Finance · Hometown Post
Just now, Becky Morton, a Political reporter from UK Parliament, reported that Andy Burnham, UK Prime Minister, said national security 'can't come at the expense of social security' during PMQs. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch challenged Burnham over whether he would meet the 3% GDP defence spending target by 2030 and how he would fund it. Burnham responded that the government's defence commitment is 'absolute' and would set a target for reaching 3% in the spring.
He proposed funding defence by reducing welfare costs through education reforms, supporting young people, and expanding mental health services. The Conservatives criticized Burnham, stating he would not cut welfare to fund defence. Burnham reiterated the government's commitment to NATO’s 3.5% GDP defence spending target by 2035, appointing John Healey, who previously resigned as defence secretary over the 2030 target, to support national security.
Badenoch argued 2035 was too late and questioned Burnham’s willingness to meet the 2030 target. Burnham insisted on funding defence without cutting social security, rejecting a Conservative plan to save £4bn by reducing housing benefits, citing potential homelessness. He proposed reducing the welfare bill by improving education and employment rates for young people.
Badenoch accused Burnham of continuity with Keir Starmer’s policies, while Burnham defended his approach. The welfare bill is projected to rise to £408.6bn by 2030/31, with concerns over nearly one million 'Neets' (not in education, employment, or training). Alan Milburn, a former minister, is expected to release recommendations on tackling this issue soon.
Source: BBC
