Page 28 | AIBU to think Burnham’s words may haunt his premiership?

Greyrock79 · 2026-09-10T06:16:41+00:00

To think that Burnham’s words are going to haunt his premiership? *^‘…national security can’t come at the expense of social security…’^*

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 12:58

5128gap · 11/09/2026 07:22

Can you give examples of this vilification please? And the encouragement of judgement of hard working people with reduced dependency on the state? Because I'm a hard working WC person with minimal state dependency and I've not seen this at all.
What I have seen is vilification of people on benefits, disabled people, parents of disabled children, anyone who isn't screaming 'stop the boats' accused of wanting women and girls to be unsafe, anyone who is left wing stereotyped as a TRA, dangerous fool.
The demonisation of Islam so that my Muslim friends are now frightened.
I've seen masked men terrorising volunteers who risk their lives to save lives. I've seen rioting and arson in working people's communities. I've seen people hit a protester with a walking stick while a party leader laughs.
I've seen a former nazi recruited into a major political party and when the Jewish woman he terrorised objected, the party leader doubling down and developing a sudden belief in 'rehabilitation'.
You're right, this is a deeply divided country and the divisions are showing themselves in more extreme ways than I've ever experienced before. But this government in their comparatively short term in office are not the ones who laid the foundations for this. Nor are they responsible for the behaviour I've listed.
If you can explain to me what you're thinking of that this government have said or done that to prove otherwise, then I'm happy to consider it.

Show quote history

Asset hoarders

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

Broad shoulders

Paying your fair share

Buying life chances

Tuition fees.

Disproportionate benefit

Buy advantate

Property is undertaxed

I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers. Feel free to respond to that that offer whataboutery. Labour have been both explicit and implicit in the way they have divided people into groups. "Builders and blockers", those who need to "pay their fair share" versus the "vulnerable", and "ordinary working people" all create divisions between groups and invite judgements about who is deserving, who isn't, and who should pay for whom. You can see from thread after thread that many have bought into this rhetoric. You have people implying there is something unnatural or selfish about wanting to own a home rather than rent. Germany, an outlier for its low level of homeownership, is held up as the bar/evidence that renting should somehow be regarded as the norm. Homeownership is substantially higher across most of Europe, 90%+ in some countries. You'll own nothing and be happy? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'm personally not interested in a race to the bottom. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own their home, have some saving of assets and become financially secure should be something we aspire to, not something we treat with contempt. I am here for what creates equality of opportunity.

Even the Treasury's focus is on protecting earners below c. £45k. If that's "ordinary", what does that say about an ordinary employee earning £50,000 or £60,000? Are they really no longer an ordinary working person but broad shouldered with lots of extra capacity? Do they really need to be told to pay their fair share? These and the ordinary people earning more than them are the people who are funding, or have spent their working lives funding, the system. Judge and shame is a fair exchange for their taxes?

Any attempt to question how efficiently taxes are being spent, whether the system is sustainable, or whether taxpayers are getting value for money is derailed by accusations that people simply want to punish the disabled, carers or those genuinely unable to work. Whataboutery 101. You can absolutely support a strong safety net for people who genuinely need it and expect proper scrutiny over how taxpayers' money is spent. If we want that safety net to remain and to be sustainable, we should all be demanding it.

So yes, IMO it's clear that Labour's rhetoric is creating division and resentment that makes it easier to justify taxing ordinary working people more heavily by simply rebranding them as "wealthy" or as people who need to "pay their fair share". It is politically easier to vilify a group and extract more from them "for the greater good" than it is to create the conditions for growth.

After all, from the horse's mouth:

"Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?"... "asking the wrong questions." Pat McFadden.

But what would he know...

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 13:01

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 12:54

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.

Show quote history

Agreed. I don't want people to suffer. Although I do think it's not good for people to be on benefits if they could work. Especially young people. And I think a few conditions shouldn't qualify for PIP. The triple lock is unsustainable So there are a few cuts that can be made. The PLP won't allow them though given the fuss about the winter fuel allowance. So AB will probably fail to increase defence spending in this Parliament.

