Some of the eventual 49 rebels from last year are in a similar place.
York MP Rachael Maskell told me it was essential that she saw the detail of the proposals rather than the “drip, drip” of press reports which would “cause young people stress and distress”.
She felt withdrawing Pip from young people was “like a sledgehammer to crack a nut” and was concerned that some disabled people required it to remain in work.
She also suggested that the government “shouldn’t just point the finger at young people,” and should look closely at how employers could take more youngsters on.
Stroud MP Simon Opher also voted against the government on welfare last year.
He told me there was a “crisis” with so many Neets, and Milburn had come up with a “credible solution”.
But he believes cutting benefits should be a “last resort” and is worried about restricting access to the health element of Universal Credit, as a quarter of young claimants aren’t Neet. He concludes that the “devil will be in the detail”.
So much of politics – like comedy – depends on timing.
For some sceptics, including serving ministers, the Milburn proposals will be more warmly welcomed if support for young people is in place before entitlements are withdrawn.
But for some Labour MPs, cutting payments to existing claimants crosses a line.
Clapham and Brixton Hill MP Bell Ribiero-Addy has she wasn’t sure she could back cuts.
Referring to Pip, she didn’t believe that “you get a disabled young person into work by taking away the money that helps them to get into work”.
And another MP on the left of the party, Brian Leishman, told the BBC he couldn’t back benefits cuts as “we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis”.
So a welfare rebellion seems guaranteed if Burnham accepts Milburn’s recommendations.
But it seems unlikely to be of the same scale, or have a similar level of political jeopardy to the one which shook the Starmer government.
