Cutting welfare benefits to fund defence is misguided and harmful policy
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/pollytoynbee. "A question for those desperate to cut benefits to fund defence: who exactly are you willing to impoverish? | Polly Toynbee | The Guardian." April 17, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Politicians like George Robertson want to cut welfare benefits to pay for more defence spending, but this is a bad idea. Welfare isn't actually out of control, and cutting it hurts poor people while the military wastes money on failed projects anyway.
Conclusion
Politicians should not cut welfare benefits to fund defence spending, as this would harm vulnerable people while failing to address the real problems with defence procurement
Premises
- The welfare budget is not actually 'out of control' - working-age benefits have remained flat as a proportion of GDP at 10-11%
- Previous welfare cuts (like Osborne's £15bn cuts in 2015) caused significant harm, pushing 450,000 children into poverty without achieving their full savings targets
- Current out-of-work benefits are already inadequate at £98 per week, which is the lowest among similar countries and 9% lower in real terms than 2010
- The Ministry of Defence has a catastrophic record of wasteful spending and failed procurements, including the £6bn Ajax armoured vehicle project that is eight years late
- Defence spending does not effectively spur economic growth and actually raises inflation while worsening public finances, according to the IMF
- Nearly all welfare spending reaches its intended targets, unlike defence spending which is frequently wasted on failed projects
Assumptions
- Welfare recipients deserve protection from further cuts and impoverishment
- Past performance of defence procurement predicts future waste
- Economic data from the Resolution Foundation and IMF accurately reflects spending effectiveness
- Politicians have a moral obligation to specify exactly who would be harmed by their proposed cuts