Im scared of war and I think we need to look tough to prevent countries thinking we are a target. I have two sons of fighting age and the thought of them being conscripted horrifies me. And history shows us that nothing is guaranteed regarding peace and things can turn on a sixpence.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 13:02

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 12:58

Asset hoarders

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

Broad shoulders

Paying your fair share

Buying life chances

Tuition fees.

Disproportionate benefit

Buy advantate

Property is undertaxed

I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers. Feel free to respond to that that offer whataboutery. Labour have been both explicit and implicit in the way they have divided people into groups. "Builders and blockers", those who need to "pay their fair share" versus the "vulnerable", and "ordinary working people" all create divisions between groups and invite judgements about who is deserving, who isn't, and who should pay for whom. You can see from thread after thread that many have bought into this rhetoric. You have people implying there is something unnatural or selfish about wanting to own a home rather than rent. Germany, an outlier for its low level of homeownership, is held up as the bar/evidence that renting should somehow be regarded as the norm. Homeownership is substantially higher across most of Europe, 90%+ in some countries. You'll own nothing and be happy? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'm personally not interested in a race to the bottom. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own their home, have some saving of assets and become financially secure should be something we aspire to, not something we treat with contempt. I am here for what creates equality of opportunity.

Even the Treasury's focus is on protecting earners below c. £45k. If that's "ordinary", what does that say about an ordinary employee earning £50,000 or £60,000? Are they really no longer an ordinary working person but broad shouldered with lots of extra capacity? Do they really need to be told to pay their fair share? These and the ordinary people earning more than them are the people who are funding, or have spent their working lives funding, the system. Judge and shame is a fair exchange for their taxes?

Any attempt to question how efficiently taxes are being spent, whether the system is sustainable, or whether taxpayers are getting value for money is derailed by accusations that people simply want to punish the disabled, carers or those genuinely unable to work. Whataboutery 101. You can absolutely support a strong safety net for people who genuinely need it and expect proper scrutiny over how taxpayers' money is spent. If we want that safety net to remain and to be sustainable, we should all be demanding it.

So yes, IMO it's clear that Labour's rhetoric is creating division and resentment that makes it easier to justify taxing ordinary working people more heavily by simply rebranding them as "wealthy" or as people who need to "pay their fair share". It is politically easier to vilify a group and extract more from them "for the greater good" than it is to create the conditions for growth.

After all, from the horse's mouth:

"Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?"... "asking the wrong questions." Pat McFadden.

But what would he know...

Show quote history

100% agree

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 13:06

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 12:58

Asset hoarders

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

Broad shoulders

Paying your fair share

Buying life chances

Tuition fees.

Disproportionate benefit

Buy advantate

Property is undertaxed

I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers. Feel free to respond to that that offer whataboutery. Labour have been both explicit and implicit in the way they have divided people into groups. "Builders and blockers", those who need to "pay their fair share" versus the "vulnerable", and "ordinary working people" all create divisions between groups and invite judgements about who is deserving, who isn't, and who should pay for whom. You can see from thread after thread that many have bought into this rhetoric. You have people implying there is something unnatural or selfish about wanting to own a home rather than rent. Germany, an outlier for its low level of homeownership, is held up as the bar/evidence that renting should somehow be regarded as the norm. Homeownership is substantially higher across most of Europe, 90%+ in some countries. You'll own nothing and be happy? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'm personally not interested in a race to the bottom. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own their home, have some saving of assets and become financially secure should be something we aspire to, not something we treat with contempt. I am here for what creates equality of opportunity.

Even the Treasury's focus is on protecting earners below c. £45k. If that's "ordinary", what does that say about an ordinary employee earning £50,000 or £60,000? Are they really no longer an ordinary working person but broad shouldered with lots of extra capacity? Do they really need to be told to pay their fair share? These and the ordinary people earning more than them are the people who are funding, or have spent their working lives funding, the system. Judge and shame is a fair exchange for their taxes?

