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

If people can't pay their rent, they will become homeless as will their children. It costs a lot of money to provide temporary accommodation, more than would be saved.

If people who provide for themselves and aren't entitled to benefits can't pay their rent, they move further, to less desirable areas, to smaller properties, commute longer to their workplaces and basically suck it up. No matter how much they like the areas they used to live in and what support network they have.

I strongly believe that housing support should only be paid to those who work within 1h commute in the area (this is average commute time for London, adjust accordingly for other regions). If members of household don't work, they should be moved to much cheaper area full stop. Kids can be schooled everywhere in the country so not an excuse.

This would save much more than 4bn I think.

His job as PM of this country is to put National Security first. What he actually said was ‘national security can’t come at the expense of social security’ Repeating the need for defence? You are joking right? We are in NATO and that is what we agreed to pay? HB is a total irrelevance.

‘Safety net.’ Those days are long gone. Our welfare system is being rinsed by a large portion of fraudsters, grifters and chancers - much like all the benefit fraud they are finding in America and Australia. I cannot wait for the independent journalists to start digging about to see where most of this benefit money is going. My first instinct will be abroad.

Can you share a link please?

ETA: are you sure you don't confuse the debt (about 2.9tn) with annual interest payments (about 111bn)?

£100bn under Labour compared to the £2.75 trillion of the Tories? The interest on the Tories debt amounts to more.

What he said is entirely factually accurate as I've tried to explain to you.
You can repeat as many times as you like that defence is the top priority. Doesn't change the fact that taking money from HB to fund it won't result in the problems the PM outlined.
Do you understand that repeating the need for defence spend isn't actually a counter argument to Burnham's view that we shouldn't take the money from HB? Did Badenoch indicate she understood what argument she needed to counter?

AB didn’t say social security was his first priority.

Labour increased borrowing in their first budget.

Starmer did try as this post does to blame others for two years, it didn’t wash and he was ousted.

The first duty of any Government is National Security. What he said is not perfectly accurate at all. It is irrelevant what you say about housing benefit. National Security should be his first priority not social security.

I really don't see why the right wing media and politicians have turned this into a binary choice in the first place.

Burnham simply said defence funding should not come at the expense of the welfare safety net.

He has never said that defence was not a priority or that he was not going to fund it properly.

There are many ways to make savings and increase government revenue that don't involve making people who are sick, disabled or unemployed destitute.

Personally I want to see the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fair share of tax and in term of welfare I want to see the state pension being means tested and not paid to pensioners who already have big private pensions and/or personal wealth.

We haven’t really discussed public debt which is high as a result of the Tories decisions.

Taxing and spending by itself doesn’t drive up public debt, borrowing does.

lol. Most of the G in GDP is government spending on public goods and services, like infrastructure, education, defence, health system, social welfare including the salaries of all government employees. But a good chunk of the G isn’t on day to day operating costs, quite a bit is spent on research & development. These are often contracts for start up UK businesses on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. The £20bn/yr spent here is an investment by the government that absolutely results in growth. Many businesses could not have succeeded or generated any wealth without such government investment. The funds for this investment comes from taxes.

So, you can spend wealth to create more wealth. That’s what an investment is- spending with the expectation of a return.

Governments also create jobs- 18% of jobs in the UK are public sector. No business contributes more to job creation. Which then means a stronger C in GDP.

The economy as measured by GDP is a balancing act and there are ways to cheat the calculations.

Love the detail but all the it’s ok to tax, borrow and spend is pushing up debt servicing costs.

Less to spend on public services.

Exactly, consumer spending is the C in GDP. We can’t have a strong economy if no one can afford to spend their wages or their wages stagnate.

Exactly right, the G (government investment) part of GDP is just as important as the I and NX. GDP as a measure of economic health is not a measure of private wealth generated for good reason.

Of course the GDP calculation as the accepted international measure for a nation’s economy has its own shortfalls, but that’s a conversation for another thread.

Didn't he give millions/billions in contracts to Indian companies?

The private sector drives the growth of private wealth.

However, supporting businesses doesn’t necessarily drive a strong economy or a high GDP. It can actually cause a drop in GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + NX

The contribution of private businesses to GDP is I and NX

If you prioritise I such that C or G drop too far, your GDP goes down. Example, slashing taxes on businesses might increase I, but it will definitely decrease G. Maybe it will balance out, or increase GDP or maybe not. Helping businesses doesn’t always help the economy. It depends on the knock on effects on the other components of GDP.

