria in that way, it might end up that some people who need it don't get it and that could have really serious implications for them.

[Adam Fleming]

Right, we've completed our revision timetable, so let's now get right up to date and here is what Stephen Tims, the minister co leading the review and co leading it, is an important aspect of this, was saying today on the media as he was launching his interim report.

It does a very important job in helping people meet the additional costs of disability. But the process of applying for it, the assessment for it, requires you to set down lots of things you cannot do. People find that very unpleasant, it's very difficult. People have talked about it being demeaning and once you've been through it, you can be quite fearful at the prospect of being reassessed in the future, and that can deter you from participating in society as much as you could and as much as you'd like to. So pipa's become, for quite a lot of people, a barrier to participation, which is obviously the opposite of the intention. We've also found that it hasn't kept pace with changing understanding of ill health and disability over the last 13 years since the benefit was introduced. So we do think quite fundamentally, fundamental change is needed.

Lots of things we could glean from that, or at least theorize about what he's going to do in his final report. But Alex, just the tone is so different from when Liz Kendall was tackling this the first time around.

[Alex Forsyth]

Completely different. And I think that's really deliberate because, because of what we've talked about, which is the political difficulties that the government ran into with its approach the first time around, when they were talking about attempts to reform this element of the welfare system, they are very deliberately taking a completely different approach and tone. And part of that is the fact that Steph Tims has been working alongside. It's called co production is the term the government uses. But this is not a review just by Stephen Tims, the Disability Minister, this is a review by a whole steering group of different people, some of whom who have real life experience in this area and they've come up with this together. And I think it's a. It's been a deliberately, very cautious approach to the way that they approach this, this time round. But having said that, Stephen Timms was pretty clear that in his view, the whole system was not fit for purpose and the way that this is currently assessed is going to have to be totally reworked and reassessed. And so while this is an interim report and we don't know yet what they're proposing in terms of changes to the system, what he's signaling pretty clearly is at the moment it's not working and there's going to be some. Have to be some really fundamental reform, and that could prove difficult.

[Adam Fleming]

Ben, listening to that clip from Stephen Timms, do you think he is proposing a reformed PIP system? So changing those categories, changing the points, changing the actual way that people get the benefit and are reassessed, or does it sound like a man who's getting ready to completely reinvent it?

It's quite hard to determine from what he said in his interview exactly what the shape of his proposals will be. And reading the report itself, it's also not showing much. But as Alex was saying, I think the tone of it was really outlining. This is A system which is outdated, that's not keeping up with the way that disability people's registered disabilities are changing and doesn't take account of what they can and can't do, and some perhaps unintended consequences of the design of the system. So I wouldn't be surprised if it is quite radical, whether it's entirely scrapping the system or perhaps, and this is what some people have speculated on, sort of changing it by what you can get by age, because as I mentioned before, a lot of the people who are claiming for neurodiversity conditions or mental health conditions tend to be younger. So one suggestion is perhaps if you're younger, instead of getting cash, which you get through pip, you may get a guaranteed offer of therapy or help or assistance in another form rather than cash. And just linking this to what he was saying about, and others have been saying about the nature of pip, you don't have to be out of work to get it, and there's no work conditions in it. But there's a striking statistic in the report itself which says that actually, of the people claiming PIP, only about a fifth, 20%, are actually in work. So there is a fear that actually, as he was referring, it could be a barrier to people taking on work. Because the argument is, if they're working, then when it comes to a reassessment, the argument will be, well, if you can work, then you don't necessarily need PIPs. So people think, I can't enter the workforce, otherwise I'll risk losing my pip. So I can see reforms along those lines, A, by age and B, by talking about those work incentives to try and make the system work better for disabled people and society as a whole.

And also I sort of was reminded of when Mel Stride was the work and Pension Secretary under the Conservatives. And I remember having a long chat with him on newscast after the election where he was talking about his PIP reforms. And, okay, he was proposing lots of different things and probably quite different from what a Labor equivalent would do, but one of the things he said that stuck in my mind was the PIP system. Alex doesn't give a person the money to go out and buy a thing that could help them, like a tool or a modification to their house or whatever, or something that the. A piece of technology that could help them get back into the workforce. And I wondered if maybe that sort of thing is what Stephen Tims was hinting at when he said that PIP doesn't help people get into work.