Any attempt to question how efficiently taxes are being spent, whether the system is sustainable, or whether taxpayers are getting value for money is derailed by accusations that people simply want to punish the disabled, carers or those genuinely unable to work. Whataboutery 101. You can absolutely support a strong safety net for people who genuinely need it and expect proper scrutiny over how taxpayers' money is spent. If we want that safety net to remain and to be sustainable, we should all be demanding it.

So yes, IMO it's clear that Labour's rhetoric is creating division and resentment that makes it easier to justify taxing ordinary working people more heavily by simply rebranding them as "wealthy" or as people who need to "pay their fair share". It is politically easier to vilify a group and extract more from them "for the greater good" than it is to create the conditions for growth.

After all, from the horse's mouth:

"Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?"... "asking the wrong questions." Pat McFadden.

But what would he know...

Show quote history

You’ve said it well.

BrandiedAromatics · 11/09/2026 13:08

@Pineneedlesincarpet We could go round in circles.

Yes, we are. 😵(I have made my comment below x3 on this thread!).

@Theseagullwhisperer 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.

Burnham said that he would address this - not in the Autumn Budget. But in the Spring Statement. So we have to wait with bated breath until then.

5128gap · 11/09/2026 13:10

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 12:09

"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).

Edited

Show quote history

AB is not indicating he is going to choose. He is indicating he intends to meet the NATO target. Which it should be remembered, also includes a target spend for social security in the wide sense of the word, such as maintaining healthy infrastructure, health provision and so on, because its recognised that these things are vital to a nations security.
It seems rather obvious to me he plans to raise the funds for defence in another way. So you can keep your powder dry for now, as soon you'll be able to create fuss about how he plans to do it. Which at least may involve complaining about something he has actually said rather than misrepresenting him for maximum drama.

5128gap · 11/09/2026 13:21

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 12:58

Asset hoarders

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

Broad shoulders

Paying your fair share

Buying life chances

Tuition fees.

Disproportionate benefit

Buy advantate

Property is undertaxed

I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers. Feel free to respond to that that offer whataboutery. Labour have been both explicit and implicit in the way they have divided people into groups. "Builders and blockers", those who need to "pay their fair share" versus the "vulnerable", and "ordinary working people" all create divisions between groups and invite judgements about who is deserving, who isn't, and who should pay for whom. You can see from thread after thread that many have bought into this rhetoric. You have people implying there is something unnatural or selfish about wanting to own a home rather than rent. Germany, an outlier for its low level of homeownership, is held up as the bar/evidence that renting should somehow be regarded as the norm. Homeownership is substantially higher across most of Europe, 90%+ in some countries. You'll own nothing and be happy? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'm personally not interested in a race to the bottom. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own their home, have some saving of assets and become financially secure should be something we aspire to, not something we treat with contempt. I am here for what creates equality of opportunity.

Even the Treasury's focus is on protecting earners below c. £45k. If that's "ordinary", what does that say about an ordinary employee earning £50,000 or £60,000? Are they really no longer an ordinary working person but broad shouldered with lots of extra capacity? Do they really need to be told to pay their fair share? These and the ordinary people earning more than them are the people who are funding, or have spent their working lives funding, the system. Judge and shame is a fair exchange for their taxes?

Any attempt to question how efficiently taxes are being spent, whether the system is sustainable, or whether taxpayers are getting value for money is derailed by accusations that people simply want to punish the disabled, carers or those genuinely unable to work. Whataboutery 101. You can absolutely support a strong safety net for people who genuinely need it and expect proper scrutiny over how taxpayers' money is spent. If we want that safety net to remain and to be sustainable, we should all be demanding it.

So yes, IMO it's clear that Labour's rhetoric is creating division and resentment that makes it easier to justify taxing ordinary working people more heavily by simply rebranding them as "wealthy" or as people who need to "pay their fair share". It is politically easier to vilify a group and extract more from them "for the greater good" than it is to create the conditions for growth.

