Is social security a bigger priority than national security?
The UK welfare budget is projected to reach 11.1% of GDP by 2030 while defence spending is set to rise to 2.7% of GDP next year under the Defence Investment Plan, with a longer-term target of 3.5% by 2035. Prime Minister Andy Burnham stated at PMQs on 9 September 2026 that national security cannot come at the expense of social security and rejected using housing benefit reforms to fund extra defence. The opposition Conservatives argue for faster defence increases funded partly by welfare savings amid rising global threats.
34 Opinions
It would be farcical to have welfare now but not have a country to spend it in. Can you imagine putin taking over and looking after all of you ! . Country first. Without it you have nothing
Well we certainly need both but what baffles me is the incompetence of the government and their ridiculous policies. The only option is to reduce foreign aid and stop this net zero scam so the funds will be made available to build up Britains defences because at the moment Britain is embarrassing and weak on the military stage.
No national security, no social security.
As has been noted, it's not a simple case of money from one pot to another. Defence spending needs to increase, they're is no doubt about this however there are many mechanisms available to allocate the funds for this.
The premise of this question is floored as it cannot be a simple binary answer. Security of the population is the first priority of a government and this includes a whole range of provision be it defence, policing, health and safety, social, health and wellbeing. The real question is what is the balance between these often competing priorities and a simple yes or no answer cannot adequately explore such a complex problem.
If we don’t prioritise looking after the most vulnerable in our society, then what are we really protecting? As has been said by others, this is not a simple zero-sum equation, so the question presents a false dichotomy. There are any number of other areas where money could be diverted to national defence. This isn’t all about benefits, no matter how much some people would like it to be.
NO but also YES Without one there's no need for the other. We need to remember social security isn't just about the usual benefits those who don't like helping the less fortune keep on about. It's also pensions & knowing you'll be looked after once you come out of hospital for example. Maybe we just need to rethink how we spend our buck on defence, if we got rid of the 'Nukes' we'll never use, that'd nearly double the money we could spend on our conventional defense forces
A nation is defined by having borders and the ability to defend them. Without that, everything falls.
Those arguing that this question is a false dichotomy may have a point, all the questions do. However, should the out of control spending on social services be reigned in? Yes. Would that free cash to spend on defence? Yes. Do we need to spend more money on defence? Yes. And a lot more. Poorly worded, but not a false dichotomy.
The question as written is nonsense - it's an entirely false dichotomy. This seems to be in reference to whether we should cut social security in order to funds defence spending increases, but that would give entirely inverse answers. I strongly urge whoever is running this place to think more carefully about how to write questions and to exclude all answers to this one from any data set.