[Alex Forsyth]

Yeah, I mean, I actually thought, I listened to so he did an interview on the Today program. He also did an interview with our colleague Ian Watson. And I listened to it all and actually, I think he was quite careful not to hint too much about exactly what he's gonna, what he's gonna do. I think he was quite cautious in, in what he was saying and just kept pointing to the autumn, which is when they're come up with their reforms. But as Ben said, there are sort of suggestions floating around about what might be looked at because. And what he did keep saying was about how the current system doesn't pick up the nuances of what people need. And he kept saying, you got to take into account how this benefit, what it's meant to be for, which is effectively to support people in their lives and to support people to be able to live independently and participate in the ways that they want to. So it, you know, this is speculation, I make it totally clear, but the ideas that have been kicked around are things like, like, you know, tailoring it to make sure that it, it somehow provides the actual support that is needed by a certain individual as opposed to, you know, the way that it, the way that it currently works. But I don't think that he gave an awful lot away about exactly what he's thinking around this was. I think he was quite careful about it. And of course, I think he's probably quite conscious that he's been tasked to do this review under one Prime Minister and then it will be another one that comes up with or accepts or not any proposals that he comes up with for actual change.

[Adam Fleming]

And Ben, you've talked a few times already about the total bill for PIP and what it's expected to be in the next few years. Stephen Timms today has just not been concerned at all with the total cost of it, has he? At least he wasn't when he was talking to Nick Robinson on the Today programme where he said, my view is that the current level of spending is not a great concern.

Yeah, it's quite interesting, isn't it, given all the headlines about the soaring cost and the figures I mentioned earlier. And I think it is important to take a step back here, Adam, and look at not just disability and sickness welfare costs, but the overall costs of working age, that is non pensioner welfare. Because it's quite interesting that though the sickness and disability costs have been rising really rapidly, both in cash terms and as a share of the economy over the past decade or so, if you look at the overall bill, it's quite stable at around 5% of GDP in recent years, and it's actually down from where it was back in 2010, because overall welfare, you'll remember, was squeezed by George Osborne quite considerably in the austerity years. But what he squeezed was non health and sickness related welfare. So sort of universal credit housing benefit, he froze it and found considerable savings in that way. And this is something really important that the TIMS report points out, that you can't just look at PIP in isolation. You have to look at how it interacts with the rest of the system. And one thing that policy analysts say is that as the rest of the system has become cut and become less generous, the incentive for people to move on to the sickness and disability benefits like PIP goes up. So you squeeze the welfare system by cuts in one part and those costs come up in the other, also with unintended consequences that people feel that they can't enter the workforce because they'll lose those sickness and disability benefits. So I think what Stephen Timms is recognizing and acknowledging is that we need to look at the overall picture and the overall incentives and look at costs in that overall context. So a lot of this rhetoric about the welfare system bill is out of control and unaffordable is a bit misleading because that's only looking at one part of the bill total non pensioner welfare spending is not out of control and is not up on where it was 15 years ago. And interestingly, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the official forecaster, reiterated this week that it doesn't expect that overall bill to shoot up over the next few years either. So look, I'm not saying there's not a problem. A lot of most experts agree that you do need to reform pip, you do need to reform other elements of it, but just to keep a bit of a cool head in this hot weather about the overall state of the bill for when it comes to welfare.

[Alex Forsyth]

It's interesting because on that point, what he did, and he was so careful. I totally agree with Ben in the report and in his interviews, to put it in the wider context, not just of the welfare system, but also social care and the health systems and the pressure on the nhs. But what he did say or recognize, I think, think was that it was important to make sure the system was financially sustainable. So this kind of suggestion that, you know, it had to be affordable in the long term and you know there that that has become sort of part of the conversation and Andy Burnham, who's been asked about that, and of course he does matter because he's the guy that'll oversee any changes that do come to the welfare system. He's been really careful to say that he doesn't think crude cuts to the welfare bill are the right approach. Stephen Tim reflected that today and said while he hadn't spoken to Andy Burnham directly about this piece of work, there will be no crude crew proposals in whatever they come up with in the autumn. But given all of that, this is where the Conservatives are choosing to criticize the government's approach. So Helen Waitley, who is the Shadow Work and Pension Secretary, she said that the government was in denial, in her words, about the seriousness of the situation of our welfare system and the fact we have to make savings. So some of the political debate is certainly focused on that element, even though there is a real caution in what Stephen Tims has said in the government's approach more broadly, having seen the backlash when they did try to cut the welfare bill last time round.

[Adam Fleming]

What is so interesting is that Andy Burnham's going to come into number 10 and he will benefit from the work of Mayfield, Milburn and Timms, which sounds like a law firm from a Dickens novel, but it's Charlie Mayfield, former boss of John Lewis, who did a big review into sickness in the workplace and made lots of interesting suggestions. You've got Alan Milburn, who's in the middle of doing his review about the NEETs, all the young people who are not in employment, education or training, and sounds like he's gearing up to make some pretty big recommendations about that in the next couple of months. And then you've got Stephen Timms doing the same about disability benefits in the form of personal independence payments. And so there's three big reports that Andy Burnham will be able to draw on. And I think two things from that. Number one, that feels a bit like, oh, hang on, if you're in opposition and getting ready for government and wanted to hit the ground running with some big, bold plans, which Keir Starmer is accused of not having done. There they are. And then the second thing is big, bold plans. Plans are, by their very nature, big and bold. So there's going to be quite a lot of work for the government to do to implement all of this stuff. If you think all of those three reviews, which, as we've been discussing, will all interact with each other.

