Crude Cuts? Not On My Watch

Andy Burnham rules out “crude cuts” to benefits in any attempts to improve welfare.

Burnham told LBC: “I’m not going to go with the crude cuts to benefit levels that just put people who are struggling in even worse poverty, and that often creates the backlash, and understandably so.

“There’s a different approach, which is looking at two things that can be done differently to get the overall benefits bill down. One of those is how we support young people.”

“I will not defend an education system that is overly focused on the university route, and does not lay out paths to technical qualifications for our young people.” 

One year on from Keir Starmer’s ill-fated plans to cut £5 billion from sickness and disability benefits, Burnham says one of the focuses will be on helping young people into work.

People may critique him, but Andy Burnham will be prime minister, and like all prime ministers, he will be evaluated based on the outcomes he attains, and that’s how it should be. However, will the results be catastrophic? Only time will tell.

Apprenticeships are essential because they encourage individuals to pursue further education to increase their income.

If our youth lack the necessary abilities, they will not be able to earn enough money to support themselves.

But what about low-paid workers? Will they benefit from all of this?

Someone said that if minimum wage is considered good enough to live on, it should be capped for benefits as well, but people on benefits don’t get the same as low-wage workers, and in most cases, they get significantly less, and the system is designed that way.

A full‑time minimum‑wage worker earns roughly £1,600–£1,800 a month after tax (depending on hours). Universal Credit for a single adult over 25 is around £393 a month, plus housing support, which often doesn’t cover full rent. Even with disability benefits added, most disabled claimants still end up hundreds of pounds below low‑wage workers.

So, why do people think they’re the same? Because politicians constantly talk about “fairness” and “incentives to work,” which creates the impression that benefits are comparable to wages. They aren’t. Not even remotely.

Social security was initially conceived as a temporary buffer, not a wage, a safety net to keep people afloat until they worked again. This is historically correct: when the welfare state was created, benefits were meant to prevent poverty, not replace earnings. But the reality today is more complex, and that’s where people get misled.

Low‑wage workers can adjust spending because their income is flexible: overtime, extra shifts, job changes. People on benefits cannot adjust anything. Their income is fixed, sanctioned easily, and often far below basic living costs, and disabled people face inescapable extra costs: heating, transport, equipment, food delivery, medical needs.

Living within your means” hits differently when your “means” are structurally capped.

The welfare system was built on assumptions that no longer match modern life: It assumed jobs were stable. It assumed illness was short‑term. It assumed housing was affordable. It assumed disability costs were minimal, and it assumed people could return to work quickly. None of that is true anymore. So while the principle of a buffer still exists, the conditions people live in have altered dramatically.