Badenoch Presses Burnham to Cut Housing Benefit to Pay for Defence

Andy Burnham rejected Conservative calls to cut welfare to pay for higher defence spending on Wednesday, telling MPs that a £4bn reduction in housing benefit proposed by Kemi Badenoch would drive homelessness to levels the country has not seen before.

The clash dominated Prime Minister's Questions on 9 September, only the second time the two leaders have faced each other across the despatch box since Mr Burnham entered Downing Street in July. It was also the final session before the Commons rose for the party conference recess, giving both sides a last chance to sharpen their dividing lines before activists gather.

A question of timing and money

Mrs Badenoch used all of her questions on how the government intends to meet its defence commitments. Britain is signed up to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, and the Conservative leader pressed the Prime Minister repeatedly on whether he would also guarantee that spending reaches 3% by 2030, and on where the money would come from.

Mr Burnham restated the 2035 commitment but did not give a firm pledge on the interim 2030 figure. He told the Commons that he had appointed his Chancellor partly because of that minister's strong commitment to the nation's defence, and insisted the armed forces would be properly supported without raiding the welfare budget.

Mrs Badenoch accused him of offering "continuity Keir", a jibe aimed at his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, whom she said had also failed to get welfare spending under control.

The Conservative plan

The Tories have set out their own route to 3% by the end of the decade. It would take £4bn out of housing benefit and restore the two-child limit, which restricts means-tested support for families to their first two children. Conservatives argue that the savings would allow defence spending to rise faster without extra borrowing or higher taxes.

Mr Burnham said removing that sum from housing support would leave many families unable to keep a roof over their heads. Protecting national security, he told MPs, "can't come at the expense of social security". He argued that the better way to bring down the benefits bill over time was to invest in education and mental health support so that more people are able to move into work.

Sketch writers and commentators in the press gallery noted that the Prime Minister struggled to give a precise answer on how the additional defence money would be raised. The question is likely to resurface as the government prepares its next round of tax and spending decisions.

Settlement sanctions also raised

The session also touched on the government's decision to impose sanctions linked to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, announced by the Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband. Mr Burnham defended the move, arguing that talk of a two-state solution meant little unless it was matched by action.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ed Davey, welcomed the policy and said it should have come much sooner. The Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin was the lone voice questioning the government, raising concerns about the diplomatic risks.

What happens next

With the Commons now in recess, the argument moves to the conference halls. The parties will use their gatherings over the coming weeks to test their messages on defence, welfare and the cost of living before MPs return to Westminster.

The row over how to fund the armed forces looks set to intensify. Military chiefs have warned in recent months that operations could be scaled back without more money, trade unions are urging ministers not to squeeze public services, and the Conservatives are betting that voters will reward tougher limits on benefits. How Mr Burnham reconciles those pressures will be one of the defining tests of his first months in office.

Image: UK Parliament via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0