[Alex Forsyth]

Yeah. And also in areas that are really, really complex and where any solutions that might be proposed are not going to be easy to implement, because these aren't, you know, this isn't sort of one specific issue that sits under one government department. And you think oh, that's not been working brilliantly, you know. Here, come up with a suggestion, put it in place in six weeks and it's fixed. These aren't are big areas of complex areas. And, you know, remember Alan Bilburn to the point you were making about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training? He himself was saying that this is a whole sort of societal thing. It crosses like the education system, the health system and the welfare system. So even if Andy Burnham does benefit from the sort of groundwork that's been done by the people leading these reviews, the real work would be in implementing, implementing any change in it having a material effect. Yeah.

[Adam Fleming]

Just picking up on Alex's point about the challenge for Andy Burnham, because he did give an interview to the Times where he did suggest that he is trying to save money, or he does want to save money from the welfare bill over time. And he suggested maybe some of that money could go to funding more spending on defence. But as Alex said, he said he wouldn't impose crude cuts and he hopes to do it not by reducing entitlements or the generosity of the system, but getting more people into work. But there is a bit of a timing issue, issue with that, because if you do want to make savings, say by the end of this Parliament, the kind of way of he's proposing to do it is unlikely to do that. It may well do it over the longer term, but certainly not enough to make savings probably to get you to 3% of GDP being spent on defence. So there's a little bit of a mismatch, I suggest, in some of his rhetoric there. And the reality of a, you know, how, as Alex said, how difficult it will actually be to implement these kind of reforms in a way that actually work and also in terms of getting any kind of savings from the system relative to the course that it's on.

And that is all from the podcasting trio of Forsyth, Fleming and Chu. Thanks, Alex.

[Alex Forsyth]

Thank you.

[Adam Fleming]

And thanks, Ben.

Thank you.

Right, before we go, let's get our latest batch of supporter reporter bids. We've got one from Michael, who says, as a Scot living in the Netherlands, international tournaments are always a test of loyalties. I usually support the Dutch and the English, while occasionally remembering that Scotland are involved too. Now that both Scotland and the Netherlands are out, England have inherited my hopes. Good luck to them. Michael, you are adopted as our supporter reporter in the Netherlands. Although you could wear lots of hats. Right. We've had a message from Saudi Arabia from Paul. He says, I'M Paul. My wife and I have lived and worked in Saudi for two years. Saudi are football fanatics in the extreme, and the time zone for the matches often means my staff are very tired the following morning, though, when they get a good result. There's also the chance of a National Day being declared at the Prince's discretion. Maybe a tip for the Prime Minister, says Paul. And yes, that's Paul picking up on those rumors that maybe Keir Starmer is plotting to introduce a surprise bank holiday in the UK if England win in the final, having made it to the final, which is not guaranteed yet. And we've got a message from Iraq. Well, not really from Iraq. It's kind of Iraq via the uae, because we've had a message from Ali, who says, I would like to join the supporter reporter team from Iraq. I'm a longtime listener to the podcast in all its various forms. Although I'm a Brit living in Dubai, I am originally from Iraq and regularly visit it for business trips. So, Ali, you are hired as our supporter reporter from Iraq too. I feel our spreadsheet of supporter reporters is very nearly full, but not completely full yet. So please keep your bids coming in to newscastbc.co.uk and you can WhatsApp us on 033-01-2394. And I know I've said it before, it's great to fill in the grid for the completist in me, kind of like a person who can't afford a sticker album, but it's actually even better just hearing about everyone's lives and where newscasters have ended up in the world. So please keep getting in touch. That's all for this episode. We'll be back with another one very soon. Bye bye.

[Alex Forsyth]

Newscast, Newscast from the BBC. From one newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Tell everyone you know. And don't forget, you can email us [e-mail] or if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on 331 239480. Be assured, I promise we listen to everyone. The United States is about to mark its 250th anniversary.

[Chris Mason]

And so on the Global Story podcast from the BBC, we're telling surprising tales of American influence on the world stage and in ordinary people's lives all across the globe.

[Adam Fleming]

We have this ability to export our story and a lot of people have bought it. I feel like the American dream is alive, but not well.

[Alex Forsyth]

From the BBC, it's the United States

[Chris Mason]

at 250 listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.