‘National security can’t come at the expense of social security’: Burnham’s staggering admission as Kemi says it confirms Labour is officially the Welfare Party
Andy Burnham has sparked a political row after telling the Commons that national security "cannot come at the expense of social security", rejecting the idea that defence spending should be boosted by cutting welfare. The Prime Minister's remarks came in response to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who accused him of confirming that Labour has become the "Welfare Party" and argued that defending the country, not paying benefits, is government's first duty. The clash exposes a widening dividing line in British politics over how quickly defence spending should rise and how it should be funded, and appears to put Burnham at odds with his own Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting.
Badenoch had previously set out plans to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030 by finding £10billion, including £8billion in welfare cuts, largely from housing benefit reforms. Burnham declined to commit to the 3 per cent target — described by Chancellor John Healey as the minimum needed for safety — and dismissed the Tory approach as "crude" cuts, insisting reforms to housing and education could reduce the benefits bill over time instead. Critics including Tory MPs Helen Whately and Claire Coutinho, and Reform UK's Richard Tice, condemned the comments, while sickness and disability benefit spending is forecast to reach £109billion by 2030, and the UK has slipped to 13th in Nato's defence spending rankings.
- Burnham says welfare spending must not be sacrificed for defence
- Badenoch brands Labour the "Welfare Party" in response
- UK defence spending debate intensifies amid rising benefits bill
New here? Start with this
Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, has clashed with Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch over how Britain should pay for higher defence spending. The row centres on whether money for the armed forces should come from cutting welfare payments, such as housing and disability benefits, or whether the two areas should be kept separate. It follows growing pressure on the UK to increase military spending, after the country slipped to 13th in Nato's rankings for how much members spend on defence.
Badenoch has proposed raising defence spending to 3 per cent of national income by 2030, funded partly by billions of pounds in welfare savings. Burnham has resisted committing to that target and rejected her approach, arguing instead for gradual reforms to housing and education that could reduce the benefits bill over time. His Chancellor, John Healey, has separately called 3 per cent the minimum needed for national safety, while welfare spending on sickness and disability benefits is projected to keep rising sharply in the coming years.
The disagreement matters because it highlights a wider debate in British politics about the government's spending priorities and how far one area of public spending, such as defence, should be protected or expanded at the expense of another, such as welfare. It has also drawn in other senior figures, including Defence Secretary Wes Streeting, and reflects broader tensions between the main political parties over economic policy and Britain's global security commitments.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to Burnham's position argue that a wealthy nation should not be forced into a false choice between defending its borders and protecting its most vulnerable citizens, and that abrupt, arithmetic-driven welfare cuts risk real hardship for disabled people and low-income families without any guarantee of long-term savings. They contend that structural reforms to housing and education can shrink the benefits bill sustainably over time, whereas slashing support such as housing benefit to meet an arbitrary spending target is a blunt instrument that punishes claimants rather than fixing the underlying causes of high welfare demand. On this view, a responsible government weighs defence funding against its fiscal and social effects rather than treating a percentage-of-GDP figure as sacrosanct.
The case against
Those sympathetic to Badenoch's position argue that the state's first and non-negotiable duty is to keep its citizens safe, and that in a period of rising global threats and Britain's fall to 13th in Nato's defence spending rankings, hitting the 3 per cent target without delay is a matter of national survival that cannot wait for slow-burn welfare reform. They contend that with sickness and disability spending forecast to reach £109billion by 2030, a welfare system growing at that pace is unsustainable and overdue for firm, decisive reform, and that hesitating to fund defence properly for fear of political cost to welfare claimants risks leaving the country dangerously exposed. On this view, clear prioritisation and difficult but necessary savings are preferable to vague promises of future efficiencies.