Daily Mail, on UK Politics, 30 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Burnham rejects 'brutal cuts' to welfare after Chancellor's -

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Labour 's welfare chaos deepened today as Andy Burnham dismissed the idea of 'brutal cuts' - after the Chancellor's humiliating U-turn on bringing costs down before the election. The PM insisted he is 'pioneering a new approach' amid more confusion over when the surging bill might be reduced. John Healey in interviews after his Budget by appearing to commit to lowering benefits before the country next goes to the ballot boxes.

before Downing Street said there was no 'arbitrary timetable' for savings. Speaking last night, Mr Healey seemingly reversed his position entirely, saying it was 'not correct to say that we're going to bring this welfare bill down in this Parliament'. Defence Secretary Wes Streeting threw fresh doubt on the situation as he toured broadcast studios this morning, arguing that the Chancellor had still not ruled out cuts before the election.

But he suggested the Government needed to act slowly to avoid a Labour revolt similar to the one that mortally damaged keir Starmer. In an ITV documentary to mark his first 100 days in No10, Mr Burnham tried again to explain his approach. In an ITV documentary to mark his first 100 days in No10, Andy Burnham tried again to explain his approach to welfare The PM was at Everton's stadium with his family last night to watch his team beat Newcastle John Healey sparked panic among aides in interviews after his Budget by appearing to commit to lowering benefits before the country next goes to the ballot boxes 'I don't actually want to see anyone in their 20s on benefits.

I just don't think that's a good place to be. Unless people can't be in work for reasons due to disability or whatever else it might be,' he said. Pressed how he will bring the bill down, the premier said : 'You don't make the saving just to go to brutal cuts, because if you just go to brutal cuts... you will leave people in absolute crisis and then they will be going into other services in a chaotic way. 'So I'm pioneering a different approach and, you know, I'm going to stick to my guns on it.'

The row is raging after households were warned they face being more than £1,000 worse off over the next two years as they are hammered by the energy crisis and . The Resolution Foundation gave the estimate for working age people's disposable incomes in a bleak post-Budget assessment yesterday. The 2020s are on track to be the worst decade for living standards since comparable records started in the 1960s. Chief executive Ruth Curtice said Chancellor John Healey's Budget yesterday had been 'scattergun', offering £100 off energy bills to homes in lower council tax bands.

She warned that even those getting help – along with maintaining suspension of 5 per cent VAT on electricity costs – would face higher bills next year than they did during the last crisis in 2022. Kemi Badenoch said it was 'astounding' that the Government could not commit to reducing benefits this decade, despite forecasts that the costs will rise by more than £60billion by 2029. The Tory leader told the Daily Mail: 'Labour is addicted to benefits and this is why they are getting into a mess every day. 'In just 24 hours, the Chancellor has said there will be no cuts to the benefits bill, gone on the BBC and said actually there will, then had to admit that actually there won't be. 'All while officials scramble to clean up the chaos.

It appears the Prime Minister's 'foot in mouth' is contagious.' Delivering his Budget on Wednesday, the Chancellor said the Government would 'bring down the welfare bill' but offered no new proposals to cut a bill that is forecast to top £350billion next year. In interviews afterwards, Mr Healey was pressed repeatedly on what he would do about the issue and dismissed 'crude cuts'. 'I've said clearly, the Prime Minister said as well, we have to bring the benefits bill down,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Asked directly if there 'will be cuts in welfare before the election', the Chancellor replied: 'There will be, there will be a reduction in the benefits bill. 'We'll do that in a Labour way and we will do that because it is simply not good for Britain or progressive to have a bigger and bigger benefits bill... 'I feel a moral duty to deal with these youngsters who at the moment have been written off by previous governments.' Aides told the BBC that Mr Healey had not been making any commitment on when there would be cuts.

Sources accused the broadcaster of 'editorialising' by highlighting the exchange, even though the Chancellor's response appeared clear. Your browser does not support iframes. Your browser does not support iframes. Mr Burnham then stepped in, with Downing Street insisting there was no 'arbitrary timetable' for reducing the costs. Repeatedly asked about the remarks on a visit in the Midlands, the PM said: 'We want to get the welfare bill down as quickly as possible.'

He added: 'We just want to get stuck into supporting people... we are working hard to cut the welfare bill as soon as we possibly can.' No10 argued that Mr Healey's views were 'completely in line' with those of Mr Burnham. In a fresh twist last night it emerged that the Chancellor told Channel 4 News 'it's not correct to say we're going to bring the welfare bill down in this Parliament' - suggesting he has abandoned hope of cuts before 2030-31. 'So it's not correct to say that we're going to bring this welfare bill down in this Parliament because we've not set a timetable for that,' he said.

