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

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.

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.

Yes! That's the perfect description...especially with his long eyelashes!

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.

The most recent headline figure I saw (within the last week) was 50% of Conservative voters are opposed to cuts in disability benefits. Roughly the same for Reform voters.

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

The problem with Andy Burnham, in my opinion, is that he wants to please everyone. Unfortunately, as PM, this is an impossible task. He needs to grow a backbone and make some difficult decisions, even if that means pissing some people off.

TBF, if in the budget, the Chancellor doesn’t set out exactly how he’s going to fund defence spending, to what extent and when by I’ll be disappointed too. I do (maybe naively) think he is going to do that though - and in the meantime, I don’t like it being used a political wedge issue.

From what I understand, the IFS have said the defence budget can’t realistically be funded by cuts to welfare alone. So, at the moment no political party seems to have a credible plan. Maybe, if there was more consensus seeking and less point scoring, they’d be able to work together to find one.

I agree we need a a better plan for how these things will be funded

I cant get upset imagining that he isnt going to increase spending on defence when we are committed to do so and he didnt say that this wasnt happening.

I also think he was unlikely to say 'yes we will cut benefits to do so' in his second pmq as a labour pm

And that kemi was going to push him to say it

Its like a preset party game.

Yes, Burnham knows it did not come over well

After PMQs, Burnham's team was at pains to stress his commitment that "national security is the most important duty of any government"

So do you know how Burnham is going to do it?

Well, Burnham better expect more pressure from Trump if he fails to increase the defense budget.

Pressure also from Buenos Aires, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Tel Aviv.

We will soon see if vibes and eyelashes are enough.

I didnt watch the debate, only the article. He obviously phrased it badly enough to need a follow up, but even it the qoutes i cant see where he ever said he wasnt going to do anything other than fund defence to the targets everyone wanted which is a higher level than the previous government.

It feels like he just meant he didnt think he needed to cut benefits to fund it and the conservatives do.

Not true.

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.

No that is not what he said at all. National Security is the first responsibility of any government. Social cohesion, trust within communities, improvement of domestic resilience would all help making us a harder target. However we have none of these at present.

Serious economist agree, as most people do, that the benefit bill is far to high and expected to increase unless it is tackled. Unfortunately we are in this situation because of Labour’s incompetence that has stifled, productivity and basically hammered business, farmers and also any working person. They have succeeded in increasing unemployment, NEETS

Disappointed with Kemi ?? She is in opposition she is expected to hold the Government to account? Yes National Security is a major priority. If I remember rightly Kemi offered to work cross party to help reduce the benefit bill and this was rejected.

So yes National Security is an urgent priority, over everything else.

He isn’t being unreasonable. He is just saying it’s not one or the other, that both must be funded.

When he is challenged on Defence, Burnham uses it as a tactic. This is why I appointed this excellent man as Chancellor - because he cares so much about Defence. An round and round we go ......

Credibly incompetent

Very true. Can't believe Burnham actually said that. Worrying times.

But I don’t get what is meant to be said. Kemi is going to say more needs to be spent. Pretty much everyone says that.

They just need to look at where to get it from.

Labour are terrifying. I can’t believe they are in charge

I know what his plan is.

Sign up the Russian soldiers for UC so that they won’t fight.

Really clever.