Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
Andy Burnham emphasized that national security should not be achieved at the cost of social security during Prime Minister’s Questions, responding to concerns about defence funding. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch questioned whether Burnham would commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 and how such spending would be funded. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the government’s firm commitment to defence and indicated that a target date to reach the 3% goal would be announced in the upcoming spring spending review.
Burnham insisted that defence funding could be balanced with reducing welfare expenses through Labour’s approach, which focuses on improving education, supporting young people, and expanding mental health services. However, the Conservatives criticized these remarks, accusing Burnham of refusing to cut welfare spending to boost defence budgets. A party spokesperson claimed, “Britain heard it loud and clear today: Andy Burnham will not cut welfare to fund the defence of our country,” and accused the Prime Minister of favoring rising benefits costs over national security. Burnham’s team later stressed his belief that “national security is the most important duty of any government” while reaffirming the prime minister’s aim to reduce welfare costs. They argued against “crude cuts” that might worsen homelessness and lead to more expensive social consequences.
During the Commons debate, Burnham confirmed that the government planned to meet NATO’s target by spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, with the 3% milestone to be set in the spring spending review. The Prime Minister highlighted the appointment of John Healey, who had resigned from Sir Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet over a failure to commit to a 3% defence spending target by 2030, praising Healey’s dedication to national defence. Badenoch countered, pointing out that 2035 was too far away and that immediate threats demanded a quicker response. She pressed Burnham on whether he was unwilling or unable to meet the 2030 target.
Burnham, however, rejected a Conservative proposal to partially finance defence increases by cutting £4 billion from housing benefits. He warned that such reductions would drastically worsen homelessness, causing “hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation,” thereby creating higher costs in other areas. His stance was clear: while national security is vital, it must not come at the expense of social welfare. Burnham promised that Labour would not be forced to choose between defence and welfare and indicated plans to reach the 3.5% defence spending goal by 2035 in the forthcoming spending review. Badenoch dismissed these comments as “unbelievable” and argued that welfare should not consume all resources needed for defence.
Burnham reiterated his plan to reduce the welfare budget by targeting the number of young people not engaged in education, employment, or training—the so-called “NEETs.” He described this as “the Labour way to get the welfare bill down” and insisted this approach was the correct path to funding defence. In response, Badenoch accused Burnham of being “continuity Keir,” suggesting he was failing to deliver meaningful welfare cuts despite presenting himself as a candidate for change. Previous attempts by Sir Keir as prime minister to reduce disability benefits had faced strong opposition from Labour MPs and were shelved.
The Conservative Party sees welfare bill reductions as vital to funding increased defence spending. Benefit costs have surged recently and are projected to reach £408.6 billion by 2030/31, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. There is particular concern over the nearly one million young people classified as NEETs in the UK. In response, the government has tasked former minister Alan Milburn with investigating this issue, and his final recommendations are expected to be published soon
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.