Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think Burnham’s words may haunt his premiership?

799 replies

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 07:16

To think that Burnham’s words are going to haunt his premiership?

‘…national security can’t come at the expense of social security…’

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
EasternStandard · 10/09/2026 10:16

LancashireButterPie · 10/09/2026 10:09

Yes, Pay more to NATO, when the largest and most powerful member of NATO threatened to invade another NATO nation.....make it make sense?

We could put ourselves into poverty and we still couldn't fight back against the US.
A couple of well aimed nuclear missiles and it would be over for our tiny nation in a flash.

Meanwhile the UK is a mess, we focus on a few boat loads of asylum seekers or fret that someone is recieving more PIP than they might be entitled to. It's now accepted that we have to wait 8 hours in A and E or 3 hours for an emergency ambulance.
Our waterways are polluted with sewage and despite having adequate annual rainfall we can't cope with drought. We do not produce enough food to feed our own population, so we have to rely on imports and despite being rich in natural resources we still have to import energy.
Defence of our nation should start with sorting out the above.

But hey we have a wonderful shiny aircraft carrier....that would last all of 20 mins if the US took against us.

How much defence budget do you want? Half? Less?

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:18

Pennyfan · 10/09/2026 09:46

I’d have more sympathy with you if you weren’t using the criminal Netanyahu as arbiter. That man has done more damage to his own Jews than even the man who assassinated Rabin.

Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean his comments aren’t accurate.

OP posts:
Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:19

nomas · 10/09/2026 10:08

Rokos is of Greek descent and Google tells me Greece offers a special regime under which qualifying wealthy foreign residents can pay a flat annual tax of €100,000 on foreign income, potentially for up to 15 years.

So it's likely Rokos would have moved even if Tories were in power.

Your last sentence is plain wrong.

And how do you explain the other capital flight?

OP posts:
Tryagain26 · 10/09/2026 10:20

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 07:16

To think that Burnham’s words are going to haunt his premiership?

‘…national security can’t come at the expense of social security…’

It sounds like a very reasonable statement.
Everyone has assumed social security means social benefits and jumped on thw band waggon but it's doesn't mean that! It means the security of society.
He is right.

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:21

Tryagain26 · 10/09/2026 10:20

It sounds like a very reasonable statement.
Everyone has assumed social security means social benefits and jumped on thw band waggon but it's doesn't mean that! It means the security of society.
He is right.

10 year gilt yields tell a different story.

Perhaps the bond markets dont matter?

OP posts:
luckylavender · 10/09/2026 10:22

EasternStandard · 10/09/2026 09:55

The same posters said that about Starmer. And then ousted.

Edited

😏

SevenYellowHammers · 10/09/2026 10:22

Pineneedlesincarpet · 10/09/2026 09:51

A few things happend in those years. The natural state of the world is one of war. We jist had a relatively peaceful time post Ww2 due to the balance of two superpowers, the cold war and the invention of nukes. Now the balance has gone and we have nuclear proliferation. The world is significantly more unstable.

Nukes didn’t stop 9/11 or 7/7 or the Falklands. The opposite in fact, countries that can’t fight nuclear powers go for civilian targets. What was different and good post ww2 was the understanding that public spending was needed to put us back on our feet. Churchill himself said that change was needed. Unfortunately, we’ve been allowed to go back to 1930s.

Binnyforthewin · 10/09/2026 10:23

Tryagain26 · 10/09/2026 10:20

It sounds like a very reasonable statement.
Everyone has assumed social security means social benefits and jumped on thw band waggon but it's doesn't mean that! It means the security of society.
He is right.

Er that isn't what social security means.

EasternStandard · 10/09/2026 10:23

luckylavender · 10/09/2026 10:22

😏

Emojis didn’t help him either. Tg.

nomas · 10/09/2026 10:24

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:19

Your last sentence is plain wrong.

And how do you explain the other capital flight?

Edited

Rokos will go from paying £330m tax pa in the UK to paying £100,000 pa in tax in Greece for 15 years,

BoJo and Kemi wouldn't have been able to offer him that either to get him to stay.

Which other capital flight?

