Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Helen Whately has launched a scathing attack on Andy Burnham, accusing the prospective Prime Minister of failing his biggest test and endangering the country. In an analysis piece, Whately argues that Burnham has no credible answer to the crisis in defence funding, which she says threatens national security.
Burnham's Vision Lacks Substance on Defence
Whately points out that Burnham's recent speech, which called for cheaper energy, affordable homes, and a Britain that works for ordinary people, was long on imagination but short on practical solutions. She stresses that imagining a stronger military is not enough; it must be paid for. The Government's Defence Investment Plan, she notes, is crucial, but Britain is still not spending what it needs to keep itself safe.
Former Defence Secretary John Healey had said Britain's armed forces needed an extra £28 billion. This week, Keir Starmer announced £15 billion—more than the £13.5 billion Healey resigned over, but barely half of what military leaders say is needed. Whately warns that even this £15 billion commitment is unravelling, with most of it dependent on cuts to other government departments, such as transport, or savings within the Ministry of Defence itself. A further £4.7 billion is not even earmarked.
Welfare Reform as the Answer
Whately asserts that the answer lies in welfare reform. The British state now spends more on working-age welfare than on any other government department. Unless that bill is brought under control, she argues, there will never be enough money to properly rearm. The public already understands this, she claims, recognising that the benefits bill has become unsustainable and that getting people off benefits and into work benefits both individuals and public finances.
Keir Starmer tried to reduce the welfare bill last summer, but Labour MPs rebelled. He capitulated and ended up spending more money. Since then, Whately says, Labour has only increased payouts, scrapping the two-child cap and watering down assessments. The current Welfare Secretary's claims that state-subsidised jobs and work experience schemes count as welfare reform are dismissed as inadequate. Spending more taxpayers' money is not the same as reducing long-term welfare dependency.
Manchesterism Not a Solution
Whately criticises Burnham's proposal to bring "Manchesterism" to the whole country, pointing out that Greater Manchester has long had higher unemployment than the national average. Almost one in four working-age adults in the city are economically inactive—well above the UK average. She calls this no model for getting Britain back to work.
Burnham has said he takes Alan Milburn's review of youth unemployment seriously. Whately notes that one of its key conclusions is that the Government has made it too expensive for businesses to hire young people. Skills, education, and employment support matter, but without businesses creating jobs, hundreds of thousands of young people are stuck. She highlights that Burnham's speech omitted what businesses really want: government support or deregulation, not more taxpayer-funded schemes.
Conservative Welfare Savings Plan
Whately calls for a more collaborative politics and suggests Burnham should borrow some Conservative ideas. The Conservatives have set out £23 billion of welfare savings, including fundamental reform of the sickness benefits system, stopping benefits for mild mental health and neurodiversity claims, ending benefits for foreign nationals, tightening the household benefit cap, and restoring face-to-face assessments. The goal is to ensure work always pays better than benefits.
Welfare reform will not be easy, Whately concedes, but rebuilding Britain's armed forces is too important. The money must be found. She concludes with an uncomfortable truth: there is no route to spending what defence requires unless the country first gets control of welfare spending. Britain cannot afford to keep choosing the easier option.
