Burnham puts welfare before defence as Tory brands Labour Welfare Party

Badenoch unveils Tory welfare cuts to fund 50b defence plan

“It cannot come at the expense of social security”

Andy Burnham has handed the Conservatives a political gift.

The Prime Minister was challenged over whether Britain should increase defence spending to meet growing threats from Russia and other hostile states.

His answer was striking.

“We do everything to support our national security, but it cannot come at the expense of social security.”

Within hours, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of revealing what she called the party's true priorities.

“The Labour Party has become the Welfare Party,” she declared.

And suddenly Britain has a very clear argument over what comes first when the country is facing a more dangerous world.

Defence — or benefits?

Burnham insists Britain should not be forced to choose between national security and social security.

His critics say that is precisely the choice facing the Treasury.

Britain's defence spending is currently scheduled to rise only gradually, reaching around 2.7% of GDP by the end of the decade under existing Labour plans.

Burnham has now adopted a looser target of 3.5% by 2035, rather than committing to the 3% target by 2030 demanded by some Conservatives and senior Labour figures.

That difference could prove politically explosive.

Labour's own defence warnings

The awkwardness for Burnham is that the pressure isn't coming only from the Conservatives.

Wes Streeting, now Defence Secretary, previously argued that “there is no social justice without national security.”

Former Defence Secretary John Healey has also warned that Labour's existing plans fall short of what is required and has called for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP by 2030.

Labour's own Commons defence committee chairman Tan Dhesi has accused the government of “kicking the can down the road.”

So Burnham is not simply fighting Kemi Badenoch.

He is facing pressure from inside his own party.

Then there is the welfare bill

And this is where the argument gets really uncomfortable.

Britain's sickness and disability benefits bill is forecast to reach around £109 billion by the end of the decade — more than £30 billion higher than last year.

That enormous increase is becoming one of the biggest headaches facing the Treasury.

Previous attempts to reduce welfare spending have already run into fierce opposition from Labour MPs.

Keir Starmer was forced to abandon plans to cut around £5 billion from welfare spending after a revolt within his own party.

Burnham is now making clear that he will not support what he describes as “crude cuts” to benefits.

But where does the defence money come from?

That leaves an increasingly awkward question.

If Britain genuinely needs to spend more on defence, the Treasury has to find the money somewhere.

Borrow more?

Raise taxes?

Cut other public spending?

Or tackle the rapidly increasing welfare bill?

The Conservatives say they have already identified around £10 billion in savings that could be redirected towards defence.

Their proposals include major changes to housing benefit, restoring the two-child benefit cap and ending VAT exemptions for Motability vehicles.

They also propose taking money from other spending programmes.

Labour rejects the approach.

Badenoch smells blood

Badenoch has seized on Burnham's words because they create an extraordinarily simple political dividing line.

National security versus social security.

The Conservative leader says the first duty of government is to defend the country.

Burnham says national security and social security cannot be separated because strong communities are themselves part of national resilience.

It is a perfectly legitimate argument.

But politically, Burnham has handed Badenoch a very effective soundbite.

Britain is falling behind

There is another uncomfortable part of the debate.

Britain was once one of NATO's biggest defence spenders.

It has now slipped to around 13th in the alliance when measured as a percentage of GDP, while several European countries are dramatically increasing military spending.

Germany is targeting around 3.5% by 2030.

Poland is already spending around 4.7%.

Britain's existing trajectory looks considerably more cautious.

And the strategic environment is becoming less forgiving.

Russia changes the calculation

The argument over defence spending would look very different if Europe were enjoying a period of stability.

It isn't.

Russia's war in Ukraine has transformed European security calculations.

NATO members are expanding military production, rebuilding stockpiles and preparing for the possibility that a future conflict could involve the alliance directly.

Britain is also struggling with the long-term consequences of having allowed military capacity to shrink over previous decades.

The question is no longer simply:

“How much can Britain afford to spend on defence?”

It is becoming:

“How much can Britain afford not to spend?”

And then comes welfare

But the opposite question is just as uncomfortable.

Britain has millions of people dependent on the welfare system, including people with genuine disabilities and serious long-term illnesses.

Any government attempting to cut billions from that system faces an enormous political and human challenge.

Burnham's argument is therefore not simply that Labour likes welfare.

His argument is that social stability is itself part of national security.

The Conservatives believe that argument risks becoming an excuse for avoiding difficult choices.

Labour has a problem

Downing Street insists Burnham remains committed to reducing the welfare bill.

But it has refused to give a firm timetable.

At the same time, the defence target remains below the level demanded by some of Labour's own senior defence figures.

That creates the impression of a government trying to avoid two politically dangerous fights at the same time.

It doesn't want to alienate Labour MPs by cutting welfare.

And it doesn't want to promise billions more for defence without explaining exactly where the money will come from.

