Prime Minister Andy Burnham stated that national security "cannot come at the expense of social security," a comment that has led to criticism from the Conservative Party, which has labeled Labour the "Welfare Party."
In a published response, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch asserted that Burnham's remarks, made during Prime Minister's Questions, indicate that for the new Prime Minister, "social security – welfare – comes above national security." Badenoch argued that the primary duty of government is national defense, not increased benefits.
Badenoch recently outlined plans to increase defense spending to 3 percent of GDP by 2030, with an intention to cut the welfare budget by £8 billion, half of which would come from reforms to housing benefits. Burnham, however, has refused to commit to the 3 percent defense spending target, which his Chancellor, John Healey, has described as a minimum requirement for national safety. Burnham countered by calling proposed benefit cuts "crude" and stating that Labour would "never be forced to choose between the two."
The Prime Minister defended his stance by emphasizing that strong national security also depends on community resilience and that Labour would not be compelled to prioritize one over the other.
These statements create a distinct political division regarding the urgency of increasing defense expenditure and its funding mechanisms. The remarks also appear to contrast with comments made by Defence Secretary Wes Streeting in June, who stated, "there is no social justice without national security."
Concerns have also been raised about Labour's approach to the welfare budget. A past statement from Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, referencing discussions with former peer Lord Mandelson, indicated that Labour MPs were advocating for increased welfare spending, with requests focusing on identifying new revenue streams to fund benefits.
Conservative welfare spokesman Helen Whately questioned the Prime Minister's perspective, asking if he understood the implications of a vulnerable country being attacked, stating, "Without national security, there will be no social security." Fellow Conservative Claire Coutinho described the Prime Minister's comments as "barking mad."
Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, accused Burnham of "of 'surrender'," suggesting his position implies prioritizing "mild anxiety" over national safety.
Spending on sickness and disability benefits is projected to reach £109 billion by the end of the decade, a significant increase. Efforts by the previous Labour leadership to trim the welfare bill were previously met with opposition from Labour MPs.
Burnham confirmed his opposition to "crude cuts" to benefits, suggesting that long-term reforms in housing and education could eventually reduce the welfare bill. However, sources within the Treasury suggest that the welfare budget is currently the only substantial area for potential revenue generation, given limitations on borrowing and taxation.
Britain's defense spending has fallen in relative international terms, placing it 13th in NATO for spending as a percentage of GDP. Labour's current plans aim to increase spending from 2.6 percent to 2.7 percent by 2030. This contrasts with Germany's projected 3.5 percent and Poland's current 4.7 percent.
Burnham is facing pressure from various political factions to increase defense spending. Tan Dhesi, Labour chairman of the Commons defense committee, has criticized the government for delaying action. Former Defence Secretary John Healey also expressed concern that Labour's plans were insufficient for the current security landscape, advocating for the 3 percent target by 2030. However, neither Healey nor Burnham have committed to this specific deadline, with Burnham instead proposing a target of 3.5 percent by 2035.
The Conservative proposals for increasing defense funding include saving at least £4 billion annually through housing benefit reforms and reinstating the two-child benefit cap, which could yield an additional £3.1 billion. Further savings are anticipated from ending VAT exemptions for Motability vehicles and reallocating funds from other areas.
Downing Street has maintained that Burnham is committed to reducing the welfare bill but has not provided a specific timeline for these actions.
