Is Burnham's crackdown on benefits for young people a good idea?

So lots to talk about.Let's talk about these youth benefit cuts being proposed.Is this Burnham finally grasping the nettle that Starmer didn't want to go near?

Well, Starmer attempted it and lost.Yeah, but that was personal independence payments.And he just wanted to save five billion, which was Starmer's starting point.And so some people who can't wash the lower parts of their body would have lost their money, which was such a backlash.But there has been this.

And also the winter fuel payments.On top of that.That was before.That was before, but I think both of those just sort of left a sour taste in people's mouth.Is he going to do better if he tackles those?Is Andy Burnham going to do better if he tackles young people not in training but having benefits particularly the sort of benefits that are quoted in the Daily Telegraph for anxiety from those sort of things.

Do you think that'll land better?

Possibly.There'll be some people who have severe anxiety and real mental health issues but are there other people now who are thinking this is how I can get some money and I don't want to work.If you tackle it properly and you have counsellors and mental health support.And the mental health services for young people are kind of threadbare.You've got to have a real crisis in order to get help, or you've got to wait years for help.So it's not going to be cheap to do this.

If you're going to do it properly, you have to spend money too.

I think we're slightly missing the point.What he did last week was come up with a whole bunch of spending pledges.So this week, he's saying, actually, I'm going to try and reduce spending as well.And I think this was a natural thing for him to pick on, as it were.

So the principle, as we understand, is that he is going to link volunteer work and signing up for other things and trading with getting the benefits or lose it.I think people might think, well, that sounds quite positive if you're 16 and 17 and you're contributing.in some way and then can still have your benefit.

The principle is that you're you're not getting something for nothing so if you get the benefit the condition of getting the benefit is that you have to volunteer and actually give something back and I think for most people that would make a lot of sense I think only I don't think his backbenchers are necessarily going to push back.Is this him sticking his toe in the water though?

checking the temperature with his backbenchers.Because if they're up for this, they might be up for welfare cuts.

It's a very tricky one, but I think he can't just come in, as he did last week, and offer all these spending pledges without trying to be serious.about reducing spending.What I'm saying is, are we going to see other proposals coming forward in the next few years?

Well, it's real.It's whether it's coherent and comprehensive and thought out, or is he playing to the gallery, seeing there's public concern about it?And there's been quite a big increase in the number of young people claiming anxiety and therefore getting benefits.But he's got a big review underway, which is inherited by Alan Milburn, the former Labour health secretary.He was a council house lad back in the day in Durham.himself, so he's risen and he knows what opportunities are, what blocks are there, and his first round of his report said, let's not go around blaming young people because they've got this huge problem of needs, more than a million of them, not in education, employment or training.

How do you solve it?He's got his proposals coming out soon.He's left in place the Prime Minister, Pat McFadden, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who's basically the only Starmerite to have survived the reshuffle purge a week ago when Andy Burnham became Prime Minister.God, doesn't time fly?I mean, it's only a week since he walked in.And it's whether they come up with a proper plan to help people or just play into the gallery and say, I'm going to cut their benefits.

But what Richard says is right.I mean, I think there's still a big question as to how prepared Labour backerswill be to back serious welfare reform.Clearly, Starmer failed in that.That was a big nail in his coffin, so to speak.And I think Burnham will have similar problems.

But it's one thing, though, Quazi, to make welfare work and get the system operating.I'm not joining a moral panic on the overall money spent, because at 10 .6 % of GDP, it's basically below what is spent most around Europe and most of that again goes to pensions.If you want a welfare, yeah, but there were some terrible times in the 1970s.He wants to go back there.

He does not want to go back to the 1970s.

What he wants to do is recreate a sense of community in parts of the country which feel left or kept behind.He wants to undo 40 years of what he calls neoliberalism.And he wants to give greater opportunities that have gone.There was more social mobility back in the 70s than there are now.

And he wants to recover that.

And that part is quite right to bring back.But if you come back to benefits and I can see, Kate, I can see the way you couldn't decide whether to blame him or me.

Or both of us.

I'm not blaming anyone.But it's quite right.If these young people aren't in education, employment, training at 16, 17, 18, When they get 26, 27, 28.What's the last generation saying?Exactly.And I think we've too often just put people on a scrap heap.

