"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

[Binnyforthewin]

Surely our PM releases that without National Security there is no Social Security? One is entirely dependent on the other.

Yabu

Wow. So there’s a word for governments who basically buy votes by handing out benefits right left and centre but I can’t remember what it was. It’s an established (not commenting on the ethics) way of buying votes though and the current government seems big into this idea. The UK govs of various flavours have been buying votes this way for so long I don’t think they know how to get back out of it.

That is an entirely ludicrous statement in the current environment, albeit I get that his position is difficult.

No link or anything for context ?

I looked it up. Appears to be in response to the Tories wanting to take 4 billion out of housing benefit to put into defense ?

The PM says he is still committed to getting to NATO spend targets.

He also said-

“I don’t think myself that taking £4bn out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue, because that would create levels of homelessness in this country that we wouldn’t have seen before – hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation."

Maybe Kemi is thinking of putting camp beds on carriers ?

It was PMQ’s. Burnham is so out of his depth it is embarrassing.

It's the BBC headline news. Andy Burnham: National security can't come at expense of social security - BBC News

Even Starmer at least said he understood that the first role of the Government is to defend the realm. Burham seems to think the number 1 priority for the Government should be buses.

It's terrifying. He seems to be running our defence policy on a hope and a prayer that the economy picks up before Russia decides to do more than cut our underwater cables which is presumably what those Russian subs in our waters are working out how to do.

I'd prefer cuts to the housing budget than our country being inadequately defended thanks. I really don't want my kids to have to join the army because we've encouraged our enemies to think we are weak and ill-defended enough to attack. If we go to war the economy goes on a war footing and benefits will be the first to go.

I think many of us are tired at Labours continued attempts to buy votes via welfare.

It has to stop.

100 backbenchers opposed it when Starmer tried to address this issue in 2025.

The mistake was the winter fuel cuts. So many people complained to the MPs they wouldn't take it again.

He was taking about Kemi’s plan to cut housing benefit making people homeless!
He wasn’t talking about social security in the old fashioned sense just that having thousands of people in temporary accommodation or homeless will affect the Social Security of the Country, which of course it will!

Look at the threats to the social security of the Country that has come from some areas of the Country that have been left in abject poverty by Brexit & Austerity!

The Country is hardly thriving is it?

100% this. We are at peak tax at the moment, they can keep squeezing and squeezing but ultimately all they are going to make receipts go down. They have to make cuts somewhere. If the government invests in our own defence firms it is a win - win as the money will be recirculated in the UK. Think of the stimulation to tech firms and the potential economic growth.

It’s not thriving because no one wants to invest because of high taxes. They are stuck in a vicious cycle at the moment. The only solution is a massive spending cut in the short term. Cut business taxes to the bone. Get businesses employing people, investing in new plant and machinery etc. that new money will stimulate the economy again. There will be no economic boost until that happens.

100% this.

It is also a little bit suspicious that we place sanctions on Israel and NATs had a technical issue. Maybe a coincidence...myabe not.... but defende needs to also be against cyber attacks too not just standard military responses.

'It has to stop' - how do you propose to make it stop?

No opposition party is suggesting anything credible.

I thought this too! I was wrong to have faith 😔

Absolutely terrifying but shows where the priorities are.

That’s basically what he said, though, didn’t he? In terms of the one being entirely dependent on the other, I mean.

He is right that strong national security relies on resilient domestic communities. I don’t think any serious economists think defence spending can be funded by welfare cuts alone: really punishing welfare cuts are economically counterproductive because all they do is push the costs elsewhere - into the health or education or policing.

I’ve got to say, I’m disappointed in Kemi Badenoch on this one - she seems to be resorting to the worst kind of point scoring on defence spending, when surely if national security is such a priority they should be working cross party to find a consensus on funding.

Cut welfare for all but the needy.

Why do you view defence as secondary?

Why do you assume you know what I think?
You said 'it has to stop' - I asked what is your mechanism? Politically speaking - look at the opinion polls.

Won't matter if we end up in a war unable to defend ourselves. Defence is the basic duty of the state.

I think the Conservatives under Kemi are fairly credible. Assuming she keeps control of her party.

Can't Labour just decide to fund it? Why do they need a consensus given the size of their majority?

They have just chosen to prioritise benefits for some over defending us all.

Burnham has clearly realised that there is zero chance of getting meaningful welfare cuts past his own backbenchers. In fairness to them, very few Labour MPs go into politics in order to (as they see it) make poor people poorer. On that basis, they see view the enormous increase in the benefits bill since Covid as a good thing, not a crisis which destroys incentives to work, cripples economic growth & is going to bankrupt the country.

Given that government spending on defence has to rise significantly that means that yet more tax rises are inevitable. Big tax rises.

I marvel at the attempts by posters at reimagining Burnham’s statement. He said what he said. It was plain.

They are not. Her personal rating has improved but the party is small and they booted most of their best people under Johnson. The party is stuck on 20%. How does that change?