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

[Greyrock79]

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

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

Yes it absolutely will, it was a foolish comment to make especially at this point in time and considering what this week is representative of

whoever wrote his speech either doesn't like him or is stupid

He'd obviously been practicing his comments on Gaza and was desperate to perform them even though he hadn't been asked about them. But I think the national security questions were off the cuff and as such revealed his real intentions and views. Unfortunately for us all.

Maybe I wasn't so sure, and he isn't as confident as I thought he would be

Also KB has really come along and has proved that she is able to hold an argument well. He is going to get a harder time from KB and the Tories than what I think he and many in government were expecting. They have to move on from well you were in power for 14 years line

3 more years. Horrifying when we see the damage done in the last 2yrs. Unless you're a train driver of course. They've had a rise of 14-15%.

He's patronising. Not as patronising as KS but he still patronises "her" as he calls KemI Badenoch. Or "she". Just as KS did. Can't bring himself to use the honorifics.

Hes also got a great way of claiming he doesnt like point scoring while point scoring. I think he thinks no one notices. Its quite funny.

But what he said was consistent with what he’s previously said about both defence spending and welfare spending: the government have consistently said both that defence spending will need to go up, and that the welfare bill will need to come down. They’re going to set out their plans for how they achieve that, and why by, in the budget.

Until then, the Prime Minister is right that it isn’t a binary, simplistic choice between the two - the kind of welfare cuts the opposition are talking about just aren’t a realistic way to fund defence, because all they’ll do is push up costs elsewhere. Most serious economists are in agreement on that.

This is a soundbite “gotcha” on the Prime Minister’s wording. But I think what most people in the country really want (from all political parties, TBF) is less ideological point scoring and some pragmatic solutions to the actual situation we’re in.

That is rubbish. He called her "the Honourable Lady" several times during PMQs on Tuesday.

Listen to him. Hes not as bad as KS. But hes still not good on his feet as Kemi. Unsurprising as he hasnt been in Parliament for years so maybe he will improve.

That is true. Labour say we don’t want point scoring and then do it anyway.

I think the reason it has horrified a large part of the population interested in politics (so I include many on here) is that it is such a stupid thing to say if the first duty of government is national security. AB is saying we can only have national security if it doesnt come at the expense of social security. Thats his bottom line. When his actual legal duty is to only have social security if it doesnt come at the expense of national security.

Quite

The subject of defence is not boring. OP's half-baked and shallow as a puddle opinions about defence are boring. Which is not to say she doesn't have the same right as any tedious idiot in this country to share them.

I do know what you mean, and I think it’s a real flaw in our politics, that even in the design of the benches it’s designed to be so combative.

But even away from the theatre of PMQs, I think Kemi Badenoch is resistant to the idea of consensus building, in a way I just don’t think Andy Burnham is. Like even over the invitation to work across cross party lines over social care, she straight away set out red lines and conditions that would make genuine debate and compromise difficult.

Whilst this is just an insult that adds nowt.

AB is saying we can only have national security if it doesnt come at the expense of social security. Thats his bottom line.

It’s not even the top line. That’s not what he said at all.

The trouble is he did. "National security can't come at the expense of social security"

We can all waffle on and try and extrapolate his real meaning all we like. But unless you are arguing we shouldn't believe he means what he says, then we need to take him at his word. Unfortunately for us.

The operative word is "can't " btw....

I do hear what you’re saying, but equally - a large part of the population who are interested in politics (also including many on here) heard what the Prime Minister said and were not horrified by it, because a lot of people agree with Andy Burnham that national security and social security depend on each other. A weak and divided society brings its own massive security risks: if a society is hollowed-out by high poverty and homelessness, then it is inherently fragile and insecure.

On top of that, the opposition don’t actually have an economically viable plan to fund defence themselves - the welfare cuts they’re talking about just won’t provide the amount of money we need for defence spending, because they’ll end up pushing up costs elsewhere.

That’s why I do think we need much more pragmatism and consensus building (from all sides) on this - like in Norway, for example.

Your version

we can only have national security if it doesnt come at the expense of social security

And his version

National security can't come at the expense of social security

are different statements.

We clearly do have some form of national security (imperfect as it may be) and social security.

So you saying we can’t have national security or can only have one or the other makes no sense.

At least Streetings fighting back. Maybe laying the groundwork for when the PLP tire of their new plaything.

I get your point we need a stable society. But weve spent the peace dividend on social security and look at the country.

If war was declared next week the bottom line wouldn't be whether the triple lock was still.in place. It would be do we have enough guns and ammunition. And people who know how to shoot. And what Ab said was we can't (can't being the operative word) have those guns if it was at the expense of social security.

Stop cutting off the first part of the quote, it makes you look dishonest.

The full quote is: "Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security."

He isn't saying he's going to prioritise social security over national security. He's saying that the national security budget increase - an increase he has committed to on multiple occasions - isn't going to be funded by crude cuts to social security.

We don't even need to try and 'extrapolate meaning' - it's there in black and white. Spending on national security is going to increase. That increase won't be funded by cuts to social security.

Look at the word "cant"

If we "can't " have national security at the expense of social security this means we can only have national security if it isnt at the expense of social security. Therefore if national security is at the expense of social security, social security has priority.

And yes of course its a stupid thing for AB to say.

In view of what you wrote above. I would be interested to know why you think John Healey said this:

I am certain that a headmark date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set. This commitment would have strong cross-party support.’

You can try and make what he said look better all you like. But I did do comprehension in Form 1. And the first part of the quote doesn't change the ultimate logical meaning of his sentence

He's not having we can't have national security. Because we already do have it (to the extent possible with the budget available).

So your point makes no sense.