5128gap · 10/09/2026 10:26

Pluto46 · 10/09/2026 09:08

You mean like the left constantly quoting, even to this day, Margaret Thatcher's no such thing as society sound-bite totally out of context ?

No, nothing like that at all. The Thatcher quote is an extremely interesting one, worthy of reflection and debate. It's interesting from a historical, philosophical and sociological perspective.
The Burnham quote is a PM saying what many of us would think to be rather obvious. That we shouldn't fund defence at the expense of welfare. The defence versus welfare debate has gone on for decades. I remember it distinctly in the 80s.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 10/09/2026 10:27

SevenYellowHammers · 10/09/2026 10:22

Nukes didn’t stop 9/11 or 7/7 or the Falklands. The opposite in fact, countries that can’t fight nuclear powers go for civilian targets. What was different and good post ww2 was the understanding that public spending was needed to put us back on our feet. Churchill himself said that change was needed. Unfortunately, we’ve been allowed to go back to 1930s.

9/11 was still effectively localised. It wasn't a world war. Same with the Falklands and tne terrorist attacks. The UK hasn't been invaded.

Swiftie1878 · 10/09/2026 10:29

Meadowfinch · 10/09/2026 09:25

Chamberlain had admirable intentions. It didn't make him a good leader.

And I’m not saying he will be - the jury is still out - but he isn’t the cynical vote seeker that was being suggested.

EasternStandard · 10/09/2026 10:29

5128gap · 10/09/2026 10:26

No, nothing like that at all. The Thatcher quote is an extremely interesting one, worthy of reflection and debate. It's interesting from a historical, philosophical and sociological perspective.
The Burnham quote is a PM saying what many of us would think to be rather obvious. That we shouldn't fund defence at the expense of welfare. The defence versus welfare debate has gone on for decades. I remember it distinctly in the 80s.

It’s probably not as weighty nor has the gravitas of Thatcher but it promotes discussion on what’s important.

Defence v benefits is an issue, as risks accumulate.

And the pp is right on that quote being misused.

Dragonscaledaisy · 10/09/2026 10:30

Whenthecriwdsayno · 10/09/2026 07:45

People, and the press, shouldn’t have been calling for Starmer to resign every two weeks.

He needed to be got rid off. The issue is that the Labour party is full of low calibre people.

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:30

nomas · 10/09/2026 10:24

Rokos will go from paying £330m tax pa in the UK to paying £100,000 pa in tax in Greece for 15 years,

BoJo and Kemi wouldn't have been able to offer him that either to get him to stay.

Which other capital flight?

Edited

Yes, that’s correct re the Greek tax regime.

Mittal, Fredriksen, Platt and others have all left - all billionaires.

Then we can get into the UHNW and HNW etc.

OP posts:
Xanhi · 10/09/2026 10:31

SevenYellowHammers · 10/09/2026 10:11

The Labour party generally aren't that popular in the UK. That is why they haven't been in power as much as the Conservatives.

majority of British media is right wing. When Labour was “popular” is was because Blair sucked up to Murdoch

Blair inherited a strong economy with low interest rates and low inflation. That wouldn't have hurt. Once the the economy took a down turn, Labour were voted out again.

For whatever reason, historically Labour has been less popular.

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2026 10:32

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 09:32

For goodness sake.

With defence the aim is to address the day-to-day threats - to make it unpalatable for an adversary.

A full scale ‘invasion’ by China would provoke an Article 5 NATO response.

You need to distinguish between strategic and tactical risks.

I think there's a need here to understand how defence strategy has changed in the last two weeks.

The modern methods of warfare have changed with the Ukraine - Russia war.

The US model has been to spend big and have bigger bombs. This is being shown up by Iran as not being as effective as it was in the past with Iraq.

Afghanistan proved that the US couldnt win a war with ground troops due to the loss of soldiers being unacceptable to domestic politics interests.

The big bombs of the past aren't enough either. Iran planned strategically for years for this. They understood that they needed to create small military units that could function independently and we're not centralised.

We are also seeing a shift in strategic targets. Oil is the key here. Iran can survive an oil and price crisis better than the US because the public expectation is so much lower plus their economy was built around sanctions so it's localised and simple. The US economy has massive supply chains and complex logistics.

