"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.

I just think proposals are being costed and modelled etc as a pp said in another post. Labour will want to be in control of where money comes from.

If the Conservatives were involved they would probably suggest cutting different things, which is fine by me, but Labour are in power so will want their ideas to be in place.

Sorry didn’t make myself clear, based on past experience with Burnham in his past role he is definitely out of his depth. Also cannot wait to see their sensible policies.

Last time round it seemed to work by Reeves hinting at income tax rises and then getting all coy about it, and then whispering about tax thresholds to favoured financial journalists. Or as most observers described it, misleading the country and leaking.

If a chancellor and government genuinely want to keep the budget under wraps and refuse to answer questions they should act consistently. I expect we’ll see much the same game playing from Healey.

The government have said they're going to increase defence spending, and they're going to set out how at the budget.

But the fact is, Conservatives don't currently have a credible plan for how they'll fund defence either - plenty of economists agree that the gap can't be filled by welfare cuts alone, because done crudely welfare cuts just shift the financial burden elsewhere, costing the taxpayer more in the long run.

That's why it all feels so performative and tit for tat. I think we need cross-party working to reach a realistic consensus on how the money that everyone agrees is needed for defence, can actually be found.

No. This is not what is happening. Labour's welfare Bill and borrowing costs are going up not down. They have no money to meet the defence targets and the PLP won't let them cut welfare. So they are hoping by next year that something turns up to boost the economy so they can meet the defence target. Eg the Ukraine war ends or Trump ends the Iran thing. Neither of which is likely. Its a big gamble and on current luck, will probably fail. The risk is of course that something like Argentina attacking the Falklands happens and we are exposed as being defenceless. That will be the end of Labour of course.

A spending review is not a budget.

It's so irritating people either don't understand the processes, or pretend not to to score short term political points.

Argue about the policies, sure, but all the moaning about processes is frustrating.

Oh yes that might happen, I more meant on having to share the process with other parties, namely the opposition, as put forward below as working together.

I think this is for Labour to resolve.

That sort of implies that the current government can't do it on their own. Which means they are not fit for purpose. Are they assuming the next government won't be Labour? Why do they need to involve the Conservatives? It's pathetic.

AB won't commit to the necessary spending targets. He can't even say it.

He's not prepared to roll back the spending they’ve already agreed on such as relaxing child benefit rules and I guess to find the money for defence it would involve increasing taxes and he knows that more and more tax will see them out on their arse next election.

They won a majority, they should be in government . Unless you plan to organise a revolution, they will stay there.

They are in government but unable to make a decision and act on something without the Conservatives? There is a solution of course and that's a vote of no confidence.

Burnham seems to have no such concerns about talking about what is going to spend in many other areas. It's just when it comes to paying for it we have to wait for the budget. Why not hold back all the announcements until the budget once they have worked out how it all balances?

Whats the point of the spending review if they won't carry out it's findings.

Its all just fiddling while Rome burns. If they cant get a lid on welfare the country is wrecked anyway. I expect Putin will definitely wait for the findings of another spending review/budget and for Andy B to make his mind up whether he wants to finance defence, before he decides to attacks NATO. Its the gentlemanly thing to do.

Are you new to politics, have you never watched the process before?
He's doing nothing unusual.

You're surely not going to pretend that the Conservatives publish their budgets eight weeks early!

The big issue though is that this government, under both Starmer and Burnham, are shouting from the rooftops that they realise our military defence is totally inadequate, but it’s okay folks, we’ll get it somewhere near to okay by 2030. Maybe. Our potential enemies must think it hilarious that we are putting it out there how ill equipped we are. Labour are absolutely clueless, and at this stage any other party would be preferable to this circus we have in charge. Apart from the Greens of course, who are way more incompetent, if that’s possible.

Because the spending review is not a budget, the budget is a political response. Different political parties respond differently to the same spending review.

Read up on the difference between the two events.

Won a majority by default. People voted to keep the Tories out. Not to get Labour in. Many are now regretting their short sightedness I suspect.

I have already said this. AB and JH have not said that they will answer this specific question - the 3% on Defence - in the Budget. They continue to deflect and AB says that's why he appointed JH. And JH says that it's because of AB that he resigned over it (I made up that bit).

You think the Labour party will vote no confidence in their own government? Why would you think this would happen?

The trouble is AB (as we all know) is stuck in the past. He's still living in Fukuyama's world where history ended. No need to build up your military. The peace dividend can still be spent on welfare. No one will attack us or NATO. The US is a reliable ally that will always come to our aid. Open our doors to the world because everyone has the right to a good life in the UK. Gen X attitude. The world does not contain danger for us. Everything will turn out fine if we just chill.

Well they won't because the PLP want welfare not defence. Obviously.

The opinion polls tell you what people feel now. Yes support for Labour is reduced. Burnham himself has a positive approval rating at present.

It doesn't matter why they won the majority - they won it. That's the system.

They want a labour government, obviously

This conversation is just silly. Politics is politics.

I am not saying they can't do it themselves. And in fact, my point really isn't party political at all - I think whoever is in government, they should be working cross party to agree long term defence funding, in the national interest. Lots of other countries do this much better than we do: places like Sweden, Norway, and Finland keep national security separate from electoral cycles. They agree defence spending through multi-party commissions and legally binding long-term plans: that's how Norway's parliament secured unanimous cross-party backing for a locked-in funding framework extending to 2036. I personally would like to see much more of that kind of ambitious consensus building in British politics.

Oh yes maybe he is not a Rachel Reeves? Did you show so much indignation then?