It's cheaper, actually.

Before we come to what he had to say about Trump in just a second, just linking this conversation, we have worse for eating.The defence minister saying exactly what his predecessor actually did, threatening to resign if the money isn't forthcoming to boost spending on defence.

I think this is a big problem for the government.Because what you've got is the new chancellor resigned from the government less than two months ago.It's about six weeks ago.

Is it a problem for the government?

Surely this is all part of a master plan.No, no, because if he doesn't deliver the money...Where does that leave the Chancellor?You left the government because there wasn't enough, the country's unsafe, according to what you said when you were Defence Secretary.Now you're the Chancellor, where's the money?But isn't that one of the reasons why they were appointed?

Well, can we just hear what Winstreet had to say about this before we talk about it?Sorry, I just wanted to get some of the people involved information.Do let us know what you think about those proposals to change youth benefits, though, because I think that's quite interesting.But as Richard Wright said, Welsh Streeting has said he was on a matter of principle.Let's see what he had to say about it.

And is fulfilling those spending plans a resignation issue for you as it was for John Healey if it's not done?

It is absolutely, for me, a matter of principle.And if I did not believe this prime minister and this chancellor were committed to investing what we need in defence, I wouldn't have accepted this role.I know that they are.And the responsibility, I feel, is a heavy one, because it's about making sure that this country is well insured to guard against future threats, maximising our deterrence.But I also feel a responsibility to our men and women who serve in uniform.

Doesn't this indicate that Burnham knows exactly what he's doing as far as defence is concerned?He appoints the former defence secretary as his chancellor, who can hardly go back on what he said in print.Well, he could do.

Well, could he?He's going to have to find the money.I mean, the reality is there was a Treasury position People forget there are thousands of civil servants at the Treasury.They had a position, which Rachel Reeves expressed, that they couldn't find the money.That was their position.So Healey is coming in.

If he delivers the money, what other budgets is he going to cut?Something's going to have to give way.Well, we come back to welfare, don't we?Something's got to give way.But it's billions.It's billions.

And now Streeting is up the ante and saying, if you don't find the money, I'm out.But Burnham must have known that Streeting would say something like that.I don't think a point of it.Did he?

Do you not think?

How is he going to find the money?Exactly right.You're exactly right.Last week, he had lots of things that he said...That's right...

which you could argue...Well, you do argue they're great to have cheaper bus fares, but it's not tackling the big things...That's right...that Salah became a cropper on, is it?

I think a point in the former Defence Secretary John Healey...As Chancellor...as Chancellor was a tactical gain that's a strategic error.Because I think, unless he can move away from commitments, big commitments, which I think are needless commitments, but they've signed up to them, on defence, up to 3 % and 3 .5 % by 2035, which is an extra 40 billion at today's price.But even to 2030, it's 15.

To do that, how are you going to fix social care?How are you going to build council houses?Which he's also promised to do.How are you going to do all those other things?If all the extra money you're likely to get is going to be sucked up by a ministry of defence that has unbelievable waste, according to Al -Qaeda, another defence minister who resigned.Choise is going to disagree, but we're the six biggest spenders already on defence.

We're towards the top of the pack on NATO.We should be spending more on defence.32 country alliance, you don't have to fight anybody.Russia's been bled dry with more than 500 ,000 according to the director of GCHQ in Ukraine.Look, there's a headlong rush and a lobby for higher defence spending.

It's only the Greens that are challenging it.It's part of the NATO.

You tell us why we shouldn't spend more because it will mean that other things have to go.

It's government if you go for those targets.It's part of the NATO commitment, OK?All the countries in NATO have been committed partly through Trump.Trump's saying that we've spent too much, we've looked after you for too long.

We've also committed to improving the health service in the UK.Exactly, that's the problem.So why does defence come higher in your view?

Well, because I think we've been lagging behind on this for decades.We've essentially been freeloading off the Americans as part of NATO for a very long time.time.We're better than a lot of the other countries, like Germany.

Including when the conservatives were in power?

We should have been spending more on defence.I believe that was a private view.

