Badenoch: on Andy Burnham He is repeating Starmer's biggest mistakes

Badenoch takes aim at Burnham over defence spending

Kemi Badenoch has launched a fierce attack on Andy Burnham, accusing the new Labour Prime Minister of repeating what she calls Keir Starmer's biggest mistake — failing to give Britain's armed forces the money they need while continuing to expand state spending.

Writing exclusively for the Express, the Conservative leader argues that protecting the country must come before government promises on spending. Her warning comes as Burnham prepares for a crucial autumn Budget, with defence funding already emerging as one of the biggest challenges facing his government.

'Hope is not a defence policy'

Badenoch points directly to John Healey, who served as Starmer's Defence Secretary before becoming Burnham's Chancellor. She highlights Healey's previous warning that government decisions could reduce the readiness of Britain's forces and increase the risks faced by personnel.

She argues that Britain should commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, claiming current Labour funding would leave spending closer to 2.7% by the end of the decade.

Her message is blunt: Britain's military cannot be equipped with promises, reviews and strategy documents. It needs money for equipment, personnel, accommodation and the industrial capacity required to sustain a serious fighting force.

A dangerous world

Badenoch points to Russia's continuing war in Ukraine, Iran's disruption of Middle Eastern shipping and China's expanding military power as evidence that Britain cannot afford to assume peace will continue.

She also warns that cyber warfare and artificial intelligence are rapidly changing the nature of modern conflict, making military readiness more important rather than less.

The argument comes at a particularly awkward time for Burnham. The government is facing a £4.7 billion gap in its existing defence investment plans, while there is growing pressure for a firm timetable for reaching 3% of GDP. The Times reports that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates reaching that level could require an additional £17.3 billion in 2029-30.

Badenoch targets welfare spending

The Conservative leader says the answer cannot simply be higher taxes and borrowing. Instead, she wants welfare reform to reduce spending on benefits for people she argues are capable of working, while maintaining support for those genuinely unable to work.

Her broader argument is that government has to make choices. Money spent unnecessarily in one area cannot simultaneously be spent on rebuilding Britain's military capability.

Badenoch puts it even more starkly: every pound she believes is wasted on an ineffective welfare system is a pound that could otherwise help fund military equipment, better accommodation for service personnel, a larger armed forces and the defence industries Britain needs.

Burnham faces the defence test

Burnham has already promised to increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035, but the immediate question is how quickly he is prepared to increase spending and, crucially, where the money will come from.

That leaves the Prime Minister facing a difficult political choice. Labour wants to increase spending on housing, public services and cost-of-living measures, while Britain's deteriorating security environment demands more money for defence.

'Hope is not a funding strategy'

Badenoch's attack is therefore about more than a single Budget commitment. She is attempting to frame the coming political battle as a choice between Labour's expanding spending ambitions and what Conservatives describe as the basic duty of government — keeping the country safe.

"Hope is not a defence policy. It is not a funding strategy either," she argues, accusing Labour of avoiding difficult decisions by borrowing more, taxing more or waiting for circumstances to improve.

With Parliament returning and Burnham's first major Budget approaching, the pressure will now be on Labour to explain exactly how it intends to pay for its promises while rebuilding Britain's military strength.

For Badenoch, the choice is straightforward: Britain cannot afford to discover it has underfunded its defences only after the threat has arrived

SOURCE