Andy Burnham declared that national security cannot be achieved at the expense of social security, during a heated exchange at Prime Minister's Questions. The Mayor of Greater Manchester faced pressure from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch regarding Labour's commitment to defence spending targets.

Badenoch challenged Burnham on whether he would commit to spending 3% of the UK's GDP on defence by 2030 and how such an increase would be funded. The Prime Minister's office has stated the government's commitment to defence is absolute, with a target date for reaching the 3% figure to be announced in the spring.

Burnham outlined his approach, stating that Labour would fund defence and reduce the welfare bill through what he termed the "Labour way." This involves reforms in education, increased support for young people, and enhanced mental health services. However, the Conservatives quickly seized on his remarks, with a party spokesperson accusing Burnham of prioritizing the "ballooning benefits bill over our national security."

Following the session, Burnham's team emphasized his commitment to national security as a government's paramount duty. They clarified that their stance against "crude cuts" to welfare aims to prevent pushing individuals into crisis, such as homelessness, which could lead to greater costs elsewhere in the social system.

The exchange occurred amidst ongoing discussions about defence expenditure. The UK has committed to meeting the NATO target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Badenoch, however, pressed Burnham on the immediate threats facing the nation and questioned his party's willingness or ability to meet the 3% target by 2030, a timeline she deemed more urgent than 2035.

Burnham rejected a Conservative proposal to fund increased defence spending partly through reforms to housing benefits, which could save at least £4 billion. He argued that such measures would lead to significant increases in homelessness, with hundreds of thousands of children potentially placed in temporary accommodation. He reiterated that the Labour party would not be forced to choose between national and social security.

In response to Burnham's comments, Badenoch described them as "unbelievable," asserting the necessity of funding defence without allocating all resources to welfare. The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement on fiscal priorities and the potential consequences of cuts to social support systems.

The differing approaches underscore a broader political debate about how to balance essential national security investments with the protection of vulnerable populations and the maintenance of a robust social safety net.