You did when you were Chancellor.

Well, I wasn't there for very long, as you remember.But that was definitely a conversation I had with Ben Wallace, who was Secretary of State.We had to commit more because of the changing nature of the threat.

Defence spending has fallen since the end of the Cold War.What was that?Now, 1979...89, 99.It's come down.

Of course, it was Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's come down.It fell quite dramatically during the Conservative period.I never criticised that.If you're going to ramp it up, though, it's a choice.Unless you can find a pot of gold, maybe a wealth tax or something, but it doesn't look like he's going to impose it.And yes, I know there's always difficulties around wealth taxes.

Yeah, they hardly ever work.You've got to make choices.And if your choice is to spend a lot more on...On warfare, you're going to have less on welfare, or council houses, or health, or education, filling potholes, whatever you want.

Can I just say, the pressure on Burnham is not just coming from the debate in this country, it's coming from the White House.Obviously, Trump is leaning heavily on NATO generally, but certainly on our Prime Minister to spend more on defence.It could be one of the first flashpoints between the two of them.He was asked yesterday, Burnham was asked yesterday, if he was prepared to actually take Trump on, you know, head to head in a row.And this is what he had to say in reply.

It was a good exchange.I always will see, judge people as I find them.I've lived my whole life by that.And I found him to be really warm on Monday.But obviously, you know, we will continue to build the relationship as we go forward.

So you'd be willing to call Donald Trump out if you think that's the right thing?

Of course.All leaders have to do that.You have to defend your own national interests before anything else.I will always put Britain's interests first.

What was Trump whispering then?

I mean, the reality is, and there's other reports saying that West Streeting is already going on his own charm offensive.So the reality is, he needs to keep him on side.But I think he did a good interview.He said, look, when it comes down to it, he's the prime minister.He's got to look after our national interests.It's a statement of the obvious, really.

Yeah, that comes first and foremost.And I think he put that quite well.

Of course, what he'll do with Trump is he'll never say what he really thinks, which is the bloke's an orange maniac who's losing it.I mean, that's what he won't say.That's what he'll be thinking.He'll just do it somewhat more.

Politely well, I guess that's the challenge for the government is that if you like tread water with Trump until he goes He's only got another couple of years.Is he gonna be around forever?

Of course one of his first big things today Andy Burnham is hosting Volodymyr Zelensky We're paying three billion pounds a yearly to that conflict with Some would argue no end in sight, no sense of what success for Britain would look like in that.And we're talking about the funding gap in spending and it's 4 .7 billion funding gap.So at some point, is the Prime Minister going to have to think, we've said we're signing up for this, we know all the reasons why, we morally feel like we want to, and we're supporting, if you like, the right side, inverted commas, of a conflict in Europe.But we've got to do our sums, haven't we?

But look, I think with this, you know, we've had, I don't know, four prime ministers since the Ukraine war started, and each of them has, I think, five actually, but each of them has committed to Ukraine.So anyone, any British prime minister who said actually we're not doing this anymore, it's a huge step back.We were probably the first and certainly the loudest of theearly supporters of Ukraine.We've been committed to them right from the start and I think it would be very almost impossible for any Prime Minister to say actually guys you're on your own.

We're speaking to Elaine Yates, she's a pensioner who's appeared on our program last year and the program helped her to get the proper amount of benefit that she should be getting.But now she's worse off than last year for all the, you know, costs and the economic crisis that so many are facing.And people are going to start thinking, aren't they?Well, hang on.You know, we're spending on defence, we're spending on support people in Ukraine.Someone's got to make some decisions.

But that's the difficulty that he faces.Exactly.And going back to the defence point, I actually agree.I think they've set the rod for their own back.Because if they deliver the money, they're going to have to cut other parts of the budget.And if they don't, where's Streeting going to resign?

And John Healey's in trouble because he resigned about this.

But the Ukraine money, which has been for about five years now.Boris Johnson, it was one of the few things he did that I agreed with.It's forward defence.And there's actually pretty durable public support for backing Ukraine.Putin's seen as, because he was the aggressor, he invaded.Zelensky is a brilliant diplomat, which is why he's going to meet Burnham.

