The FT has reported today that:
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has reignited a debate about funding an uplift to defence spending via borrowing outside the UK's fiscal rules, in a veiled criticism of the government's approach.
Burnham floated the idea in a wide-ranging interview on Wednesday in which he warned Labour needed to take a “different course”.
I agree about Labour. But as for the rest, that needs unpacking.
On the surface, this comment might appear to be about defence spending and fiscal rules. In reality, it was about something rather more significant. It is a piece of political positioning based on the persistence of deeply flawed economic thinking at the heart of the Labour Party.
Burnham suggested that increased defence spending might be funded by borrowing outside the UK's fiscal rules, whilst clearly criticising Keir Starmer. The politics, then, is straightforward. The economics is anything but.
What Burnham has done is to accept, apparently without challenge, the idea that defence spending must rise. That assumption now dominates Westminster debate, driven by geopolitical tension, alliance politics, and a very strong military-industrial complex rhetoric on this issue, driven by the likes of former Labour Defence Secretary, Lord George Robertson, who now works for the defence sector (surprise, surprise). But it remains an assumption. It is not a given. By accepting it, Burnham narrows the scope of any debate before it has even begun.
He then compounds that error by framing the issue purely in terms of how to fund this increase and whether it should be done within or outside fiscal rules. In doing so, he avoids the more fundamental question, which is whether this is the right form of spending at all. Most strikingly of all, he does not define what “defence” actually means. That omission is not incidental; it is central to the weakness of his argument.
If defence is taken to mean little more than increased military expenditure, then what is being proposed is an expansion of the military-industrial complex. That directs public money towards procurement contracts and corporate interests, all justified in the name of national security. Yet there is remarkably little evidence that such spending, in isolation, delivers genuine security for the population as a whole. Nor does it or can it deliver the growth Labour politicians crave. The economic multipliers from defence spending are dire.
That matters because real security is not created by weapons alone. A country is secure when its society is stable, cohesive, and resilient. That depends on the quality of its health service, its education system, its social security arrangements, its infrastructure, and its housing. These are not peripheral issues; they are the foundation of any meaningful concept of defence.
In that light, Burnham's proposal looks not just incomplete, but misconceived. By focusing on the financing of defence without defining its purpose, he implicitly elevates military spending above social investment. That is a profoundly neoliberal framing of the issue, even if it is presented as a challenge to fiscal orthodoxy.
There is, moreover, a contradiction at the heart of his position. He appears willing to relax fiscal rules, but only for a specific category of spending. There is no suggestion that similar flexibility should apply to investment in health, education, or social security. That is not a rejection of neoliberalism. It is a selective adaptation of it, one that privileges the priorities of the state's coercive apparatus over the well-being of its citizens.
Meanwhile, the government's own position, articulated by Rachel Reeves, is to fund increased defence spending through reallocation. In practice, that has already meant cuts to overseas aid and implies further pressure on domestic budgets. So the debate is being conducted within a tightly constrained frame, where the expansion of defence spending is taken as given, and everything else must adjust around it.
What is required instead is a reframing of the issue. Defence should be understood not as the accumulation of military capability, but as the protection of the conditions necessary for a functioning society. That would mean recognising that investment in public services, in reducing inequality, and in addressing climate risk are all in themselves central to national security.
Burnham's intervention is therefore revealing. It suggests that a leadership contest within Labour is taking shape, but it also suggests that even those positioning themselves as alternatives remain constrained by a narrow and inadequate neoliberal economic framework.
If there is to be a genuinely different course, it will not be found in adjusting fiscal rules to accommodate undefined defence spending. It will require a much more fundamental reconsideration of what the economy is for, and what it is that we are seeking to defend.
Because defence, in any meaningful sense, is not about weapons. It is about people. And until that is recognised, the debate we are having is not about security at all, but about preserving priorities that no longer serve the public interest.
