"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.

Didn't he give millions/billions in contracts to Indian companies?

Exactly right, the G (government investment) part of GDP is just as important as the I and NX. GDP as a measure of economic health is not a measure of private wealth generated for good reason.

Of course the GDP calculation as the accepted international measure for a nation’s economy has its own shortfalls, but that’s a conversation for another thread.

Exactly, consumer spending is the C in GDP. We can’t have a strong economy if no one can afford to spend their wages or their wages stagnate.

Love the detail but all the it’s ok to tax, borrow and spend is pushing up debt servicing costs.

Less to spend on public services.

lol. Most of the G in GDP is government spending on public goods and services, like infrastructure, education, defence, health system, social welfare including the salaries of all government employees. But a good chunk of the G isn’t on day to day operating costs, quite a bit is spent on research & development. These are often contracts for start up UK businesses on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. The £20bn/yr spent here is an investment by the government that absolutely results in growth. Many businesses could not have succeeded or generated any wealth without such government investment. The funds for this investment comes from taxes.

So, you can spend wealth to create more wealth. That’s what an investment is- spending with the expectation of a return.

Governments also create jobs- 18% of jobs in the UK are public sector. No business contributes more to job creation. Which then means a stronger C in GDP.

The economy as measured by GDP is a balancing act and there are ways to cheat the calculations.

We haven’t really discussed public debt which is high as a result of the Tories decisions.

Taxing and spending by itself doesn’t drive up public debt, borrowing does.

I really don't see why the right wing media and politicians have turned this into a binary choice in the first place.

Burnham simply said defence funding should not come at the expense of the welfare safety net.

He has never said that defence was not a priority or that he was not going to fund it properly.

There are many ways to make savings and increase government revenue that don't involve making people who are sick, disabled or unemployed destitute.

Personally I want to see the wealthiest and big corporations pay their fair share of tax and in term of welfare I want to see the state pension being means tested and not paid to pensioners who already have big private pensions and/or personal wealth.

The first duty of any Government is National Security. What he said is not perfectly accurate at all. It is irrelevant what you say about housing benefit. National Security should be his first priority not social security.

Labour increased borrowing in their first budget.

Starmer did try as this post does to blame others for two years, it didn’t wash and he was ousted.

AB didn’t say social security was his first priority.

What he said is entirely factually accurate as I've tried to explain to you.
You can repeat as many times as you like that defence is the top priority. Doesn't change the fact that taking money from HB to fund it won't result in the problems the PM outlined.
Do you understand that repeating the need for defence spend isn't actually a counter argument to Burnham's view that we shouldn't take the money from HB? Did Badenoch indicate she understood what argument she needed to counter?

£100bn under Labour compared to the £2.75 trillion of the Tories? The interest on the Tories debt amounts to more.

Can you share a link please?

ETA: are you sure you don't confuse the debt (about 2.9tn) with annual interest payments (about 111bn)?

‘Safety net.’ Those days are long gone. Our welfare system is being rinsed by a large portion of fraudsters, grifters and chancers - much like all the benefit fraud they are finding in America and Australia. I cannot wait for the independent journalists to start digging about to see where most of this benefit money is going. My first instinct will be abroad.

His job as PM of this country is to put National Security first. What he actually said was ‘national security can’t come at the expense of social security’ Repeating the need for defence? You are joking right? We are in NATO and that is what we agreed to pay? HB is a total irrelevance.

If people can't pay their rent, they will become homeless as will their children. It costs a lot of money to provide temporary accommodation, more than would be saved.

If people who provide for themselves and aren't entitled to benefits can't pay their rent, they move further, to less desirable areas, to smaller properties, commute longer to their workplaces and basically suck it up. No matter how much they like the areas they used to live in and what support network they have.

I strongly believe that housing support should only be paid to those who work within 1h commute in the area (this is average commute time for London, adjust accordingly for other regions). If members of household don't work, they should be moved to much cheaper area full stop. Kids can be schooled everywhere in the country so not an excuse.

This would save much more than 4bn I think.

He said and I quote ‘National Security can’t come at the expense of Social Security’

Yeah but we all know his first priority is buses.

Paying for defence is fine. Paying the EU for the opportunity to defend the EU is perhaps a step too far.

AB didnt say defence was his first priority. Which it is for any government. He just hasn't realised that yet.

lol. Wealth is not created by the public sector. The public sector supports wealth creators (such as providing legal framework, education, roads etc) but does not create wealth itself. You cannot invest in the public sector to create wealth. The public sector spends money. It doesn't make money.

I do wish the left would understand this. It might support the private sector a bit better rather than trying to kill the golden goose.

No those rumours were false.

That doesnt mean he doesnt understand economics anyway.

So you’d move households with one parent not working to areas of the country that are less well resourced for transport, health? Retired people away from their family and support network so they have to rely on social care? Are you sure that’s a good idea?

Of course it is. Just another Burnham jolly saying to try and please everyone.

You'd also be moving people away from job opportunities and education choices. I live in one of the most deprived areas of the country, so one of the places @nearlylovemyusername would move people to.

We have plenty of cheap housing, including social housing. What we don't have plenty of is jobs, colleges and training centers, properly functioning public transport and healthcare.

There is reason housing is cheap, no one has any money coz there are no jobs and no buses to the places where there are jobs.

The lack of money, opportunities and education also paves the way for high crime and high levels of addiction.

Moving more skint people here won't reduce the welfare bill, it will create ghettos and eventually lead to riots.