Burnham refuses to trade social security for defence in PMQs
At PMQs, Andy Burnham refused to choose between defence and welfare, setting a 3.5% target by 2035 while opposing Conservative plans for £4bn housing benefit cuts.
The Full Story
A plain summary built from the channels that reported this story.
The political battle over how to fund the UK's armed forces intensified at Prime Minister's Questions, as Andy Burnham rejected the Conservative argument that defence spending must be prioritised over welfare. The Prime Minister said national security could not come at the expense of social security, insisting the government would not be forced to choose between the two.
Burnham reaffirmed the government's commitment to reach 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, but declined to give a date for reaching the interim target of 3%, saying a plan would be set out at the spending review next year. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, seized on this hesitation, accusing the Prime Minister of being "clearly unwilling" to fund defence. She set out her party's fully costed proposal to reach 3% by 2030, funded by £10 billion of cuts to welfare, including £4 billion from housing benefit and £3.1 billion from restoring the two-child benefit cap.
The exchange highlighted the central fiscal dilemma facing the government. The new chancellor, John Healey, resigned from the previous government in the summer when it refused to commit to a 3% target, but as chancellor he has said fiscal discipline is his first priority and has not promised to find the money in the October budget. This has led critics to accuse him of hypocrisy, while others argue he is simply being realistic about the constraints of the public finances.
During the debate, Badenoch said Healey's resignation letter made clear the need to reach 3%, but now that he is in the Treasury he is "not going to do it in the budget". She challenged the government to adopt the Conservative plan. Burnham, in response, insisted the country needed both strong armed forces and a resilient society, and that crude cuts to welfare would undermine national security, not strengthen it.
The political standoff is likely to remain a defining issue for the government as it prepares its first budget in late October. Defence secretaries and senior military figures have warned of rising threats from Russia, Iran and other states, while welfare spending has grown to a level many economists say is unsustainable. The government has said it will bring down the welfare bill by helping more people into work, but has rejected the idea of cutting benefits to pay for defence, setting the stage for a prolonged confrontation with the Conservatives.
On screen
Stills are sampled automatically at 60-second intervals. Where shown, the still is the nearest available frame from the relevant broadcast segment and is included to show what was on screen during that part of the broadcast. A still may not correspond to the exact second of a quoted phrase.
Key Claims
Claims reported during this story's coverage, mapped by channel. Ordered by how many channels carried each claim.
| Claim | Channel 5 | BBC One | BBC Two | Channel 4 | GB News | Sky News |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Badenoch pledged to reach the NATO target of 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 with a £10 billion increase. | · | |||||
| Conservative plans to fund defence include welfare cuts, such as re-imposing the two-child benefit cap and restricting housing benefit. | · | · | ||||
| Healey resigned as defence secretary in June, partly because the government would not commit to a date for reaching 3% of GDP on defence. | · | · | ||||
| The budget is expected on October 28th, but Healey is not expected to find money for defence or social care reform in it. | · | · | ||||
| Andy Burnham said national security cannot come at the expense of social security. | · | · | · | |||
| Healey said fiscal discipline is his first priority and the bedrock of economic stability. | · | · | · | |||
| A pathway to 3% defence spending will be set out at the 2027 spending review. | · | · | · | · | ||
| Badenoch accused Andy Burnham of delaying the defence plan. | · | · | · | · | ||
| Healey denied there was a shift in his principles on defence spending. | · | · | · | · | ||
| Kemi Badenoch accused Andy Burnham of being unwilling to fund defence. | · | · | · | · | ||
| The government has increased defence spending, with reported rises of £15bn and the largest increase since the 1980s. | · | · | · | · | ||
| The government increased defence spending to about 2.6% of GDP. | · | · | · | · |
Channel Perspectives
What each channel focused on, with key quotes.
Sky News focused on the tension between Andy Burnham's ambitious spending promises and the new Chancellor John Healey's insistence on fiscal discipline, using a long interview with Healey to probe whether the government can fund defence without cutting welfare. They also gave prominent airtime to Kemi Badenoch's fully costed alternative.
- “First priority for me, first duty, I would say, for any chancellor is fiscal discipline.”
- “Defence of the realm is the first duty of government, and that is why I announced how we're going to get to 3% of GDP by 2030 today.”
- “John Healey resigned from Keir Starmer's government, saying Labour were not keeping the country safe.”
GB News was strongly critical of Andy Burnham, portraying his PMQs line as putting welfare ahead of national security. They repeatedly attacked John Healey as a hypocrite and argued that welfare cuts are necessary to fund defence, with hosts using emotive language to condemn the government's stance.
- “It's a disgrace. He lost all credibility.”
- “He's a candyfloss prime minister.”
- “Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security.”
Channel 4 focused on the government's defence spending plans being under scrutiny, noting that the 3% target has been pushed back to next spring. They highlighted Conservative criticism of Healey's reversal and the political pressure on the government to clarify its position.
- “John Healey, when he was Defence Secretary and I was his Shadow at the time, resigned with a letter saying the government needs to go to 3%. Well, he's now Chancellor of the Exchequer and he's not going to do it in the budget.”
BBC TWO's Politics Live provided a balanced panel discussion, giving both parties a platform to explain their positions. The focus was on the policy mechanics of funding defence, with Mark Francois defending the Conservative plan and Emma Lewell-Buck arguing that tax avoidance could fund defence instead of welfare cuts.
- “Finding the money to pay for defence means making tough choices. It means difficult trade-offs, something Andy Burnham is reluctant to do.”
- “The main way is by restricting spending on welfare. That includes re-imposing the two child benefit cap.”
BBC ONE West presented the PMQs exchange as a clear political dividing line, reporting Burnham's refusal to choose between defence and welfare and Badenoch's insistence on cutting housing benefit to fund defence. They also noted the warning that the Conservative plans could increase homelessness.
- “Yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security.”
- “He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare.”
5 News covered Kemi Badenoch's press conference in detail, presenting her plan to reach 3% by 2030 as a fully costed alternative to the government's approach. They also noted the political timing, with the announcement coming as President Macron visited London.
- “We have now completed all work to get to 3%. And today, my team have set out our plan to remove housing benefit and remove the VAT exemption for motability, alongside savings from the disastrous Chagos deal and repurposing money from the British business bank into defence, we will be able to hit that 3% target.”
Broadcast Timeline
News broadcasts tracked for this story, in time order.