Seen in the light of his comments that firmly commit him to perpetuation of the status quo, Andy Burnham is not a solution to any known problem.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Agree with all. Dinner/talking with a drone chap last night. He has high level NATO security clearance. I asked him what the doctrine was with respect to drones – where did they fit in. There does not seem to be one at the moment. Very roughly militaries in Europe are in the same position as those in 1918 – tanks – what to do with them. Liddle-Hart changed that and defined armoured warfare (which Guderian used btw). Point: there is little point talking about defense spending until you know on what (what is it supposed to do) and why (what are the objectives). The needs/actions of the UK’s industrial-weapons complex are clear: make money & here is this nice shiny summat – cheap @ twice the price etc. This does not deliver defense – it just delivers equipment that might, or might not be of use, in a new & rapidaly evolving environment.
LINO, with Burnham leading it (or not) is finished. They have no financial policies designed to help citizens, only bankers & what is worse, they have no significant groups of MPs within LINO MPs capable of even formulating citizen focused financial policy. Discussion tends to be “ow yer gonna pay fer it”, style of.
I feel that you are right – this signifies nothing else but the emergence of a leadership contest – which is basically an internal matter for the Labour(ed) party.
Plus defence spending has a poor RoI and multiplier effect.
More importantly, who wants to attack the UK? It has no resources, no energy sources or tech know how to covet. Just a financial system based on money laundering and tax evasion.
The only reason the UK may be at risk is because MI6 wants to play James Bond alongside the CIA in regime change ops, and people Robertson and Blair want to play Churchill.
Interesting article in todays Grauniad which I have only managed to read as I am off work with a chest infection
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/30/as-a-ukrainian-journalist-ive-covered-the-us-for-20-years-i-find-it-increasingly-shocking
In particular
The war revealed to us what a state truly is. It’s not just about law enforcement but about the services that hold a country together. For us, statehood now means trains running to frontline areas; a health care system capable of treating thousands of wounded; schools and universities continuing to teach – sometimes online, sometimes under occupation; and civil servants adapting services for millions of displaced people. These are not ideological constructs, they are lifelines. And they cannot be replaced by philanthropy or the private sector. Survival cannot be outsourced.
Gosh, thanks for that John B.
I know exactly what Thomas Hobbes would think about this. He saw it all a long time ago.
It is worse in the USA as a bunch of brain damaged Republicans (see Miss Lindsey Graham as the poster child) want to spend $400,000,000 of government-public money to build a palace style Presidential ballroom that Trump told the American people would be be paid for privately by himself and other wealthy donors.
This is all happening in the same year that Republicans removed health insurance premium subsidies for in-work Americans.
You cannot make this stuff up!
Agreed
Good luck!
Much of the consensus at Westminster seems to be throwing yet more money at an already dysfunctional defence procurement system. That the end result is equipment unfit for purpose and demoralised service personnel is apparently irrelevant in the face of shareholder dividends.
Apparently we need an “Iron Dome” missile defence system.
https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/uk-iron-dome-needed-guard-against-russian-attack-defence-review-set-warn
https://spectator.com/article/britain-doesnt-need-an-iron-dome/
I’ve been trying to work out WHO might pepper us with missiles, who COULD pepper us with missiles, and WHY they might pepper us with missiles (other than Russia).
Perhaps George Robertson could tell us?
With the majority of the population now suffering ill health before retirement and life expectancy in UK falling, the most effective way of crippling the UK looks like sabotaging the Green Party and the tech bro billionaires and the MSM seem to have that well in hand alteady. No missile attack required.
I don’t believe there is a single person in the political class who is capable of addressing reality as it is let alone act in the interests of anyone except the ruling class (which I suppose means the people who posess and control the bulk of money and physical resources).
The public has to lose their faith in the entire political system before any meaningful movement for change can occur as the people the public turn to are still of the same education, mindset, loyalty as those they want to remove from power. Reform is the Tories, Greens are Labour.
And so it goes.
I can some reasons for spending more on defence – with the Putin regime in Russia and Trump in the USA, but the question is what sort of defence? The impact of the drone war in the Ukraine shows how things have changed. More expenditure on the old weaponry seems a somewhat dubious proposition.
