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…’

I really do get your point too. But fundamentally I suppose my own personal stance would be:

“Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security - because the two are completely inter-dependant and we need to find a pragmatic, long term way to adequately afford both”.

Which I do think does broadly align with what the Prime Minister said.

So, in terms of the initial question of whether those words will haunt his premiership, I think not because I think quite a lot of the public are broadly aligned with his thinking - or at least see the nuance and pragmatism behind it. And also because at the moment, the opposition aren’t offering a credible alternative.

How are China invade us (as if they'd want to) when we're on the opposite side of the world and they don't have the abilty to project power? Use your head!

As for the US, Trump might be an idiot, but trying to annex the UK is the sort of thing that would finally get the useless bunch in Congress to impeach and convict. How's that Iran war going?

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

If national security IS at the expense of social security we cannot have that situation. That's where the word "can't" used by AB is relevant.

Therefore, if its a choice between funding for social security or national security, social security takes precendence as national security cannot be funded by cuts (at the expense of) to social security. This presumably applies to any future funding needs too. Defence spending cannot come at "at the expense" of any social security spending AB decides is needed.

Thats the meaning of his words.

The unfortunate meaning of his words and the impression he has given is that he thinks social security spending takes precedence over national security spending. He clearly does think that. Its a view of course. He can argue it and we will see from the Budget whether he believes it.

If I said to you, I'm not going to give my daughter a good meal at the expense of starving my son, would you think I was prioritising feeding my son? Or might I be simply saying that I wasn't going to give my daughter all the food in the house while my son has nothing, and would instead look for ways to feed them both?

Have you seen the size of the Chinese army and navy. They can do anything they want to.

"National security" is something we either have or we don't have. We are either secure or insecure. The military etc say we are insecure and need to increase spending.

If its "im not going to give a meal at the expense of my extremely well fed son to my daughter to keep her alive" would you change your mind? What if you had to chose between the two if you couldn't feed both? Son or daughter? Luckily if AB had to chose, the law requires him to chose national security over social security as the first duty of government is national security. It looks like he is going to find out the hard way along with the rest of us if he leaves the country open to attack and an attack happens (which it is already).

He paid £330m tax last year. He paid himself £477m.

They don’t because it’s hard. I find it incredibly complex.

People like easy answers so they can join a side. This is why the Farages, Trumps and Reagans get votes. And to an extent Corbyn (for the many not the few, nice easy slogan).

Starmer would stand there and try to explain the difficulties and everyone hated that.

To return to your point, there’s no easy understanding or solution. People seem to miss that the person to blame, if we need one, is Hitler.

The enormity of the holocaust hangs there. Jewish people must be terrified. They had no where to go then. They do now. Us condemning Israel must seem horrific.

But the situation in Gaza? Also horrific and playing out in real time before our eyes.

Where is the UN in all this?

Firstly, I think John Healey wrote that because what you say as Defence Secretary, and the realities you face as Chancellor are different. Secondly, I think he said it because it is correct: the aspiration to meet the 3% target is shared across the house. The question is how you pay for it - and as Chancellor he can see that right now, the public finances simply cannot absorb it without causing social harm. I also think some of the point-scoring accusations of hypocrisy from the opposition towards John Healey do sort of prove the point that Kemi Badenoch is just not a consensus building politician. Real consensus requires balancing competing national interests, not just screaming for a single number, on an arbitrary timetable.

Healey resigned when Starmer would only commit to 2.68% by 2030 so I expect we'll see something more aggressive than that with him as Chancellor

Well, yes. You would have thought so. It is disingenuous to suppose, with his dealings with Trump, that Starmer would not have declared more if he could realistically have committed to it.

So Healey and Burnham must have a way of raising this extra to get to the 3.00%. There must be a good plan if it was worth bringing down a PM?

China or any other major power wouldn't physically invade the UK as you say. It's more likely to operate a war in the grey zone where they finance various groups to destabilise the country through misinformation and terrorist attacks.

Once the country is in chaos they then finance and support a change of government to one that is favourable to China.

Look at how Russia took control of Crimea, it's a really good example of grey zone warfare.

Lovely interview with him at lunch on TMS yesterday

In theory, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but the thing is at the moment I don’t think the opposition have a viable plan to adequately fund defence spending either.

At least the Prime Minister is being honest about the genuine difficulties of balancing competing priorities.

Thanks for your answer - which falls into 2 parts for me.

Firstly, I think John Healey wrote that because what you say as Defence Secretary, and the realities you face as Chancellor are different. Secondly, I think he said it because it is correct: the aspiration to meet the 3% target is shared across the house. The question is how you pay for it - and as Chancellor he can see that right now, the public finances simply cannot absorb it without causing social harm.

Yes. And amidst the crowing with delight when he flounced off. I welcomed the opinion of someone within his Ministry of Defence - Healey had been very unrealistic.

I also think some of the point-scoring accusations of hypocrisy from the opposition towards John Healey do sort of prove the point that Kemi Badenoch is just not a consensus building politician. Real consensus requires balancing competing national interests, not just screaming for a single number, on an arbitrary timetable.

On the contrary I do not think Badenoch would be doing her job if she did not call this out. Healey did scream for a single number, on an arbitrary timetable. His subsequent promotion to the very position that could fulfil his principles rather makes the accusations of hypocrisy very pertinent.

Did you read anything other than the headline?

Became what he expressly said is "This side of the House will not be forced to choose between the two and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review."

He isn't saying 'it's a choice between national security and social security and I'm picking social security'. He is saying 'funding for national security will come from somewhere other than cuts to social security, and the details of that will be in the spending review'.

It's not 'national security can't be at the expense of social security, therefore we aren't having national security'. It's 'national security can't be at the expense of social security, but it can be at the expense of something else.'

He might have to, or someone not him instead, there’s not a lot to get from the other things you listed.

Chris Rokos wasn’t born rich. He came from a very normal family but just happened to be extremely gifted at Maths etc. So Eton offered him a fully funded place under their outreach program.

What do you mean by ‘held hostage’. He hasn’t asked anything of this government.

But equally, it can’t be funded by cuts alone, and certainly not only by cutting benefits.

So, once we strip the ideology back, at the moment no political party has a solution yet.

At least the Prime Minister is being a bit less simplistic about it.

Yes fair enough. But the opposition aren't in government and don't have the power to make the decisions.

I think as tbe resignation of the Defence Secretary was pivotal in ensuring AB became PM you'ld have thought he would have a plan to hand rather than kicking the can down the road. But there we go.

He’s being incredibly simplistic. He says nothing in that quote, it’s just a line to placate not answer.

It probably will involve cuts.

We could go round in circles. I did watch the whole of PMQs. The impression I along with many people is that if it came down to a choice between social security and national security (and he will be forced to chose Im afraid, given theres no money) AB would chose social security. This is because he used the word "can't". That's the meaning of his words. Sorry. I know its scary for everyone even if they don't realise yet.

We will see what choices he makes in tbe Budget.

I do completely take that point. I guess my own personal hope is that in the budget itself the government might be more ambitious on defence spending than they’ve so far committed to.

But fundamentally, I do think the Prime Minister’s central proposition that national
security and social security are interdependent is right.

"National security" is something we either have or we don't have. We are either secure or insecure. The military etc say we are insecure and need to increase spending.

It's not true though, we have national security, at the cost of £62 billion pa.

It might not get us all the security we want, but if you you think we don't have any national security, you might as well advocate for that £62b to spent on social security. Is that what you're saying?