Very clever.And I think the reason, it's probably the best $3 billion of defence spending we have, because it has halted Putin's expansion, and he hasn't got the resources now to invade anywhere else.I mean, he just hasn't.

And it's kind of...He's burned out.

He has.And it's awful.half a million plus now Russians have died in this, Ukrainians, the government, when I ask defence ministers they won't tell me how many Ukrainians have died, they say it's an official secret, but it's going to be 100 ,000 plus.and so many more maimed.It's a conflict you want to end, but we're quite right about Ukraine.

You want to end it on your own terms, is really what we're saying.

We want to end it.

We were committed right from the start.I mean, I was in cabinet when the war started, and we were absolutely committed as a government.and that's been sustained for the last four years.Shall we talk...

Before we go on to the other, I just want to encourage people to get some questions in.

Sure.

Because we've got Holly Mead, who's a financial journalist.So any concerns you have about cost of living?Any thoughts you have about defence spending and what it might mean to you if we increase it?And also, generally, thoughts on the problems that we've been talking about.It'd be great to have your thoughts on that.And we'll try and get some answers for you a bit later.

Now, I know what you want to talk about, and I'm very intrigued in this.

I'm going to bring it back down to a very domestic level now.Obviously, we've got Number 10 North open, up, running for business.But it's in the same building that people go and get married in.I've got a feeling it's where Judy and I got married.Heron House.Remember if it was Aaron house, but anyway anyway quiet to say the day you got married and the birth of your children.

People who were intending to get married there, including someone called Saz, are concerned that actually they're having to weave their way past armed cops, which they weren't expecting.So Saz gave this message, which she got a reply to, to Mr Burnham.

Andy, hi.Just a quick one.So I saw that youI'm just a bit worried that all of this is kind of ruining the vibe.So, I would really appreciate it if you were maybe not there that day.

I mean, I've heard of shotgun marriages, but you can't sit down with a load of armed guards there.

Apparently, he replied noted, says.Noted.

Yeah, he did, and she's sort of commented on that.But I suppose what it does highlight is that you do something to speak to your principles and your ambition to have, you know, good growth in every postcode and areas of the country not neglected.And you have this new number 10 north.But actually, there are reasons and history why things have grown up.in number 10 Downing Street and part of that is keeping you know the Prime Minister and other ministers secure and so suddenly you're taking over a register office building and there's a bride going well hang on a minute I don't want all I've got in there when I've got my mother -in -law in there.

But more seriously there'll be all sorts of security problems that they won't necessarily have thought about because only when you're there that you realise, oh, well, what about that back street?What about this door?What about...Do you know what I mean?So there'll be teething problems.

The upside, you're not going to get the wedding rings nicked with that number of guards.That's true.

You might get Andy Burnham bombing in the background.

I think the Prime Minister replying, no, it shows he's very easy in his skin and he's good with people.Because you could think some of the Prime Ministersmight have issued a, you know, security is required.Yes.I mean, and there must be a solution.It's funny, because I thought exactly the same thing.

Yeah, no, he's clearly good.

I mean, to hand it to him, he's very good.He's easy in his skin.He's a good communicator.He's got the populist touch.But all of this will be as froth.when it comes to conference season and when Parliament comes back, and there's a full debate.

Now, if things go on the way they are, by the end of the day today, upwards of 1 ,000 motorists will have filled up their cars and driven off without paying.Front page of the Star today, they're saying that currently it's 800 a day of drive away.So how are we going to deal with this?I've just come back from France, and in most of the garages that I went to in France, you have to pre -pay.It's the same in America.You simply put your credit card in, you put your code in, your clearance code, and then you can serve as much fuel as you like.

You've pre -paid.Why don't we do something like that?

I strongly suspect we will move.towards that, I think, over time.I just think the culture has changed in this country.I mean, we have been a very trusting country, where you fill in and then you go and pay, and no one had a problem with that.But if more and more, 800 a day?800 a day, yeah.

I mean, the only way to deal with that is to make sure that people pay before.

Of course, people who are filling stations want you to go into the kiosk to pay, because you pass so much else by.Yeah, you buy Mars bars and all that.Well, they've got to make a choice, haven't they?

