Andy Burnham did the whole country a favour at yesterday's PMQs. He finally said the quiet part out loud. For our new Prime Minister, social security (aka welfare) comes above Britain's national security.
Since becoming Conservative leader, I have warned repeatedly that the Labour Party has become the Welfare Party. Keir Starmer had already taken them a long way down that road, but Burnham isn't changing direction. If anything, he is dragging Labour further to the Left as he chases voters who have drifted to the Green Party.
The first duty of every government is the defence of the country, not paying more benefits.
Labour have forgotten that government involves choices. Andy Burnham wants to spend more and more on welfare, while acting as if somebody else can pick up the bill for our national security.
Labour's own Welfare Secretary, Pat McFadden, admitted in private WhatsApp messages leaked this summer that 'every' conversation he has with Labour MPs begins: 'Who can we tax to spend more on benefits?'
That is not an economic strategy. It is an addiction to spending other people's money. And, as with any addiction, eventually you cannot get enough of other people's money.
Labour is running out of money quickly. Just this week, Britain's third biggest taxpayer, Chris Rokos, announced he was leaving the country, taking his £330million a year in taxes with him. That's the equivalent of more than 38,000 average UK taxpayers.
Entrepreneurs such as Rokos who started businesses, took risks, mortgaged their homes and created jobs, are deciding Britain is no longer worth the trouble.
We should care about that, not because wealthy people deserve special treatment, but because Britain needs people who create businesses, employ others and pay taxes here. Before government can redistribute wealth, somebody has to create it.
The same basic truth applies to welfare. Conservatives will always support a strong safety net for those who genuinely need it. But we oppose a system that allows people who should be working to choose not to, while expecting those who do work to pay ever more to support that system. It's a simple question of fairness.
Welfare reform and funding our nation's defence properly must not be treated as unrelated concerns. They are about what kind of country we want to live in.
It's why, unlike Labour, I do have a plan to get defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030. It means reinstating the two-child benefit cap, because people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as those who aren't.
It means cutting housing allowance, because poorer taxpayers shouldn't pay for people on housing benefits to live in areas they could never afford. It means removing the tax exemptions for the Motability leasing scheme, because that scheme is being abused by people who don't need the Government to pay for their car.
These plans are fully costed, proportionate and based on fairness. We are doing the hard work required to turn promises into policies that can actually be delivered.
Reform might claim they have plans, but they are too mired in scandal and fighting each other to deliver anything.
I understand why some voters might hear that and point to our record in government. The Conservatives made mistakes – saying otherwise would be ridiculous. But I am the leader of the Conservative Party now, and I will take the difficult decisions, even when people tell me they are politically inconvenient.
Britain cannot keep taxing the people who create wealth to fund an ever-larger welfare state, while neglecting the Armed Forces that keep us safe.
The choice for voters now is between a Labour Party that wants to pour more and more of your money into benefits, and a Conservative Party determined to restore our national security.
A government has many responsibilities. But before it can promise everything else, it must protect the country.
For me, national security always comes first.