And drones. Drones are cheap compared to missiles. They are easier to construct. And they cause chaos.

The nuclear deterrent and the threat of missiles doesn't hold the same power. Using a nuke isn't really viable or if it is used it's self defeating.

The point is the fear of US military might is disappearing.

Worse, EU reliance on the support of the US military to protect them is evaporating because it's clear the US are already over stretched and don't have the stockpile to carry on a long war. And we don't have a strategy to protect against drones.

It's dawning that logistics and supply chains are the west's Achilles Heal. We are vulnerable to supply shock and our population has high demands for quality of life. We are highly dependent on technology and energy.

China and Russia will be watching this - they know that NATOs capacity to defend an article 5 violation is limited. Russia has been carrying out sabotage in Germany and the government has done very little - it's targeted airports and power stations. So far unsuccessfully. Politically getting NATO members to actually act is possibly going to be harder than it should be because everyone is so scared to actually act. Poland is recognising this and it's defensive strategy is now to say they will go it alone if they have to. Norway, Finland and Sweden are having a joint conversation on how much they can rely on others - they don't believe they will get the support they should if the moment comes.

The UK and France are talking to each other about defensive strategy in a way I haven't seen. The Macron / Burnham meeting was eye-opening. It's clear they are trying to put together something because they know they can't rely on the US.

Asymmetric warfare is what the British special forces excelled at. We aren't the best at it anymore.

Economically we are exposed. Our equipment is becoming essentially obsolete for warfare in 2026. Why would China need to use bombs when it could squeeze us through technology and economics. That's precisely the point of hybrid warfare.

Politically we are exposed. And militarily our defence partner is over stretched already.

If China wanted to take Taiwan tomorrow, there would be little the US could do effectively.

A lot of people are worried about WWIII. Others are saying it's already started, we just don't realise it yet. I don't know where I stand with this but I think we have a massive problem here and I think European Governments are starting to wake up to this new reality that frankly they are going to have to work their own shit out, without relying on the US and to be wary of even their European partners commitment to them.

In the midst of this you have the UK-Ukraine relationship. This isn't insignificant. It's about trying to hold UK and EU political defensive strategy together. They fight so we don't have to. Russia understands the logic in this too. This may change if Russia thinks that strategic sabotage might draw cracks and force domestic opinion to start to oppose support for Ukraine.

But yeah. Fear of NATO, of the US military and western economic power has disappeared and is now potentially a massive weakness that others can see ways to exploit.

That's why there's a drive to build up defence and recalling vets. Why we are being told to have supplies. Not necessarily because there's a clear threat. But because we aren't as protected as we were and because there needs to be a major overhaul in what our strategy actually is.

If I were China I'd be letting everyone else self implode precisely so I had to do fuck all but wait and then use economics and technology.

LancashireButterPie · 10/09/2026 10:33

I would support a government review into defence and the effectiveness of spending £7.6 billion on two warships, that are basically sitting ducks. Goodness knows what the running costs are.
Call me cynical but what a massive bloody vanity project they are. Boys toys.
I'm not sure they will save us from US aggression in the (unlikely??) event that the US decided they wanted to add us as another US state.

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:34

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2026 10:32

I think there's a need here to understand how defence strategy has changed in the last two weeks.

The modern methods of warfare have changed with the Ukraine - Russia war.

The US model has been to spend big and have bigger bombs. This is being shown up by Iran as not being as effective as it was in the past with Iraq.

Afghanistan proved that the US couldnt win a war with ground troops due to the loss of soldiers being unacceptable to domestic politics interests.

The big bombs of the past aren't enough either. Iran planned strategically for years for this. They understood that they needed to create small military units that could function independently and we're not centralised.

We are also seeing a shift in strategic targets. Oil is the key here. Iran can survive an oil and price crisis better than the US because the public expectation is so much lower plus their economy was built around sanctions so it's localised and simple. The US economy has massive supply chains and complex logistics.

And drones. Drones are cheap compared to missiles. They are easier to construct. And they cause chaos.

