Andy Burnham has been accused of turning Labour into the “Welfare Party” after the prime minister said national security could not come “at the expense of social security”, intensifying a political row over defence spending and the cost of Britain’s benefits system.
Burnham told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions that the government would not accept a choice between military security and domestic welfare, arguing that national resilience was itself a component of national security.
But Kemi Badenoch, Conservative leader, accused the prime minister of having “said the quiet part out loud”, arguing that his comments revealed a fundamental shift in Labour’s priorities.
“For our new PM, social security – welfare – comes above national security,” Badenoch wrote in the Mail.
“The Labour Party has become the Welfare Party. The first duty of Government is defence of the country, not paying more benefits.”
The confrontation comes as the government faces pressure to increase defence expenditure while finding the money to finance a growing welfare bill.
The Conservatives last week outlined proposals to raise an additional £10bn for defence, with about £8bn of the package expected to come from cuts to benefits.
Burnham has nevertheless refused to prioritise defence spending over social security, while the government has yet to provide a firm timetable for reaching 3 per cent of GDP on defence. The issue has already contributed to political tensions within Labour, with John Healey having resigned as defence secretary under Sir Keir Starmer over the pace and funding of the spending increase.
Diane Johnson, the health minister, rejected claims that the prime minister’s position was confused, insisting that national security remained the government’s overriding responsibility.
“The Prime Minister, in his first outing in the House of Commons last week, said that national security was the priority for this Government, as it would be for any government to keep our people safe,” she told GB News.
Johnson said Burnham had been challenging the Conservatives’ proposals rather than questioning the importance of defence.
“What he was doing yesterday was explaining why some of the proposals the leader of the opposition was putting forward as ways of investing in defence wouldn’t actually work and would cost more money. But I think we can all agree that we want to get the welfare budget down.”
Pressed on whether the government’s position was contradictory, Johnson said defence spending remained on course.
“We’ve committed to invest in defense to get to 3.5 per cent by 2035, our Nato commitment. We’ve already reached our 2.5 per cent target. There’s more money going into defense now than at any time since the Cold War.”
Richard Holden, the Conservative shadow transport secretary, said Burnham had “not thought through” his argument.
“He said, basically, the top priority is the social security, whereas we all know that you cannot have any form of state, any form of welfare, without that national security for a state to exist within,” Holden told GB News.
“I don’t think he’s really thought this through at all. The questions he’s really putting to the people are: where’s the tax going to come from to pay for it?”
The dispute exposes a growing faultline over whether Britain can simultaneously expand public spending at home and rebuild its military capacity — and, crucially, who should bear the cost.
Leave a Comment