"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

Whats the point of the spending review if they won't carry out it's findings.

Its all just fiddling while Rome burns. If they cant get a lid on welfare the country is wrecked anyway. I expect Putin will definitely wait for the findings of another spending review/budget and for Andy B to make his mind up whether he wants to finance defence, before he decides to attacks NATO. Its the gentlemanly thing to do.

Burnham seems to have no such concerns about talking about what is going to spend in many other areas. It's just when it comes to paying for it we have to wait for the budget. Why not hold back all the announcements until the budget once they have worked out how it all balances?

A spending review is not a budget.

It's so irritating people either don't understand the processes, or pretend not to to score short term political points.

Argue about the policies, sure, but all the moaning about processes is frustrating.

They won a majority, they should be in government . Unless you plan to organise a revolution, they will stay there.

Its not a political football though. Its a basic requirement. And Labour are unable to achieve it. If they can't manage the defence spending then they shouldn't be in government.

The government have said they're going to increase defence spending, and they're going to set out how at the budget.

But the fact is, Conservatives don't currently have a credible plan for how they'll fund defence either - plenty of economists agree that the gap can't be filled by welfare cuts alone, because done crudely welfare cuts just shift the financial burden elsewhere, costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

That's why it all feels so performative and tit for tat. I think we need cross-party working to reach a realistic consensus on how the money that everyone agrees is needed for defence, can actually be found.

No. This is not what is happening. Labour's welfare Bill and borrowing costs are going up not down. They have no money to meet the defence targets and the PLP won't let them cut welfare. So they are hoping by next year that something turns up to boost the economy so they can meet the defence target. Eg the Ukraine war ends or Trump ends the Iran thing. Neither of which is likely. Its a big gamble and on current luck, will probably fail. The risk is of course that something like Argentina attacking the Falklands happens and we are exposed as being defenceless. That will be the end of Labour of course.

They've already had the spending review. They just don't like the findings.

I just think proposals are being costed and modelled etc as a pp said in another post. Labour will want to be in control of where money comes from.

If the Conservatives were involved they would probably suggest cutting different things, which is fine by me, but Labour are in power so will want their ideas to be in place.

Its not a political football though. Its a basic requirement. And Labour are unable to achieve it. If they can't manage the defence spending then they shouldn't be in government.

If you read up on the process they haven't got a clear decision because proposals are still being costed and modelled.

It's important not to go down the conspiracy theory route. Every chancellor ever has had to work to the budget date. That's how the process works.

Which PM hasn’t? Since the 90s probably Cameron and Blair have looked the most capable at PMQs but that’s because they were good at blustering and bullshitting on their feet. It has almost nothing to do with if they/their cabinet can adopt sensible policies for the country. PMQs is mostly just theatre and the UK is one of the few countries to produce its like.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to increasing defence spending - the question is how to pay for it. And at the moment, neither side seem to have a credible plan - the IFS has said that welfare cuts alone won't raise the kind of money needed. So, what I'd like to is for both sides to work together to reach a consensus on how the money can be found. Then, if both parties agree to stick to those funding plans, whoever is in power, then that allows the military to plan and budget further ahead. I think some issues are important enough to demand cross party cooperation - and ideological compromise from both sides - and in my opinion this is one of them.

If you read up on the process they haven't got a clear decision because proposals are still being costed and modelled.

It's important not to go down the conspiracy theory route. Every chancellor ever has had to work to the budget date. That's how the process works.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to increasing defence spending - the question is how to pay for it. And at the moment, neither side seem to have a credible plan - the IFS has said that welfare cuts alone won't raise the kind of money needed. So, what I'd like to is for both sides to work together to reach a consensus on how the money can be found. Then, if both parties agree to stick to those funding plans, whoever is in power, then that allows the military to plan and budget further ahead. I think some issues are important enough to demand cross party cooperation - and ideological compromise from both sides - and in my opinion this is one of them.

She absolutely doesn’t need to - but I personally think from a moral point of view using defence spending as a political football feels wrong, and I would much rather see a longer term cross party consensus on defence spending so that the UK military can plan in a more long-term way, independent of changing governments.

The normal pretending that they have no idea what they are going to say until the budget day itself. It makes me laugh they say they are not going to write the budget is response to a question - you'd like to think these things are planned well in advance so they should be able to give a bit of steer as time goes by rather than the chancellor pulling an all nighter the day before the speech.

Every day that goes by borrowing costs are getting higher and higher.

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here. It’s just a money issue.

You ignore a massive distinction between unemployment and disability benefits.

Voters want ministers to cut benefits for the unemployed while protecting payments for disabled people, research suggests.

Six in 10 Conservative and Reform supporters want spending on unemployment benefits reduced according to the British Social Attitudes survey.

But voters across the political spectrum are much more reluctant to cut benefits for disabled people who cannot work.

Just 11 per cent of Reform voters and 7 per cent of Conservatives want disability benefits reduced.

Of course he will need to set it out, but the budget has been brought forward and at that point you will have everything laid out.
The process is going to happen, the budget is going to be published. We're in the usual pre-budget phase of will the honourable gentleman rule out X, will he commit to y. No I won't, the honourable lady must wait for the budget.

I agree with Burnham on this. We need a cohesive society as the bedrock who are not starving and homeless. That’s the minimum. Then we work on national security.

Also, I hope he brings in tax rises because that reverses that silly idea of Starmer and Reeves of committing in advance to not raising taxes that is putting a lot of pressure on the economy.