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. This is my stance. I haven't got a clue how much defence we need and how much it will cost. I do know what excessive spend did to the USSR during the cold war, and I do know that in the UK when we prioritised defence over welfare there was public push back, so I think balance is key.
Unless I've misunderstood, the government intends to meet NATO targets, the issue seems to be more that people dislike that Burnham doesn't want to meet them through welfare cuts. And if this is avoidable then I think its desirable. I don't know much about defence, but I do know something about poverty and how expensive that is to a society and have seen how creating more poverty through welfare cuts costs more in the long run.
Burnham touched on this by explaining how much more expensive it would be to cut HB, for example.
He also explained that he wants to reduce welfare spend by getting people into work so they don't need benefits, rather than putting the cart before the horse, and taking the benefits away to force them into work. Which however much people want it to, doesn't actually work. The poorer you make people, the more unemployable you make them. Not to mention the impact on their children and the strain it causes on the NHS, CJS, housing and social services.
So, I agree, we need a balance of both. I imagine there will be a plan to raise money from 'those with the broadest shoulders' and much will depend on who's shoulders Burnham considers broadest as to public support for his plans.

It was a stupid thing to say.

I remember 4 years ago there was a thread on here where someone was pouring scorn on the “ridiculous “ idea that Russia would invade Ukraine.

The world is in a volatile state. People like Putin and Xi see Trump, the leader of the Western world, and reckon they can get away with all kinds of things which would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

Trump has damaged far more than just the US and it’s not over yet.

'took her down' who are you Donald Trump?

Never sure whether people are genuinely thick or pretend to be so they can get all outraged over nothing.

I think the trick to get people into work is not to pay them so much in benefits that it's more lucrative not to work.

I'm certain that he and the rest of those labour loonies are determined to destroy this country. I've never felt more angered by a government than this one.

The man is dangerous.

Burnham seems to be cos playing being PM, like he did when he was a child in the 80's and a student in the 90's. He's behaving as if politics and the world is like it was then. It isn't but he he is stuck inThatcher bad Labour good mode. Very very dangerous.

It would take years and years to make any sort of progress.

What an almightly mess the whole country is in.

Sadly I think he'll be short lived.

Yes, I’m the The Donald. Absolutely. 😂

Can I just refer you to my previous comment about people pretending to be thick so the can get all outraged? The alternative is worse, that people really are that thick.

Why would a legend be forgotten?

Its not "thick" to be scared at the moment. We have Russian subs in UK waters checking our under sea cables. We have articles saying ex army officers and soldiers are potentially going to be recalled. We have thousands of young men from countries we were at war with inflitrating our borders. We have a government intent on pissing off our allies. I think a reduction in benefits is a wholly reasonable place to start looking for cash to put in defence. And the people who don't see the danger we are in are Id suggest the "thick" ones.

Working class people don’t care about defence? But want more spent on benefits? Why would you think that

This isn't what is going to happen.

The damage is already done. I'm looking at this and what moves Burnham has the freedom to make.

There's going to be very few options that are viable, looking at the direction of travel. He's a passenger to the course of events around us.

This isn't about ideological decisions. Burnham will be thrown into firefighting and crisis management before he's about to enact anything he wants.

Agreed. Resurrecting the Chagos deal for a start...what!!!???

Yep and if pensioners are poor their health suffers and the need the NHS more. So more Tory false economy.

I love how simplistic headlines are. Everyone wants an easy solution and there aren't any! Our economic and security futures are fraught with challenges.

Very broadly speaking Burnham's Makerfield Test maintains that foreign policy can advance domestic ends without becoming hostage to them. His early moves such as meeting NATO commitments, supporting Ukraine and maintaining strong relationships with both the US and Europe seem to indicate he understands that British prosperity is dependent on the stability of the wider world.

So far it appears that he is looking to prioritise stability ‘where it matters most’, namely at home in the UK with the US and Europe, and to leverage the UK’s allies and partners around the world. He has so far said that the UK nuclear deterrent will be preserved, and the UK’s NATO commitments met.

He has has rightly called the US the UK’s 'most important security and defence ally' (much as we all may loathe it's current leader) and did of course ensure that his first external call was to POTUS. The upcoming UK–US Summit and G20 Summit, both scheduled to take place in the UK in November 2026, will be significant, as of course will be the UK budget. There's going to have to be a careful path walked to appease Trump and also foster links with the European partners are the Tories fucked us over with.

There have also been some good recent wins for our security sector with BAE Systems sale of advanced Type 26 frigates to the Norwegians and Typhoon fighter jets to Turkey. This is a welcome boost to the home economy.

I'm sure the largely right wing press would love Burnham to be defined by one sentence. But maybe they'd be better explaining some of the complexities and encouraging some bi-partisan cooperation in these challenging times.

Defence spending shouldn't be propped up! It's an essential need. Crikey.

But Defence is not less important than social security JC. Speechless. A person calling other people 'thick'.. Possibly looking in a mirror.

There should be a review of all spending. There is enough waste / inefficiency in the system that he can prioritise where cuts are made. And no that does not automatically mean not supporting the disabled.

In a country at war or under occupation, worrying about preserving every element of social security is a luxury. Everybody has to do their bit and bear some of the cost - not just those who don't receive benefits. The Dunkirk spirit was not caveated by "except those on benefits".

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 ?

Presumably you were in a coma from around 2010 till recently. The country-wrecking stuff was all done before this Labour government gained power.

He isn’t saying national security isn’t important and vital, rather we shouldn’t be completely prioritising that over getting people off the streets for example, or over the NHS and education system, care sector etc etc. He’s right. He was right about Palestine as well yesterday. I feel like probably for the first time in my life we have a PM who speaks some sense. It’s incredibly refreshing.

Yes, it may well do. Nothing is more important than defending the country. If we don’t, then we will all be affected.

But, within reason, we should be able to do both. Too much money frittered away inefficiently, on stuff and systems we can do without.🙄

That is a desperate comment

Calling people who don't agree with you 'thick' , and using the phrase 'took her down' doesn't cover you in glorious intellect 😂