After all, from the horse's mouth:

"Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?"... "asking the wrong questions." Pat McFadden.

But what would he know...

Show quote history

Division in our society was not created by the Labour Party. I have never known a time when people weren't divided by class and wealth.
For every instance you see of people believing the wealthy should pay more, you will find another of people thinking the less well off should 'get off their arses'.
You may not like the terms vulnerable and weathy/privileged to divide people, just as I don't much like the terms scroungers and hard workers. But their usage isn't new.

LilacBalloons · 11/09/2026 13:23

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 12:52

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.

Edited

Show quote history

It's not scary; you simply don't understand what has been said.

'if it came down to a choice between social security and national security' is a hypothetical. Burnam's point is that it won't come down to a choice between these two things, because there is more to the economy than two areas of expenditure alone. More detail is coming in the spending review. If, when that comes, it's uncosted pie in the sky fantasy, then we will all have the opportunity to be critical and hold him to account. But acting like you have some kind of unique insight into the operation of the economy because you're disregarding most of it and pretending that there is an unavoidable straight choice between national security and social security is just ridiculous.

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 13:28

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 13:01

Agreed. I don't want people to suffer. Although I do think it's not good for people to be on benefits if they could work. Especially young people. And I think a few conditions shouldn't qualify for PIP. The triple lock is unsustainable So there are a few cuts that can be made. The PLP won't allow them though given the fuss about the winter fuel allowance. So AB will probably fail to increase defence spending in this Parliament.

Im scared of war and I think we need to look tough to prevent countries thinking we are a target. I have two sons of fighting age and the thought of them being conscripted horrifies me. And history shows us that nothing is guaranteed regarding peace and things can turn on a sixpence.

Show quote history

I really do see your perspective, and I appreciate you articulating it so thoughtfully.

Hopefully the budget will provide everyone with a bit more clarity - because I think no matter what anyone’s personal party politics, the speculation and uncertainty is always unhelpful.

SevenYellowHammers · 11/09/2026 13:34

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 12:52

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.

Edited

Show quote history

Kemi was steering it to look that way, don’t you think? That’s her job and I don’t blame her, she should hold government to account. Andy has worded things badly if everyone is under the impression that you can’t have one without the other. Labour really a better comms person.

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 13:36

SevenYellowHammers · 11/09/2026 13:34

Kemi was steering it to look that way, don’t you think? That’s her job and I don’t blame her, she should hold government to account. Andy has worded things badly if everyone is under the impression that you can’t have one without the other. Labour really a better comms person.

Show quote history

They did release a statement shortly after so they knew it didn’t look as they wanted.

nomas · 11/09/2026 13:39

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 12:58

Asset hoarders

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

Broad shoulders

Paying your fair share

Buying life chances

Tuition fees.

Disproportionate benefit

Buy advantate

Property is undertaxed

I'm not arguing that divisive behaviour is unique to this administration. I am talking about attacks on workers. Feel free to respond to that that offer whataboutery. Labour have been both explicit and implicit in the way they have divided people into groups. "Builders and blockers", those who need to "pay their fair share" versus the "vulnerable", and "ordinary working people" all create divisions between groups and invite judgements about who is deserving, who isn't, and who should pay for whom. You can see from thread after thread that many have bought into this rhetoric. You have people implying there is something unnatural or selfish about wanting to own a home rather than rent. Germany, an outlier for its low level of homeownership, is held up as the bar/evidence that renting should somehow be regarded as the norm. Homeownership is substantially higher across most of Europe, 90%+ in some countries. You'll own nothing and be happy? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. I'm personally not interested in a race to the bottom. Wanting people to have the opportunity to own their home, have some saving of assets and become financially secure should be something we aspire to, not something we treat with contempt. I am here for what creates equality of opportunity.