Yeah, they do.Am I prepared to sell a few of your Mars bars, I think they'd rather get the money.

But it's kind of easier for you if you just put it in, you know, fill up your head and then go and pay instead of having to get your card out and press lots of buttons.

Oh, I see what you mean.

No, I found it.No, it's not.So I think the majority will suffer for the, as ever, for the impact of the feud.I'm sure we'll move over to that system.

Because there's a lot of, you know, the trust is just broken down generally.

Yeah.But to be honest, it is like shoplifting.Yeah.I mean, I was getting my shopping in a co -op yesterday up in the North.And of course, I just went and somebody had gone to pretend to pay for their shopping and then just took it out.And ignored the credit card bit.

That's quite a common ruse.You don't go round shelves now, putting it in your pocket.What you do is you take...

Another reason to be against those tills.I hate them anyway.Get people involved again, that's what I say.I've forgotten if either of you two have pets.No.Well, the Honours PCA are very concerned because they said that this fashion for sort of breeding of dogs and actually even goldfish now with extreme features.

Features that people find cute.You could argue it's not cute.I think we could have a look at some of the goldfish.That's the goldfish with these huge, expensive eyes.Why would you want a fish to look like that?No, I know.

I think it's probably to do with, you know, things on Instagram and other social media.Who knows?But it's actually the biggest problem facing pets at the moment, that people are choosing these breeds.And I think people, when they do choose the breeds, won't necessarily know themselves that their pet is going to be in pain.And also, the fact it's going to cost them a lot of money, because they're going to love their pets, hopefully.

Because you're basically breeding disabilities.Yeah.

That's what they are.You've got those dogs with the very flat, I can't remember what they're called, the breed, but the very flat faces.Oh, the French Bulldog.

Well, there's Pugs and the French Bulldog, and the Boxer as well is another one.

That's right, and they have respiratory problems, they don't live very long.Spine problems.And to breed an animal, you know, essentially to have all these problems and then die, you know prematurely I think is wrong.

I think dogs were bred at one time for tasks.But now when it's cosmetic you're right they're getting genetic defectswhich means they're gonna suffer and then they're gonna die prematurely.It's pretty grotesque.

I remember writing this story 40 years ago.It's been around for a long time, so it seems to me that without some kind of legislation, nothing's gonna change.

Yeah, well, there's always a case you can go on as much as they like about it.Every animal rights group will criticise Cruffs.A great big show, which everyone thinks, oh, isn't this lovely?But of course, some of the breeds and the breeding they allow is criticized.

So you could say that, I mean, it often attracts a great deal of snobbish rejection, those complaints about graphs.But they have a point, don't they?Yes.

No, no, no.No, absolutely.

I think if you're breeding an animal essentially to suffer for aesthetic reasons, I think there's room.Junior minister rolled out.He stuck to all the lines.I was very interested to hear that the defence spending is going to go up.I mean, he's not even the Secretary of State in his department.He doesn't run his department.

But he committed very firmly to that.So that's clearly a line that's coming down.I think your point about cost of living was very good.My sceptical, dare I say, Tory head is thinking, what taxes are they going to put up?You know, that's actually going to shape people's ability to weather the crisis.

Or are they going to take it from welfare and benefits?

Well, I'm not sure they can do that because they tried that with Keir Starmer.And the backbenchers essentially said no.That was my point.So my view is that they probably won't try that again.And so they're going to put up taxes.And actually, that's going to be the big question in the autumn.

On the defence question, spending is going up, over 15 billion over the next four years.But it's going to accelerate.To 2 .7.There's a 5 billion gap in that.And it's then going from 2 .7 % in national wealth to 3%.That's the target.

3 .5%.And I think they're the wrong target.It will be absolutely ruinous.On social care, it's an issue that is every government has looked at and shied away because it's a long -term solution you will come up with.You may not get the electoral gain early on, and how is it going to play out?for?

He did make strides in Manchester by somebody lived through it that the absolute sort of labyrinth of Continuing care not yet.It's a social care not talking to the NHS and he did make strides to coordinate that more Again, you know the issue is you know, how is it gonna be paid for say no one tackled it?

