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

Care to elaborate? Don't you think it's worrying that we won't be able to defend ourselves?

Only last week, at PMQs Burnham was called out on the same thing by Tan Dhesi - it was the highlight of PMQs because it wasn't party political, he is Labour and the Chair of the Defence Committee.

So what are you going to do now Mr Healey - it is you that highlighted this issue?

To pay for defence we can tax unearned income from investments at the same rate as earned income eg. We can't continue to impoverish eg the million on zero hours contracts so they can't plan their futures or indeed their next month when they don't know if or when they'll get work. If the poorest have more money they spend it and boost the economy. The richest off shore it to avoid tax. Andy Burnham is quite right if we need to protect our country one of the basics is getting a population which is 'fighting fit'. It's not sacrificing the health and well being of millions by further impoverishing them. Indeed the one depends on the other. We learnt that pretty quickly in WW2.

Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have likely already weaponised illegal immigration, but too many people on MN are naive and/or stupid.

I agree totally. We're in a very vulnerable and dangerous position if we don't increase a defence budget.

Yep, Burnham cant do shit - even if he wanted to (he doesnt).

Labour’s game is to pander to their backbench constituents.

Who can we tax to pay benefits to others?

What?

Look at the opinion polls? Please breakout the voters view on welfare.

The homeless problem will be a lot worse if we get attacked. So if course defence comes first.

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.

Nothing else matters if his government can not maintain the security of the nation.

If this flags a plan to restrict defence spending, maybe it won’t be long before another power arrives to cut welfare spending anyway.

It’s up to Labour to deal with how to spend, bring in power as they are. Not sure why Kemi needs to say what to do. It’s up to Healey and Burnham.

I take your point - and the fact is, Labour are going to decide how to fund it, and they’re going to announce that decision and the timetable for getting there at the budget. But from a moral point of view, turning this into a political wedge issue feels wrong. Foreign * *threats outlast election cycles, and so I personally think cross party consensus on defence spending would make our military stronger, more stable and less dependent on the whims of the party of the day.

We're fucked if we can't defend ourselves.

@Moreinthepot I’ve got to say, I’m disappointed in Kemi Badenoch on this one - she seems to be resorting to the worst kind of point scoring on defence spending, when surely if national security is such a priority they should be working cross party to find a consensus on funding.

To be fair, I read on these threads, many relishing John Healey's statement on his resignation. He got expectations high on Defence and he secured the imminent tenure of Burnham.

Now they are in charge.

It was bizarre. They turn had to release a oh we didn’t mean it statement.

They are not. Her personal rating has improved but the party is small and they booted most of their best people under Johnson. The party is stuck on 20%. How does that change?

I marvel at the attempts by posters at reimagining Burnham’s statement. He said what he said. It was plain.

Burnham has clearly realised that there is zero chance of getting meaningful welfare cuts past his own backbenchers. In fairness to them, very few Labour MPs go into politics in order to (as they see it) make poor people poorer. On that basis, they see view the enormous increase in the benefits bill since Covid as a good thing, not a crisis which destroys incentives to work, cripples economic growth & is going to bankrupt the country.

Given that government spending on defence has to rise significantly that means that yet more tax rises are inevitable. Big tax rises.

Can't Labour just decide to fund it? Why do they need a consensus given the size of their majority?

They have just chosen to prioritise benefits for some over defending us all.

I think the Conservatives under Kemi are fairly credible. Assuming she keeps control of her party.

Won't matter if we end up in a war unable to defend ourselves. Defence is the basic duty of the state.

Why do you assume you know what I think?
You said 'it has to stop' - I asked what is your mechanism? Politically speaking - look at the opinion polls.

Cut welfare for all but the needy.

Why do you view defence as secondary?

That’s basically what he said, though, didn’t he? In terms of the one being entirely dependent on the other, I mean.

He is right that strong national security relies on resilient domestic communities. I don’t think any serious economists think defence spending can be funded by welfare cuts alone: really punishing welfare cuts are economically counterproductive because all they do is push the costs elsewhere - into the health or education or policing.

I’ve got to say, I’m disappointed in Kemi Badenoch on this one - she seems to be resorting to the worst kind of point scoring on defence spending, when surely if national security is such a priority they should be working cross party to find a consensus on funding.