Even the Treasury's focus is on protecting earners below c. £45k. If that's "ordinary", what does that say about an ordinary employee earning £50,000 or £60,000? Are they really no longer an ordinary working person but broad shouldered with lots of extra capacity? Do they really need to be told to pay their fair share? These and the ordinary people earning more than them are the people who are funding, or have spent their working lives funding, the system. Judge and shame is a fair exchange for their taxes?

Any attempt to question how efficiently taxes are being spent, whether the system is sustainable, or whether taxpayers are getting value for money is derailed by accusations that people simply want to punish the disabled, carers or those genuinely unable to work. Whataboutery 101. You can absolutely support a strong safety net for people who genuinely need it and expect proper scrutiny over how taxpayers' money is spent. If we want that safety net to remain and to be sustainable, we should all be demanding it.

So yes, IMO it's clear that Labour's rhetoric is creating division and resentment that makes it easier to justify taxing ordinary working people more heavily by simply rebranding them as "wealthy" or as people who need to "pay their fair share". It is politically easier to vilify a group and extract more from them "for the greater good" than it is to create the conditions for growth.

After all, from the horse's mouth:

"Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?"... "asking the wrong questions." Pat McFadden.

But what would he know...

Show quote history

What a nonsensical list.

Asset hoarders

Which asset hoarders? The nom doms who pay a pittance in tax in the UK?

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

What is it you object to?

Broad shoulders

Eh? Whose?

Paying your fair share

Of what?

Buying life chances

Who is?

Tuition fees.

For private school? Why does this benefit need prioritising over others?

Disproportionate benefit

To whom?

Buy advantate

Of what?

Property is undertaxed

Whose property?

Here is the good Labour has done:

Strikes Act Repeal: Repealed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023
Trade Union Act Rollback: Removed burdensome restrictions from the Trade Union Act 2016, simplifying industrial action notices, ballot rules, and removing the 10-year ballot requirement for political funds.
Fair Work Agency: Established a single enforcement body to protect workers' rights and oversee holiday pay and compliance.

Statutory Sick Pay: Removed the waiting period, making sick pay available from day one and extending eligibility to lower-paid workers.
Family Leave: Made paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day-one rights, alongside introducing bereaved partner's paternity leave.
Redundancy Protections: Doubled the maximum collective redundancy protective award from 90 to 180 days' pay when employers fail to consult properly.

Sexual Harassment: Added workplace sexual harassment protections into whistleblowing legislation.
Equality Action Plans: Introduced voluntary action frameworks addressing the gender pay gap and menopause support in larger workplaces.

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 13:41

nomas · 11/09/2026 13:39

What a nonsensical list.

Asset hoarders

Which asset hoarders? The nom doms who pay a pittance in tax in the UK?

NIMBYS, Tuition Fee

What is it you object to?

Broad shoulders

Eh? Whose?

Paying your fair share

Of what?

Buying life chances

Who is?

Tuition fees.

For private school? Why does this benefit need prioritising over others?

Disproportionate benefit

To whom?

Buy advantate

Of what?

Property is undertaxed

Whose property?

Here is the good Labour has done:

Strikes Act Repeal: Repealed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023
Trade Union Act Rollback: Removed burdensome restrictions from the Trade Union Act 2016, simplifying industrial action notices, ballot rules, and removing the 10-year ballot requirement for political funds.
Fair Work Agency: Established a single enforcement body to protect workers' rights and oversee holiday pay and compliance.

Statutory Sick Pay: Removed the waiting period, making sick pay available from day one and extending eligibility to lower-paid workers.
Family Leave: Made paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day-one rights, alongside introducing bereaved partner's paternity leave.
Redundancy Protections: Doubled the maximum collective redundancy protective award from 90 to 180 days' pay when employers fail to consult properly.

Sexual Harassment: Added workplace sexual harassment protections into whistleblowing legislation.
Equality Action Plans: Introduced voluntary action frameworks addressing the gender pay gap and menopause support in larger workplaces.

Show quote history

Many of those lines are from Labour, that was the pp’s point.

