By Mathew Hulbert
There are some political choices which are presented to us as inevitable when, in reality, they are nothing of the sort. The supposed choice between defending our country and protecting the welfare state is one of them.
Andy Burnham was absolutely right this week when he insisted at Prime Minister’s Questions that national security cannot come at the expense of social security. The Prime Minister was responding to Conservative proposals to find billions of pounds of additional defence spending through cuts to welfare, including housing support.
The PM rightly described such an approach as “crude”. It is also based upon a fundamentally flawed understanding of what security actually means. Let’s be clear: Britain must be able to defend itself. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to demonstrate the threat posed by Putin. The international rules-based order is under enormous pressure. Cyber warfare, terrorism and instability across the globe all present very real challenges.
I am an internationalist, not a pacifist. I believe in NATO, albeit a NATO which must continue to reform and adapt, and I strongly support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom. Britain therefore needs properly funded armed forces, capable of protecting this country and fulfilling our obligations to our allies. But here is where I part company with those on the political Right.
Security is about considerably more than tanks, warships and fighter jets.
A family knowing that they can keep a roof over their heads is security.
A disabled person knowing the State will support them to live independently is security.
A pensioner knowing that they can heat their home is security.
A properly funded NHS, functioning social care system and decent affordable housing are all part of the infrastructure of a secure nation.
The welfare State isn’t some luxurious optional extra which we can raid whenever another department requires money. It is one of the foundations upon which a civilised society rests. And there is something particularly perverse about suggesting that those with the least should be asked to pay for Britain’s increased defence spending. If our country needs to spend more on defence – and I accept that it does -then politicians should have the courage to have an honest conversation about how we raise the money. That must include asking those with the broadest shoulders economically to contribute more.
Britain remains an economically wealthy country, but that wealth is distributed grotesquely unevenly. Before taking housing support from struggling families or cutting assistance to disabled people, we should be looking much more seriously at the taxation of extreme wealth.
This is also where Andy Burnham’s argument can become part of something much bigger. For too long British politics has treated different forms of security as though they exist in separate boxes. They don’t.
A resilient country is one in which people believe they have a stake. It is one where communities are strong, public services function well and nobody is abandoned when times get tough.
We should absolutely defend Britain from those who threatened us from abroad. But we must never pretend that making our poorest citizens less secure somehow makes our country safer. National security and social security aren’t competing ambitions.
A genuinely secure Britain needs both.