Mr Streeting had a different interpretation of the remarks this morning, telling Times Radio: 'The Chancellor hasn't ruled ruled out cutting the welfare bill this Parliament. 'What he said, and I think reasonably, is that there are two significant reviews going on at the moment.' Mr Streeting told ITV's Good Morning Britain: 'Candidly, we saw when we came in after the general election there was an attempt to bring the welfare bill down by putting an arbitrary figure on it. 'And when the MPs who want to see the welfare bill coming down saw the detail and who was impacted, people said, ''Hang on a minute, these cuts are falling on the wrong people''.'

HEALEY'S DAY OF U-TURNS 6am - BBC Radio 4's Today programme Nick Robinson: 'There will be cuts in welfare before the election?' Healey: 'There will be a reduction in the benefits bill, we'll do that in a Labour way and we will do that because it is simply not good for Britain or progressive to have a bigger and bigger benefits bill and I feel a moral, a moral duty to deal with these youngsters who at the moment have been written off by previous governments and I'm not prepared to see that happen in the future.'

Noon Downing Street argues that the Chancellor did not set out a timeframe for reducing the benefits bill before the next election. 1pm Andy Burnham tells reporters the Government is working 'flat out' to reduce spending on benefits and wants to do so 'as soon as we possibly can'. 7pm Channel 4 News Healey: 'It's not correct to say that we're going to bring this welfare bill down in this Parliament because we've not set a timetable for that.'

Read the original article on dailymail.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

The Daily Mail reports the confusion over whether Labour will cut the welfare bill before the election, quoting Healey, Burnham, Streeting and Badenoch at length. Its headline puts 'worst decade ever' in quotation marks, words nobody in the article said, and stretches a Resolution Foundation finding about living standards since the 1960s into an all-time verdict. In its own voice the Mail also adds verdict words such as 'humiliating', 'panic' and 'desperately' that its reported facts do not show.

  1. Headline goes beyond the article

    Serious

    “as UK faces 'worst decade ever'”

    Why this matters
    The headline puts 'worst decade ever' in quotation marks as if someone said it, and drops both the source and the measure.
    The impression it gives
    A named authority has said the UK faces its worst decade ever, in every sense and across all history.
    The context
    No one in the article says 'worst decade ever'. The body reports a Resolution Foundation estimate that the 2020s are on track to be the worst decade for living standards since comparable records began in the 1960s. That is a narrower claim, limited to one measure and about sixty years of data.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“worst decade for living standards since comparable records started in the 1960s”
    • Elsewhere in the article“The Resolution Foundation gave the estimate”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Burnham rejects 'brutal cuts' to welfare after Chancellor's mixed messages, as Resolution Foundation says the 2020s are on track to be the worst decade for living standards since records began in the 1960s.

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “humiliating U-turn”

    Why this matters
    The Mail calls Healey's shift 'humiliating' in its own headline voice.
    The impression it gives
    The Chancellor has been publicly shamed, as a matter of fact.
    The context
    The article reports conflicting statements and Downing Street saying his views were in line with the Prime Minister's. 'Humiliating' is the Mail's verdict, not a reported fact.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“No10 argued that Mr Healey's views were 'completely in line' with those of Mr Burnham”

    Show it in the article

    “sparked panic among aides”

    Why this matters
    The Mail states as fact that aides panicked, with no source for that state of mind.
    The impression it gives
    Insiders were thrown into panic by the Chancellor's interview.
    The context
    The article names no one describing panic. What it reports is that aides told the BBC no commitment on timing had been made.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Aides told the BBC that Mr Healey had not been making any commitment”

    Show it in the article

    “The Treasury desperately backpedalled”

    Why this matters
    The word 'desperately' adds an emotional verdict to the Treasury's clarification.
    The impression it gives
    The Treasury was in a frantic scramble.
    The context
    The reported facts are that aides and No10 said there was no set timetable. Nothing quoted shows desperation.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Downing Street argues that the Chancellor did not set out a timeframe”

    Show it in the article

    “Labour tax raids”

    Why this matters
    The Mail calls Budget tax measures 'raids' in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    Labour has seized money from households in an aggressive grab.
    The context
    Other coverage describes a net tax rise of £7 billion a year, far less than the previous budget, and says energy bills are spiking because of the war with Iran. 'Raids' is a party-political verdict.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Daily Mail

  1. 30 OctBosses told to act like the 'fun police' at boozy work parties after Labour's 'banter ban' comes into force6.0
  2. 30 OctDAILY MAIL COMMENT: Will you EVER grasp the nettle on welfare crisis, Prime Minister?0.0
  3. 30 Oct£11billion black hole through the middle of Healey's defence vow3.0
  4. 30 OctIs this what you had in mind, mayor? Sadiq Khan's Oxford Street revolution descends into chaos as cyclists turn 'pedestrian-only' zone into 'highway' - and cab drivers warn journeys are taking longer6.0
  5. 30 OctHumiliation for Healey: Chancellor is forced into screeching U-turn just hours after promising to cut welfare bill before next election3.0

Everything we scored from Daily Mail