Kemi Badenoch has warned Andy Burnham that Britain’s welfare state is ultimately dependent on national security, as the prime minister faces mounting pressure to explain how he will fund a major expansion in defence spending.
“Without national security, there aren’t going to be any benefits,” Badenoch said, accusing Burnham of putting social security ahead of the defence of the country.
The Conservative leader attacked the prime minister after he said national security “cannot come at the expense of social security”, prompting accusations that Labour had become the “welfare party”.
Badenoch said the government’s first responsibility was to protect the country and warned that failing to strengthen the Armed Forces could have consequences extending far beyond defence.
“What we’re doing is making sure that people are protected, but capping the amount that people get on benefits because we need to look after our national security. Without national security, there aren’t going to be any benefits. We’re all going to be in danger, far more people will be homeless, and the Government’s first duty is defence of the realm,” she said.
The Conservatives have pledged an additional £10bn for defence, taking spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030. Their proposed funding package includes £8bn of welfare reductions, with about half coming from reforms to housing benefits.
Badenoch defended proposals that would require some people receiving local housing allowance to move to cheaper areas.
“What we are saying is that where people are living in areas where it’s too expensive. They’ll have to move somewhere cheaper. Moving somewhere cheaper is what everybody else does,” she said.
She later told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the measures would “protect existing tenants”.
“You should aspire to live wherever you want to live, but you shouldn’t aspire for the government, i.e. other taxpayers, to pay for you to live wherever you want to,” she said.
Badenoch also backed reinstating the two-child benefit cap, arguing: “I think other people who are choosing not to have more children because they can’t afford it should not be paying for other people to have children.”
Burnham has so far refused to commit to the Conservatives’ 3 per cent target, despite John Healey, his new chancellor, having previously argued that the level was necessary to protect Britain’s security.
The prime minister accused the Conservatives of proposing “crude” benefit reductions to fund the Armed Forces.
“We do everything to support our national security. But it can’t come at the expense of social security,” Burnham said.
He rejected the idea of taking £4bn from housing benefits to fund defence, warning that it could generate a severe housing crisis.
“I don’t think myself that taking £4bn out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue because that would create levels of homelessness in this country that we wouldn’t have seen before – hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation,” he said.
The dispute comes as spending on sickness and disability benefits is forecast to reach £109bn by the end of the decade, more than £30bn above last year’s level.
Overall welfare spending is projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to rise from £333bn to £407bn by 2030/31.
Badenoch said Burnham’s position left the government with an unavoidable choice.
“This means he’s either not going to fund defence or he’s doing to fund it by raising taxes. There’s no other way,” she said.
“I’m very worried because our welfare bill is getting out of control. We’re spending more on welfare than we do on defence and education combined.”
The argument goes to the heart of the government’s fiscal dilemma: how to rebuild Britain’s military capability while protecting a welfare system whose costs are rising rapidly — and whether taxpayers will ultimately be asked to pay for both.
Leave a Comment