"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.

Which PM hasn’t? Since the 90s probably Cameron and Blair have looked the most capable at PMQs but that’s because they were good at blustering and bullshitting on their feet. It has almost nothing to do with if they/their cabinet can adopt sensible policies for the country. PMQs is mostly just theatre and the UK is one of the few countries to produce its like.

Not true.

I didnt watch the debate, only the article. He obviously phrased it badly enough to need a follow up, but even it the qoutes i cant see where he ever said he wasnt going to do anything other than fund defence to the targets everyone wanted which is a higher level than the previous government.

It feels like he just meant he didnt think he needed to cut benefits to fund it and the conservatives do.

Well, Burnham better expect more pressure from Trump if he fails to increase the defense budget.

Pressure also from Buenos Aires, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Tel Aviv.

We will soon see if vibes and eyelashes are enough.

Yes, Burnham knows it did not come over well

After PMQs, Burnham's team was at pains to stress his commitment that "national security is the most important duty of any government"

So do you know how Burnham is going to do it?

Then he needs to tell us how! At his current rate of economic performance he is going to need to cut both defense and welfare to pay the 5.8% interest that his lack of belief in the bond markets is costing us.

I agree we need a a better plan for how these things will be funded

I cant get upset imagining that he isnt going to increase spending on defence when we are committed to do so and he didnt say that this wasnt happening.

I also think he was unlikely to say 'yes we will cut benefits to do so' in his second pmq as a labour pm

And that kemi was going to push him to say it

Its like a preset party game.

TBF, if in the budget, the Chancellor doesn’t set out exactly how he’s going to fund defence spending, to what extent and when by I’ll be disappointed too. I do (maybe naively) think he is going to do that though - and in the meantime, I don’t like it being used a political wedge issue.

From what I understand, the IFS have said the defence budget can’t realistically be funded by cuts to welfare alone. So, at the moment no political party seems to have a credible plan. Maybe, if there was more consensus seeking and less point scoring, they’d be able to work together to find one.

The problem with Andy Burnham, in my opinion, is that he wants to please everyone. Unfortunately, as PM, this is an impossible task. He needs to grow a backbone and make some difficult decisions, even if that means pissing some people off.

I’m not sure what you’re asking for here. It’s just a money issue.

The most recent headline figure I saw (within the last week) was 50% of Conservative voters are opposed to cuts in disability benefits. Roughly the same for Reform voters.

His three hour yes-a-thon last week showed how he want to please everyone. He is a bit like a little puppy.

You ignore a massive distinction between unemployment and disability benefits.

Voters want ministers to cut benefits for the unemployed while protecting payments for disabled people, research suggests.

Six in 10 Conservative and Reform supporters want spending on unemployment benefits reduced according to the British Social Attitudes survey.

But voters across the political spectrum are much more reluctant to cut benefits for disabled people who cannot work.

Just 11 per cent of Reform voters and 7 per cent of Conservatives want disability benefits reduced.

Yes! That's the perfect description...especially with his long eyelashes!

Of course he will need to set it out, but the budget has been brought forward and at that point you will have everything laid out.
The process is going to happen, the budget is going to be published. We're in the usual pre-budget phase of will the honourable gentleman rule out X, will he commit to y. No I won't, the honourable lady must wait for the budget.

I agree with Burnham on this. We need a cohesive society as the bedrock who are not starving and homeless. That’s the minimum. Then we work on national security.

Also, I hope he brings in tax rises because that reverses that silly idea of Starmer and Reeves of committing in advance to not raising taxes that is putting a lot of pressure on the economy.

The normal pretending that they have no idea what they are going to say until the budget day itself. It makes me laugh they say they are not going to write the budget is response to a question - you'd like to think these things are planned well in advance so they should be able to give a bit of steer as time goes by rather than the chancellor pulling an all nighter the day before the speech.

Every day that goes by borrowing costs are getting higher and higher.

We won't have to worry about being homeless or starving if we can't defend ourselves.

Burnham and Healey have said that they won't do it then. This is why I don't like everyone being fobbed off by them after Healy resigning over the same thing.

Only 60% of Cons and Reform voters want cuts to unemployment benefits?
I had only seen the figures on disability benefits.

The other issue is the amount spent on unemployment benefits is much smaller than on disability benefits. Unemployment support is a small proportion of the total.

Every party is struggling with this. Across the spectrum there's no clear support for major cuts.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to increasing defence spending - the question is how to pay for it. And at the moment, neither side seem to have a credible plan - the IFS has said that welfare cuts alone won't raise the kind of money needed. So, what I'd like to is for both sides to work together to reach a consensus on how the money can be found. Then, if both parties agree to stick to those funding plans, whoever is in power, then that allows the military to plan and budget further ahead. I think some issues are important enough to demand cross party cooperation - and ideological compromise from both sides - and in my opinion this is one of them.

If you read up on the process they haven't got a clear decision because proposals are still being costed and modelled.

It's important not to go down the conspiracy theory route. Every chancellor ever has had to work to the budget date. That's how the process works.

Its not a political football though. Its a basic requirement. And Labour are unable to achieve it. If they can't manage the defence spending then they shouldn't be in government.

It just shows how weak the Cabinet is when confronted with the PLP. The PM has no real power to reduce welfare spending.

They've already had the spending review. They just don't like the findings.