The old ‘warfare v welfare’ arguments are back – but it’s Britain’s real duty to spend on both | Frances Ryan

<p>While we need protecting from foreign enemies, slashing benefits in favour of defence will make millions less, not more, safe</p><p>As the row over the military budget grows, Keir Starmer has spent much of the past few days insisting he’s spending huge sums of taxpayer money on defence. Every single government department has made cuts to fund next month’s defence investment plan (Dip), the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/defence-secretary-dan-jarvis-uk-plan-military-spending-dip">prime minister promised</a>, resulting in “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/N-sUreoV35M">the biggest sustained increase </a>since the cold war”. On Sunday, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/cabinet-ministers-asked-to-look-for-cuts-to-fund-uk-defence-spending-increase">told the BBC</a> that cabinet ministers have been asked to look for further reductions to help fund defence.</p><p>Now squint and replace the word “defence” with “welfare”. Imagine Starmer – or any prime minister for that matter – boasting they’ve pinched cash from the NHS or schools to boost benefit payments. Indeed, swap “defence” for any sort of progressive cause – think housing, social care or net zero – and you’d be hard-pressed to picture a politician trying to save their career by pledging vast levels of spending, let alone if that spending was lifted from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).</p><p>Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/16/warfare-v-welfare-britain-spend-benefits-defence-safe">Continue reading...</a>