Andy Burnham doesn’t seem to realise how dangerous this world is (Image: Getty)
Our new PM is keen to spread a bit of optimism. After all the doom and gloom under Keir Starmer, I can see why. But the UK faces a string of terrifying threats right now, and his cheery Northern charm won’t defuse them on its own. Instead, he’ll have to show some grit. The dangers are multiplying and gaining strength from each other. They include Vladimir Putin, the war in Iran, an increasingly menacing China and the unknowable threat that artificial intelligence poses to humanity.
Watching Burnham sit next to Donald Trump in New York, I didn’t get the feeling he was on top of events. He looked small and nervous. Foreign secretary Ed Miliband, consigned to the corner, looked his usual wild-eyed, bonkers self. Trump enjoys humiliating foreign leaders. Luckily, Burnham got off lightly this time. His time will come.
But Burnham has never concerned himself with foreign affairs. He’d much rather talk about Manchester bus timetables, which leaves him ignoring some hellish threats. And I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I use that word. Vladimir Putin is the biggest. As Ukraine‘s drone defensive shield brings the Russian advance to a grinding halt, Puting is getting desperate, and he’s increasingly testing the rest of us.
Russian drones have violated Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale. It’s also violated the airspace of Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Norway. Russia is also pursuing hybrid warfare against European infrastructure, including cyber operations and sabotage, designed to intimidate or disrupt Western countries without triggering a conventional military response.
In April, John Healey, then defence secretary, revealed that Russian submarines have been operating around UK waters, gathering intelligence and mapping undersea cables. More than 99% of our international data traffic travels through subsea cables. Blowing them up could cause chaos.
Burnham has made the right noises about standing up for Ukraine, but Britain has to prepare for the possibility of becoming a target itself. Healey resigned in June because Starmer wouldn’t commit to increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. As chancellor, Healey is just as bad. He’s put the defence review off until next year, and the 3.5% spending target to 2035. That’s a ridiculous timetable. Putin is threatening us today.
Burnham has shown where his priorities lie. Welfare spending was £314billion when Labour entered government in 2024. It’s now forecast to rocket to £409billion by 2030. Burnham said he won’t sacrifice social security for national security. Doesn’t he realise you can’t have the first without the second?
Our armed forces are also being called upon in the Middle East. Burnham has agreed to provide an RAF Voyager aircraft to support Saudi Arabia’s defensive operations against Houthi attacks in Yemen. If that war widens, we face a horrendous energy crisis this winter.
As well as Russia and Iran, there’s Xi Jinping‘s China. It’s involved in an AI arms race with the US, yet Britain has left our critical national infrastructure wide open to China, as net zero depends on the country’s solar panels, wind-turbine components and electric-vehicle batteries, and other tech.
Given all these threats, Britain needs a government capable of defending its national interests. Instead we got Starmer, whose first big foreign policy move was to surrender the Chagos Islands, at enormous cost, while letting lawyers pursue our own veterans through the courts. Who would put their life on the line for such a country?
Chagos risks a domino effect as Argentina renews its claims over the Falklands. So what’s Miliband’s priority? Slapping sanctions on Israeli settlers on the West Bank, while presumably hoping the Israelis will continue to help us stop Islamist terror attacks on the UK. We need to rearm, and we need to get real. The world is a scary place. The more Burnham fails to defend our vital strategic interests, the scarier it all feels.
Andy Burnham Is Sleepwalking Into Disaster – Terrifying New Threat Is Looming Over Britain
Andy Burnham has been confronted with an increasingly difficult national-security challenge as Britain faces warnings over Russian aggression, cyberattacks, hostile-state interference and pressure to increase defence spending.
The language surrounding the threat has become increasingly serious. In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly as prime minister, Burnham accused Russia of mounting what he described as an “industrial-scale assault” on Britain and its allies through disinformation and cyber operations. He also announced plans for a new British centre designed to detect and disrupt hostile state information campaigns.
The developments have intensified an argument that was already dividing Westminster: how much should Britain spend on defence at a time when the government is also under pressure over the cost of living, welfare, public services and the country’s finances?
For Burnham, the challenge is particularly difficult because he has insisted that national security cannot simply be separated from social security. His opponents argue that the scale of the external threat requires much faster decisions on defence.
Russia becomes the central security concern
Russia has emerged as one of the most important elements of Britain’s security debate.
During his UN speech, Burnham said Moscow was conducting a sustained campaign involving disinformation and cyberattacks against Britain and its allies. He claimed that the Kremlin spends around £1.3 billion a year manipulating information and warned that artificial intelligence could increase the scale and sophistication of such operations.
The concern is not limited to conventional military confrontation.
Modern conflict can involve cyberattacks against infrastructure, attempts to influence democratic processes, espionage, attacks on information systems and operations designed to undermine public confidence.