Obviously it is not a case of defence versus welfare and we need to make everyone feel secure in the widest sense of the term. Apart from Clive Lewis I cannot think of a Labour MP who has a clue about running anything at all!
My eldest son (18 months Camp Bastion) told me how bloody awful the equipment situation was then. It has worsened since. There is no interest in actually thinking how to defend the UK , nor what changes in society might be necessary (cf Finland). We already have drone factories, except they are facilitating genocide or defending Ukraine. Equally, we need politicians of calibre (e.g. Attlee, Keynes) who can reorganise UK. None currently available.
I know very little about this Andy Burnham person except that he is Labour and very popular in the North England.
The problem of the UK, like the problems of the USA, cannot and will not be solved by one person. It is going to take a collection of talented and expert individuals elected to office that are willing to throw out all the old rules, put country before party and the next election, LISTEN TO THE VOTERS then come up with ways to implement solutions. The solutions are present and screaming to be put into action. However, it is going to take very brave people (like FDR, Attlee, Lyndon Johnson, Lloyd George, the Greens…etc…etc…etc and their supporters) to implement the solutions.
Andy Burnham alone is NOT the answer.
Burnham is far from my ideal next PM, as we would end up with more neoliberalism and deficit hysteria to a certain extent. My preferred next Labour leader would be Clive Lewis. However, I would still be delighted if Burnham does become the next PM as he is the most leftwing candidate with a realistic prospect of winning the Labour leadership, and so he would be a lot better than what we have now. He would make it much less likely that Reform will win the election, and he supports proportional representation, opening up the way for a better form of government. He would also bring back more democracy to the Labour party and hopefully do something about the toxic factionalism of the Labour Together crew
He’s been quiet on Gaza so it’s difficult to know where he stands but he has the advantage of not having been a member of a government that helped to carry out a genocide, and unlike the other candidates he wasn’t in parliament during the votes for a ceasefire in 2023 or to proscribe PA. He probably wouldn’t go as far as I would like on Gaza, but he would be a lot better than what we have now.
I would say that Burnham is the solution to the problem of what is the most realistic means to get from where we are now to a Clive Lewis or Zack Polanski type Prime Minister. He’s not the end we’re looking for, but he’s a good bridge to get us there.
No he isn’t
He’s a another neoliberal who would take us nowhere whilst keeping private capital happy
Burnham’s stated opinions on national politics are decent, but the ‘King of the North’ isn’t a progressive hero.
There have been some rather dodgy dealings between the GMCA and property developers, most notably Renaker. I beleive Burnham has actually spoken positivley about building council housing, and yet in his city they get luxury flat buildings built by private developers, funded by the GMCA, and yet exempt from the Council’s social housing requirements.
Others have pointed to the serious flaws in our defence procurement, but I really do think that lack of vision is central to the matter.
The Westminister consensus is that defence spending must be 3%. But a target isn’t a plan. Now, this has been a consistent Labour failing (as we saw with the ‘5 missions’ back in 2024), but it’s not just Labour saying this nonsense without elaboration. Perhaps because no politician wants to admit this would mean either tying ourselves more closely with the united states, or being part of the construction of a european military industrial complex.
An actual serious policy on national security would be an assessment of what threats we face, and what is needed to address them. Instead of that, on climate change, which we know is currently the biggest threat, the Westminister consensus ranges from “We need private investment to get green technology” (Reeves) to “Net Stupid Zero” (Farage et al)
IMHO we need someone who will Lead as well as Listen to the voters
Otherwise we will end up with another moral bankrupt
Putin is a convenient bogey man who can be used to frighten the public into believing we need to spend more on defence.
In reality, he is not a direct threat to the UK or most of Europe. Russia is fully stretched dealing with Ukraine and cannot attack any other country. The combined forces of NATO without the USA vastly outnumbered Russia and Putin knows it.
The present gov policy of gradually increasing defence spending over 5 years to get to 3% seems adequate in the circumstances.