"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.

It was bizarre. They turn had to release a oh we didn’t mean it statement.

@Moreinthepot 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.

To be fair, I read on these threads, many relishing John Healey's statement on his resignation. He got expectations high on Defence and he secured the imminent tenure of Burnham.

Now they are in charge.

We're fucked if we can't defend ourselves.

I take your point - and the fact is, Labour are going to decide how to fund it, and they’re going to announce that decision and the timetable for getting there at the budget. But from a moral point of view, turning this into a political wedge issue feels wrong. Foreign * *threats outlast election cycles, and so I personally think cross party consensus on defence spending would make our military stronger, more stable and less dependent on the whims of the party of the day.

It’s up to Labour to deal with how to spend, bring in power as they are. Not sure why Kemi needs to say what to do. It’s up to Healey and Burnham.

If this flags a plan to restrict defence spending, maybe it won’t be long before another power arrives to cut welfare spending anyway.

Nothing else matters if his government can not maintain the security of the nation.

She absolutely doesn’t need to - but I personally think from a moral point of view using defence spending as a political football feels wrong, and I would much rather see a longer term cross party consensus on defence spending so that the UK military can plan in a more long-term way, independent of changing governments.

The homeless problem will be a lot worse if we get attacked. So if course defence comes first.

What?

Look at the opinion polls? Please breakout the voters view on welfare.

Yep, Burnham cant do shit - even if he wanted to (he doesnt).

Labour’s game is to pander to their backbench constituents.

Who can we tax to pay benefits to others?

I agree totally. We're in a very vulnerable and dangerous position if we don't increase a defence budget.

Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have likely already weaponised illegal immigration, but too many people on MN are naive and/or stupid.

To pay for defence we can tax unearned income from investments at the same rate as earned income eg. We can't continue to impoverish eg the million on zero hours contracts so they can't plan their futures or indeed their next month when they don't know if or when they'll get work. If the poorest have more money they spend it and boost the economy. The richest off shore it to avoid tax. Andy Burnham is quite right if we need to protect our country one of the basics is getting a population which is 'fighting fit'. It's not sacrificing the health and well being of millions by further impoverishing them. Indeed the one depends on the other. We learnt that pretty quickly in WW2.

Only last week, at PMQs Burnham was called out on the same thing by Tan Dhesi - it was the highlight of PMQs because it wasn't party political, he is Labour and the Chair of the Defence Committee.

So what are you going to do now Mr Healey - it is you that highlighted this issue?

Care to elaborate? Don't you think it's worrying that we won't be able to defend ourselves?

I'm very disappointed that Healey turned out to be hypocrite who was scheming after a promotion rather than taking a moral stance.

I know what his plan is.

Sign up the Russian soldiers for UC so that they won’t fight.

Really clever.

Labour are terrifying. I can’t believe they are in charge

But I don’t get what is meant to be said. Kemi is going to say more needs to be spent. Pretty much everyone says that.

They just need to look at where to get it from.

Very true. Can't believe Burnham actually said that. Worrying times.

Credibly incompetent

When he is challenged on Defence, Burnham uses it as a tactic. This is why I appointed this excellent man as Chancellor - because he cares so much about Defence. An round and round we go ......

He isn’t being unreasonable. He is just saying it’s not one or the other, that both must be funded.

No that is not what he said at all. National Security is the first responsibility of any government. Social cohesion, trust within communities, improvement of domestic resilience would all help making us a harder target. However we have none of these at present.

Serious economist agree, as most people do, that the benefit bill is far to high and expected to increase unless it is tackled. Unfortunately we are in this situation because of Labour’s incompetence that has stifled, productivity and basically hammered business, farmers and also any working person. They have succeeded in increasing unemployment, NEETS

Disappointed with Kemi ?? She is in opposition she is expected to hold the Government to account? Yes National Security is a major priority. If I remember rightly Kemi offered to work cross party to help reduce the benefit bill and this was rejected.

So yes National Security is an urgent priority, over everything else.