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 13:43

@BrandiedAromatics - My post might not have been clear - sorry. I know they’re not setting out the path to 3% until the spring review. When I said more ambitious on defence spending than they’ve so far committed to - I didn’t just mean in terms of how much % they are committed to and by when, I meant in terms of HOW they fund the money that in an ambitious, pragmatic, long term way - so, not just tinkering with one off tax raises, or by proposing unrealistic cuts, that’ll just push costs up elsewhere.

I think the reason the thread is quite circular, is there is just a genuine divide in public opinion on defence spending and how to pay for it. This is obviously quite out of date now (despite only being a few months old - fast moving world!) But still makes interesting reading: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/defence-becomes-greater-public-spending-priority-britons-trust-labour-defence-declines

Defence becomes a greater public spending priority for Britons as trust in Labour on defence declines

New polling data from Ipsos in the UK, conducted 12–16 June 2026 following the resignation of former Secretary of Defence John Healy, reveals an increase in public support for military investment, with defence rising rapidly up the public agenda amid s...

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/defence-becomes-greater-public-spending-priority-britons-trust-labour-defence-declines

SevenYellowHammers · 11/09/2026 13:43

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 13:36

They did release a statement shortly after so they knew it didn’t look as they wanted.

Show quote history

Ha! Who made them do that ? Malcolm Tucker?

NorthXNorthWest · 11/09/2026 14:08

5128gap · 11/09/2026 13:21

Division in our society was not created by the Labour Party. I have never known a time when people weren't divided by class and wealth.
For every instance you see of people believing the wealthy should pay more, you will find another of people thinking the less well off should 'get off their arses'.
You may not like the terms vulnerable and weathy/privileged to divide people, just as I don't much like the terms scroungers and hard workers. But their usage isn't new.

Edited

Show quote history

They did it first and it's always been like that. That's your argument?

“All people and all places, public and private sectors, in a new sense of unity and common cause.”

“I am for us, for all of us.”

Both AB

As long as the "people" or "us" is not people earning over 45k, who own one home, go into further education, provided/ are providing for their latter years, employ people, employ young people...

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 14:10

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 13:36

They did release a statement shortly after so they knew it didn’t look as they wanted.

Show quote history

That’s really interesting, because I didn’t interpret their statement that way, at all. It’s pretty standard for the Prime Minister’s team to brief the press immediately after PMQs. And Andy Burnham’s team didn’t walk the comment back: they basically re-made the same point - that it wasn’t a choice between the two. They just added more context, and more specific detail on the damage the opposition’s proposed cuts could cause.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 14:10

5128gap · 11/09/2026 13:10

AB is not indicating he is going to choose. He is indicating he intends to meet the NATO target. Which it should be remembered, also includes a target spend for social security in the wide sense of the word, such as maintaining healthy infrastructure, health provision and so on, because its recognised that these things are vital to a nations security.
It seems rather obvious to me he plans to raise the funds for defence in another way. So you can keep your powder dry for now, as soon you'll be able to create fuss about how he plans to do it. Which at least may involve complaining about something he has actually said rather than misrepresenting him for maximum drama.

Show quote history

I'm not misrepresenting him. I'm quoting exactly what he said. You've just chosen to take a rosy view of it. I am arguing Im just taking a clearer eyed view of it. We will see who is right and I'm hoping it's you but fear it will be me.

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 14:13

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 14:10

That’s really interesting, because I didn’t interpret their statement that way, at all. It’s pretty standard for the Prime Minister’s team to brief the press immediately after PMQs. And Andy Burnham’s team didn’t walk the comment back: they basically re-made the same point - that it wasn’t a choice between the two. They just added more context, and more specific detail on the damage the opposition’s proposed cuts could cause.

Show quote history

At some point they’ll have to say what ‘getting the welfare bill down’ means in reality.

And if they’re going to match the spend on defence which Healey resigned over.

