So this morning, we ask if there’s a complication with welfare review. The PM has written a very watery non-committal piece about NEETS. The Milburn review is next month. But have they just received an inconveniently timed new intervention - the Fonagy review. We discuss this on today’s podcast *What is Fonagy*? After then Health Secretary Wes Streeting said in March 2025, that “mental wellbeing, illness, it’s a spectrum and I think definitely there’s an overdiagnosis”, he commissioned Professor Peter Fonagy to look at this and feed into the Milburn report. It was published earlier this month *What does it say*?  Fonagy appears to challenge the main point of Milburn. His report says: “Low participation should not be interpreted as lack of ability, motivation or aspiration. Work is not invariably beneficial, and an early return is not always appropriate.” He also says “secure, well-designed and supported work can promote recovery, while insecure or unsupported work can worsen mental health” The review rejects the "snowflake generation" narrative, finding a genuine, steep increase in mental ill-health (such as anxiety, depression, self-harm, and eating disorders) over the last three decades, particularly among young people aged 16 to 24. And on ADHD and Autism, found “On the basis of evidence available to us we cannot conclude that overdiagnosis is occurring at scale”.  *Why a complication*? Milburn is likely to recommend that - apart from those with severe and enduring disabilities - all financial support for young people should have work and training support and requirements attached. Arguing that work per-se is automatically good, as Milburn seems to, is now challenged by Fonagy. And where drawing the line on “severe and enduring disabilities” is more complicated. Listen:

What does Andy Burnham believe on welfare reform? Had a new government report / commissioned after Wes Streeting blamed “overdiagnosis” and challenges this and the idea work is always beneficial - complicated the welfare picture? Plus what is similar and different about the public spending debate in France? podfollow.com/politics-at-sa…

Burnham says no deals with the Greens - has he forgotten about local government ⁉️ Sheffield: Two-party joint administration - Labour and Green Groups Warwick: Green–Labour coalition; both parties hold cabinet positions Lewes: Green–Labour Co-operative Alliance; current council records confirm both group leaders hold cabinet responsibilities Havant: Labour-led coalition with Greens and Liberal Democrats West Oxfordshire: Liberal Democrat-Labour-Green alliance, renewed in May 2026 North Somerset: Partnership of Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens and independent groups Rother: Independent–Labour–Liberal Democrat–Green alliance Runnymede: Joint administration containing Labour, Greens, Liberal Democrats and residents/independents West Suffolk: Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens within the Progressive Alliance, governing in partnership with independents Labour just don't get it.

NEW: At PMQs, Andy Burnham rules out deal with the Greens following their adoption of the Zionism motion at confefence: Dame Harriett Baldwin: The leader of the opposition has made it crystal clear about doing deals with other parties. So will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green Party's descent into the most abhorrent anti-Semitism that he will rule out co-operating with them? Andy Burnham: Mr. speaker, can I condemn the motion that was passed unequivocally? It is wrong. It is anti-Semitic, and this side of the House will have nothing to do with it. And we will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships we have with other parties. We cannot support a partnership with a party that holds a position that has recently been adopted.