New Prime Minister must not be fooled by false defence versus welfare spending arguments

New Prime Minister Andy Burnham will have spending choices to make as he takes up the reins of power. One unfortunate narrative pushed forward is the need to spend more on defence. This extra spending it is argued should come from welfare, so something of a loaded dice. First, what is the extra defence spending for? Threats from Russia are often cited, though that country has been bogged down in the Ukraine conflict for over four years. So, is the threat over-hyped to justify more spending? The world situation has become more unstable, since Donald Trump became US President. The war with Iran is but the latest example. Trump has also indicated America won't continue to bankroll the defence of Europe. In this debate, it is significant to look at who is given the platforms to argue for more defence spending. Often, it is spokespeople for the arms industry dressed up as objective commentators. The Defence industry needs constant war and unrest to prosper. Another question should be what will the Ministry of Defence (MOD) do with extra funding? There is a blank cheque approach to the discourse on this subject, yet the MOD is legendary amongst Whitehall departments for wasting money. Procurement over the years has been appalling. Defence will not improve by just throwing money at it. The next part of the argument is that the funding should come from welfare - why? Again, 'helpful' commentators and right wing politicians argue welfare spending is out of control, spiralling ever upwards. It needs to be cut. But as economist Jonathan Portes points out, the welfare spending level as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is lower than 15 years ago. And compared to European neighbours it is a lot lower. Another favourite target within welfare spending is the state pension. Yet the pension is a right, not a benefit. People have paid National Insurance for 35 years plus to receive the pension. What is more the National Insurance Fund, which holds the funds is £74 billion in credit. Despite all the talk of scrapping the triple lock (ensuring pensions go up by the highest of prices, wages or 2.5%), UK pensioners are worse off than many European counterparts. There maybe an argument for some increase in targeted defence spending but the argument needs to be far more holistic. The big threat is not any one country but climate change. This is destabilising the world, creating ever more refugees and conflict. Yet, ironically, often, those arguing for increased defence spending at the cost of welfare number amongst those arguing for increased fossil fuel extraction, such as oil from the North Sea. So something of a circular, contradictory construct. More funding maybe needed for Defence and other areas but not by cutting welfare or taking climate change enhancing actions. Maybe there should be more taxes from those with the broadest shoulders. Also, some of the inefficiencies in present operations and the continued retention of the Trident nuclear program? Described as Britain's independent deterrent it is anything but. Controlled by the US, the nuclear weaponry is paid for by British tax payers. Cutting an increasingly redundant program would save tens of millions. So the new PM will have to look carefully at spending setting out his priorities for government. What he should not do is fall for redundant neo-liberal based arguments pushed by vested interests. The common good should be the mantra going forward, not who can profit on the backs of the most vulnerable. published - East London Guardian - 24/7/2026