I have simply said that pro business is not the same as pro growth or pro strong economy. I’ve said strengthening the economy is more complex than simply helping businesses make more profit. That view point is under trickle down economics which has been disproved by the data.

Actually that was me. Paying our fair share towards common defence isn’t a penalty ffs.

Is he? That quote seems to me a perfectly accurate and reasonable response to a suggestion of cutting HB. If people can't pay their rent, they will become homeless as will their children. It costs a lot of money to provide temporary accommodation, more than would be saved. Plus landlords who rely on this tax payer subsidy won't be delighted by it either.
What was Badenoch's response? Did she offer a compelling counter argument that explained why Burnham was wrong to say this about HB? Or was it in fact her who is out of her depth when options were explored beyond her repetition of 'cut welfare'?

The Nordic model is a free market capitalism?

Andy Burnham did the whole country a favour at yesterday's PMQs. He finally said the quiet part out loud. For our new Prime Minister, social security (aka welfare) comes above Britain's national security.

Since becoming Conservative leader, I have warned repeatedly that the Labour Party has become the Welfare Party. Keir Starmer had already taken them a long way down that road, but Burnham isn't changing direction. If anything, he is dragging Labour further to the Left as he chases voters who have drifted to the Green Party.

The first duty of every government is the defence of the country, not paying more benefits.

Labour have forgotten that government involves choices. Andy Burnham wants to spend more and more on welfare, while acting as if somebody else can pick up the bill for our national security.

Labour's own Welfare Secretary, Pat McFadden, admitted in private WhatsApp messages leaked this summer that 'every' conversation he has with Labour MPs begins: 'Who can we tax to spend more on benefits?'

That is not an economic strategy. It is an addiction to spending other people's money. And, as with any addiction, eventually you cannot get enough of other people's money.

Labour is running out of money quickly. Just this week, Britain's third biggest taxpayer, Chris Rokos, announced he was leaving the country, taking his £330million a year in taxes with him. That's the equivalent of more than 38,000 average UK taxpayers.

Entrepreneurs such as Rokos who started businesses, took risks, mortgaged their homes and created jobs, are deciding Britain is no longer worth the trouble.

We should care about that, not because wealthy people deserve special treatment, but because Britain needs people who create businesses, employ others and pay taxes here. Before government can redistribute wealth, somebody has to create it.

The same basic truth applies to welfare. Conservatives will always support a strong safety net for those who genuinely need it. But we oppose a system that allows people who should be working to choose not to, while expecting those who do work to pay ever more to support that system. It's a simple question of fairness.

Welfare reform and funding our nation's defence properly must not be treated as unrelated concerns. They are about what kind of country we want to live in.

It's why, unlike Labour, I do have a plan to get defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030. It means reinstating the two-child benefit cap, because people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as those who aren't.

It means cutting housing allowance, because poorer taxpayers shouldn't pay for people on housing benefits to live in areas they could never afford. It means removing the tax exemptions for the Motability leasing scheme, because that scheme is being abused by people who don't need the Government to pay for their car.

These plans are fully costed, proportionate and based on fairness. We are doing the hard work required to turn promises into policies that can actually be delivered.

Reform might claim they have plans, but they are too mired in scandal and fighting each other to deliver anything.

I understand why some voters might hear that and point to our record in government. The Conservatives made mistakes – saying otherwise would be ridiculous. But I am the leader of the Conservative Party now, and I will take the difficult decisions, even when people tell me they are politically inconvenient.

Britain cannot keep taxing the people who create wealth to fund an ever-larger welfare state, while neglecting the Armed Forces that keep us safe.

The choice for voters now is between a Labour Party that wants to pour more and more of your money into benefits, and a Conservative Party determined to restore our national security.

A government has many responsibilities. But before it can promise everything else, it must protect the country.

For me, national security always comes first.

Kemi is BANG ON.

Mrs Badenoch told the BBC’s Today programme on Thursday: “We have a problem in this country – we are addicted to welfare.
“We spend more on it than education and defence combined. That is obscene and we need to turn things round.”

Real world consequences, people.

John Lewis has fallen to its worst loss since the pandemic as the department store chain took a hit from Labour’s National Insurance tax raid.
The retailer, which also owns Waitrose supermarkets, reported a loss before tax of £124m in the first half of the year, compared with £88m a year earlier.
John Lewis blamed a rise in operating costs after Labour’s increase to employers’ National Insurance contributions.

You’ve missed the legislation that was passed.

It is doable as it is in Australia. If we ever got it together we’d be the same and never vote it out. No party would run on bringing back deaths at sea.