On whether statements are necessary it tends to be when a Labour PM lets out a blunder than makes the markets nervous, so they release a we won’t overspend bit of comms.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 14:16

LilacBalloons · 11/09/2026 13:23

It's not scary; you simply don't understand what has been said.

'if it came down to a choice between social security and national security' is a hypothetical. Burnam's point is that it won't come down to a choice between these two things, because there is more to the economy than two areas of expenditure alone. More detail is coming in the spending review. If, when that comes, it's uncosted pie in the sky fantasy, then we will all have the opportunity to be critical and hold him to account. But acting like you have some kind of unique insight into the operation of the economy because you're disregarding most of it and pretending that there is an unavoidable straight choice between national security and social security is just ridiculous.

Show quote history

"You simply don't understand what has been said"

Apart from the patronising tone which perhaps we can do without, perhaps it is you that don't understand what has been said. Perhaps AB is has articulated exactly what he means. What is it about the PLP that you assume would cut benefits if needed for defence at any time other than their own house being invaded by Russians? Its my argument that the current Labour Party believes exactly in what AB said. You can assume otherwise. Thats why we are debating the point.

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 14:17

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 14:13

At some point they’ll have to say what ‘getting the welfare bill down’ means in reality.

And if they’re going to match the spend on defence which Healey resigned over.

On whether statements are necessary it tends to be when a Labour PM lets out a blunder than makes the markets nervous, so they release a we won’t overspend bit of comms.

Edited

Show quote history

This will be the acid test and then we can all decide whether AB is fit to be PM (ie that he agrees that national security is the most important task of the state)

Theseagullwhisperer · 11/09/2026 14:24

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 14:13

At some point they’ll have to say what ‘getting the welfare bill down’ means in reality.

And if they’re going to match the spend on defence which Healey resigned over.

On whether statements are necessary it tends to be when a Labour PM lets out a blunder than makes the markets nervous, so they release a we won’t overspend bit of comms.

Edited

Show quote history

I absolutely don’t disagree with you - of course the Government are going to have to set out their spending plans. We’ll know more after the budget, and more again after the Spring spending review.

I definitely don’t think you’re right that Labour Prime Minister’s teams release more press releases clarifying and contextualising what was said at PMQs than Conservative Prime Ministers do, though - it really is just standard procedure.

BrandiedAromatics · 11/09/2026 14:25

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 14:13

At some point they’ll have to say what ‘getting the welfare bill down’ means in reality.

And if they’re going to match the spend on defence which Healey resigned over.

On whether statements are necessary it tends to be when a Labour PM lets out a blunder than makes the markets nervous, so they release a we won’t overspend bit of comms.

Edited

Show quote history

I was just going to agree with you and then saw the word 'Labour'. Every other word I agree with but this is a blatantly party political post by inserting this unnecessarily.

As if Liz Truss didn't cause nervousness? What about Jake Berry putting out a statement about overreacting markets misunderstanding the PMs plan? Let's be honest!

Pineneedlesincarpet · 11/09/2026 14:27

BrandiedAromatics · 11/09/2026 14:25

I was just going to agree with you and then saw the word 'Labour'. Every other word I agree with but this is a blatantly party political post by inserting this unnecessarily.

As if Liz Truss didn't cause nervousness? What about Jake Berry putting out a statement about overreacting markets misunderstanding the PMs plan? Let's be honest!

Show quote history

Well Labour are in power? So the markets are a bit more interested in what they say than the opposition MPs who aren't in power.

EasternStandard · 11/09/2026 14:28

BrandiedAromatics · 11/09/2026 14:25

I was just going to agree with you and then saw the word 'Labour'. Every other word I agree with but this is a blatantly party political post by inserting this unnecessarily.

As if Liz Truss didn't cause nervousness? What about Jake Berry putting out a statement about overreacting markets misunderstanding the PMs plan? Let's be honest!

Show quote history

Well of course she did. And the conservatives changed leaders to fix the issue. They did much more than a press release.

But referring to the party in power, there have been times when either Starmer or Burnham have said something a bit too spend happy and then to correct via a statement.