The nuclear deterrent and the threat of missiles doesn't hold the same power. Using a nuke isn't really viable or if it is used it's self defeating.

The point is the fear of US military might is disappearing.

Worse, EU reliance on the support of the US military to protect them is evaporating because it's clear the US are already over stretched and don't have the stockpile to carry on a long war. And we don't have a strategy to protect against drones.

It's dawning that logistics and supply chains are the west's Achilles Heal. We are vulnerable to supply shock and our population has high demands for quality of life. We are highly dependent on technology and energy.

China and Russia will be watching this - they know that NATOs capacity to defend an article 5 violation is limited. Russia has been carrying out sabotage in Germany and the government has done very little - it's targeted airports and power stations. So far unsuccessfully. Politically getting NATO members to actually act is possibly going to be harder than it should be because everyone is so scared to actually act. Poland is recognising this and it's defensive strategy is now to say they will go it alone if they have to. Norway, Finland and Sweden are having a joint conversation on how much they can rely on others - they don't believe they will get the support they should if the moment comes.

The UK and France are talking to each other about defensive strategy in a way I haven't seen. The Macron / Burnham meeting was eye-opening. It's clear they are trying to put together something because they know they can't rely on the US.

Asymmetric warfare is what the British special forces excelled at. We aren't the best at it anymore.

Economically we are exposed. Our equipment is becoming essentially obsolete for warfare in 2026. Why would China need to use bombs when it could squeeze us through technology and economics. That's precisely the point of hybrid warfare.

Politically we are exposed. And militarily our defence partner is over stretched already.

If China wanted to take Taiwan tomorrow, there would be little the US could do effectively.

A lot of people are worried about WWIII. Others are saying it's already started, we just don't realise it yet. I don't know where I stand with this but I think we have a massive problem here and I think European Governments are starting to wake up to this new reality that frankly they are going to have to work their own shit out, without relying on the US and to be wary of even their European partners commitment to them.

In the midst of this you have the UK-Ukraine relationship. This isn't insignificant. It's about trying to hold UK and EU political defensive strategy together. They fight so we don't have to. Russia understands the logic in this too. This may change if Russia thinks that strategic sabotage might draw cracks and force domestic opinion to start to oppose support for Ukraine.

But yeah. Fear of NATO, of the US military and western economic power has disappeared and is now potentially a massive weakness that others can see ways to exploit.

That's why there's a drive to build up defence and recalling vets. Why we are being told to have supplies. Not necessarily because there's a clear threat. But because we aren't as protected as we were and because there needs to be a major overhaul in what our strategy actually is.

If I were China I'd be letting everyone else self implode precisely so I had to do fuck all but wait and then use economics and technology.

Sorry, and your conclusion vis-a-vis the UK defence budget is therefore what, precisely?

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 10/09/2026 10:35

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:21

10 year gilt yields tell a different story.

Perhaps the bond markets dont matter?

I think we might all be experts on the bond markets soon.

Every decision Burnham makes is going to come back to this.

It's not been a good week and everything suggests it's going to get worse.

Pluto46 · 10/09/2026 10:35

5128gap · 10/09/2026 10:26

No, nothing like that at all. The Thatcher quote is an extremely interesting one, worthy of reflection and debate. It's interesting from a historical, philosophical and sociological perspective.
The Burnham quote is a PM saying what many of us would think to be rather obvious. That we shouldn't fund defence at the expense of welfare. The defence versus welfare debate has gone on for decades. I remember it distinctly in the 80s.

Re Thatcher's interview - pretty insightful isn't it...shame more people don't reflect on it

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2026 10:35

Greyrock79 · 10/09/2026 10:34

Sorry, and your conclusion vis-a-vis the UK defence budget is therefore what, precisely?

We are fucked?!

MargoLivebetter · 10/09/2026 10:35

@RedToothBrush lots of good points there. Suspect it will be completely wasted on the one line slogan swappers!

RedToothBrush · 10/09/2026 10:37

Honestly. It's got fuck all to do with what Burnham does. He's pretty screwed no matter what he decides because forces are already in motion which means we are in a complete mess. We only have shit choices available to us.

Swipe left for the next trending thread