The question Burnham cannot escape

Kemi Badenoch may have exaggerated the argument by declaring Labour officially the “Welfare Party.”

But Burnham's own words have given her something powerful to work with.

Britain is facing a deteriorating security environment.

Defence chiefs want more money.

Welfare spending is racing upwards.

And the Treasury has very little room for manoeuvre.

Eventually, the government may have to choose.

So what comes first — protecting Britain's borders and national security, or protecting the benefits system?

Burnham says Britain shouldn't have to choose.

His opponents say the bill is coming anyway.

And sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay it.

And then there is a third option

There is another idea that would certainly provoke a debate: instead of simply putting newly arrived immigration newcomers who are entitled to remain on welfare, why not create a properly vetted national-service programme offering military, infrastructure or other essential public-service work? For those who are fit and willing, a fixed period of service could provide training, discipline, a route into employment and a tangible contribution to the country that is supporting them. It could never mean simply forcing people into the armed forces — there would have to be proper legal safeguards and security checks — but if Britain needs more people contributing while simultaneously struggling with welfare costs and manpower shortages, perhaps the question should be asked: should receiving support come with a genuine opportunity — or expectation — to contribute something back?

AN Original SOURCE

I could have sworn he said "defence can't come at the expense of social welfare"......and committed to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.

2 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I could have sworn he said "defence can't come at the expense of social welfare"......and committed to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.

I swore I saw the same thing. I also think I read in the article that "The Conservatives say they have already identified around £10 billion in savings that could be redirected towards defence.". The natural question would be why didn't they identify that and then do that while in power? Why neglect the armed services to the massive extent that they did? Their spending dropped as low as 1.8% of GDP. It has increased quickly under Labour and will continue to increase.......but not at the expense of social welfare. Don't see anything wrong with that.

Tories being Tories. Shameless hypocrites who rely on people having short memories.

What an own-goal statement. Wrong Burnham. National security comes before all else, as without it there is nothing that can be grown and achieved... peace through strength works and gives you serious international leverage/soft power/diplomacy with a powerful armed forces, as other countries will compromise on things to be on your good side and under your protection. These neo-liberal idiots know nothing.

1 minute ago, Sir Dude said:

What an own-goal statement. Wrong Burnham. National security comes before all else, as without it there is nothing that can be grown and achieved... peace through strength works and gives you serious international leverage/soft power/diplomacy with a powerful armed forces, as other countries will compromise on things to be on your good side and under your protection. These neo-liberal idiots know nothing.

Too difficult to read the article was it? He has pledged 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Labour have already increased it to around 2.4-2.5% of GDP (the low was 1.8% under the Tories) and have pledged the highest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

What an own goal your post is.

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Too difficult to read the article was it? He has pledged 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Labour have already increased it to around 2.4-2.5% of GDP (the low was 1.8% under the Tories) and have pledged the highest increase in defence spending since the Cold War.

What an own goal your post is.

Clearly you don't understand the nuances of the article. It's not about figures and stats or allowing for inflation or anything like that... it's his ideological words and contempt. Usual lefty BS just to appease his rabble backbenchers that he can't control and will have a hissyfit if he tries to cut the leech bill on the taxpayer. Clearly, it is you who understand sweet FA. He is already on borrowed time. That is all I have to say on this.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by Sir Dude

13 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

What an own-goal statement. Wrong Burnham. National security comes before all else, as without it there is nothing that can be grown and achieved... peace through strength works and gives you serious international leverage/soft power/diplomacy with a powerful armed forces, as other countries will compromise on things to be on your good side and under your protection. These neo-liberal idiots know nothing.

Burnham made his argument very clear.

National security doesn’t stop at the barrack room door.

Cutting welfare and housing benefits that would inevitably increase poverty and homelessness ( Refer Tory Austerity #1 and #2) undermines the security of the people impacted.

Burnham is bang on.

The Tories stuck with their DNA policies of the poor must bear the cost.

4 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Clearly you don't understand the nuances of the article. It's not about figures and stats or allowing for inflation or anything like that... it's his ideological words and contempt. Usual lefty BS just to appease his rabble backbenchers that he can't control and will have a hissyfit if he tries to cut the leech bill on the taxpayer. Clearly, it is you who understand sweet FA. He is already on borrowed time. That is all I have to say on this.

Yes the ideological contempt the Tories have for the poor.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes the ideological contempt the Tories have for the poor.

I'm not sure it is simply the poor. How do people get to be poor? Education is provided free up to and including secondary level. There could be scholarships for the industrious ones.

People who do not apply themselves and expect stuff to be handed to them maybe deserve a little contempt. Contraception is covered by NHS so even unwed single mothers have no real excuse.

Labour created the Welfare State, so I doubt the Tories are way off the mark. No one dies because they can't afford an ambulance.

The Tories are the party of heinous inequality and pitiless self serving.

Burnham can be proud of his new party slogan.