The Prime Minister sparked backlash when he expressed concerns about social welfare.
Andy Burnham was torn apart live on air after explosive Prime Minister’s Questions revelation (Image: Ian Davidson/SOPA Images/Shutterstock)
Andy Burnham suffered another major blow live on air as a GB News guest tore him to shreds following his recent weekly round of Prime Minister’s Questions. On Wednesday (September 9), the Labour leader made an astonishing admission: he was serious about national security, but it “cannot come at the expense of social security.” The comment led to the Labour party being described as the “welfare party”, with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch warning that failing to invest in Britain’s Armed Forces could have catastrophic consequences.
Reviewing the politician’s controversial comments, GB News presenters Ellie Costello and Stephen Dixon welcomed former Conservative MP Anna Firth onto the show to react to the news online. As the panel went through the headlines, the guest issued a stern warning live on air and in four words stated it’ll “come back to haunt him”.
She began: “This moment is going to come back to haunt the Prime Minister because he actually said yesterday, live in PMQs, the words: ‘National security can’t come at the expense of social security’. That is exactly what the Mail has put, it’s not spin, those are exactly the words he said, and, of course, the exact opposite is the case.
“We cannot fund our defence forces unless we cut security. By the end of this decade, the security budget is going to have gone up by the whole defence budget. That’s just the rise in the security budget.
“So, unless we get welfare under control, we can’t fund defence and defending the realm is the very first duty of any Government. This Prime Minister is showing us all that not only does he not understand that, but he’s not actually going to defend our country.”
It didn’t take long for viewers to flock to the comments section to voice their concerns online. One user penned: “Total fool, so far out of his depth, the country is suffering because of it. Election time…”
Another agreed: “Why should protecting Britain mean making life harder for the people you’re supposedly protecting? Fund defence and properly AND protect vulnerable people. It shouldn’t be either/or.”
A third chimed in with: “Without adequate defence protection and investment for the same, the UK is highly vulnerable and without good defence, welfare is irrelevant because we’d be blown to smithereens, or ‘cinders’ as Denis Healey said.”