I remember that's about efficiency In 2017, the general election then, our centrepiece policy that Theresa May announced was a social care policy.And it died.It was dead on arrival.The Corbyn opposition successfully characterised it as a dementia tax.And so it's wrong to say governments haven't tried to tackle it.I don't think anyone was saying that.

It's just that they were very difficult politically to land.What Labour did when your party came up with a plan, it's called a dementia tax.That's what they called it.When Andy Burnham was health secretary at the 2010 general election and had a scheme, it would have been an attachment to your estate when you die, if it's over a level, the Tories call it a death tax.But it was the same, it was similar.Boris Johnson came up with an answer, which was to increase employers' and employees' national insurance.

In fact, it went through, and then it got reversed in the next budget.But you know, from painful, expensive experience, that it's rudely expensive for some families.And we have to pay for it.We can pay for it individually.or collectively.I prefer to pay for it collectively, but we have to come up with a way.

The cost could be £18 billion.

Well, Kevin Beattinack has said she'll do cross -party working.Is that reasonable?

Yes, because...I think it has to be.They have to start off trying to come up with a consensus.Now, I'm not sure that they're going to be able to get one, but I think what she's saying is right.She's saying, look,this is a serious national problem.

We, as conservatives, are prepared to sit around the table and come up with an agreed solution.There is a review underway with Louise Casey, the number 10 troubleshooter.

But it's ages to get to it.Exactly.

It's not due to report until something like 2028 or 2029.Now, of course, Andy Burnham wants to bring that forward.But whatever he brings forward will be controversial in some way.But we can carry on.As we do, if you have less than £24 ,000, you'll get help.If you haven't, you might have to sell your home.

And you have to try and sort yourself out.And it's really difficult.But what Kemi is trying to do...It's worth going for the golden prize.It's worth going for the golden prize of a solution that will endure...

But what Kemi is trying to do, forgive me, is the right thing.Because as you pointed out, Labour had a scheme.We rubbished that in 2010.The Tories had a scheme that I campaigned on in 2017.That was rubbish.And she's saying, well, hang on a sec.

This is a serious issue.Let's try and work together.Now, I'm not sure they'll be able to come to an agreed solution.But it's good that she showed that goodwill.

I think it's nice if everyone holds hands and says, let's try and work it out together.But you still need a solution.We're going to have to pay.And you pay individually, or you're going to pay collectively or somewhere in the middle.I prefer collectively.

Which brings us full circle to where we started.If the government is not going to pay for the modest giveaways that it announced last week, if it's not going to pay for the increase in defence funding from cutting welfare and benefits, as you say, it's going to have to increase taxes.What's our best intelligent guess about what taxes...

Well, all the thresholds are going to stay the same.I mean, it was interesting that Andy Burnham said that was the big issue, the biggest issue, when he was knocking on doors in Makefield.People were saying, well, I'm being dragged into higher and higher tax.And then when he became Prime Minister last week, he kind of rode back from that.He said, and he'd clearly been told by civil servants this is way too high.to lift those thresholds.

So I think all the thresholds will stay the same.People will be paying the 40p rate at relatively lower rates because of inflation.And I think that that will be what everyone's looking at.You look at the last two budgets.Rachel Reeves raised the tax by $40 billion the first year.The next year, last year, was $26 billion.

and I'm pretty sure that it'll be an equally equivalent increase this year.It's just a question of who he's going to pay for it.

We're still in the conservative threshold freeze which was going to go to 2028, which he inherited, but then Labour extended it for another two or three years.The problem is, more and more people are getting dragged into those higher bands.So you have extra cash you pay, you earn, you're having to pay a higher rate of tax.But it's about four billion a year that are risen by inflation, which is why they don't do it.And it's where it's easy for them to say in opposition, as the opposition always do, we don't want this tax, let's get rid of it.But when you're in government, you've got to make the choice.

If you haven't got the money coming in, can't be going out on spending, unless you're going to increase borrowing.

And it was the ultimate.And we called it, when Gordon Brown used to do this, we used to call it stealth taxes.Because you're not lifting taxes, but you're just, everyone's, because of inflation, is paying more.Okay, guys listen to you I'll never send you to the mortgage rate, sorry.