That creates a different kind of security challenge for governments because the boundary between peace and conflict becomes less obvious.
Burnham’s decision to announce a new centre focused on hostile information campaigns reflects this changing environment. The proposed approach would involve identifying foreign influence operations and helping protect democratic institutions.
Britain has also worked with other countries on election security, including Moldova, where British specialists have provided assistance in response to concerns about Russian interference.
The warning over military preparedness
The argument is not purely about cyber warfare.
Former senior military figures have raised concerns about Britain’s conventional military capabilities, while politicians have debated how quickly defence spending should rise.
During Prime Minister’s Questions earlier in September, Tan Singh Dhesi, chair of the Commons Defence Select Committee, warned that Britain faced a significantly increased threat level and argued that more money needed to be invested in the armed forces.
His comments came after further Russian threats against Britain and amid uncertainty about the timetable for increasing defence expenditure.
Former senior military figures have also expressed concern.
Former security minister Admiral Lord West described the UK’s military condition as serious and argued that Britain was already operating in a “grey zone” involving cyberattacks, drones and threats to underwater infrastructure.
These comments do not mean that Britain is necessarily heading towards an imminent conventional war. They do, however, demonstrate the growing concern among some former military officials about the country’s ability to respond to a more complex security environment.
The defence-versus-welfare argument
That brings the debate directly back to Burnham’s domestic agenda.
The prime minister has argued that national security cannot come at the expense of social security. His position reflects a wider Labour argument that defence spending and domestic economic stability should not be treated as mutually exclusive.
The Conservatives, however, have attacked that approach.
Kemi Badenoch accused Burnham of “fiddling while Europe is at risk of burning” and argued that the government should reduce welfare spending to help finance stronger defence capabilities. She pointed to the growing Russian threat and argued that Britain could not postpone difficult decisions.
The Conservatives have proposed changes to housing benefit that they say could raise billions of pounds for defence.
The disagreement therefore concerns not simply the size of Britain’s military budget but the question of what government should prioritise when resources are limited.
Burnham faces pressure to maintain spending on public services while simultaneously demonstrating to allies and potential adversaries that Britain is prepared to invest in national defence.
Britain’s financial constraints
The timing makes the challenge even more complicated.
Britain is approaching the government’s October Budget while borrowing costs remain elevated and inflation has increased.
Inflation reached 3.1% in August, according to figures reported in September, creating additional pressure on households and limiting the government’s room for manoeuvre. Burnham said the increase was a concern but insisted that the government would make difficult decisions while maintaining fiscal prudence.
Government borrowing costs have also been under scrutiny.
Earlier in September, the yield on 10-year UK government bonds reached 5.29%, the highest level since 2008, amid a broader international bond sell-off. Analysts warned that higher debt-servicing costs could reduce the government’s fiscal headroom.
This matters for defence because increasing military expenditure requires money that cannot automatically be spent elsewhere.
The government can raise taxes, reduce other spending, borrow more, or attempt to generate stronger economic growth. Each option carries political and economic consequences.
A changing concept of national security
One of the most significant developments is that the definition of security itself is changing.
Traditional defence policy concentrated heavily on soldiers, aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks.
Today, governments are increasingly concerned about digital infrastructure, undersea cables, energy supplies, satellites, artificial intelligence and the information environment.
A country can be targeted without a conventional military attack.
Cyberattacks can disrupt essential services. Disinformation can exploit social divisions. Foreign interference can attempt to influence elections. Attacks on infrastructure can create economic disruption without a single conventional weapon being fired.
Burnham’s UN speech placed these issues at the centre of Britain’s international security message.
His government is therefore attempting to present national resilience as a combination of military capability, cyber defence, democratic protection and international cooperation.
The wider European threat
Britain is not facing these concerns in isolation.
European governments have also been reassessing defence policies since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Nato members have agreed to increase defence spending, while countries including Poland and France have accelerated discussions about military readiness.
Badenoch has used these developments to argue that Britain must act more quickly.
She said France and Poland were taking action in response to the Russian threat and criticised Burnham for what she regarded as insufficient urgency.
The government, meanwhile, has committed to increasing defence spending to 3.5% of national income by 2035, in line with a wider Nato commitment, while the precise path and funding remain important questions for ministers.
That timetable itself has become part of the political debate.
Critics want faster increases. The government has to balance those demands against other commitments and fiscal constraints.
The Middle East adds another complication
The security picture is further complicated by conflict in the Middle East.
The continuing war involving Iran has disrupted global energy markets and contributed to inflationary pressures in Britain. Government ministers have warned that the resulting increase in oil prices will make the October Budget more difficult.
For Burnham, this creates a difficult combination.
Higher energy prices can increase household costs, weaken consumer confidence and push inflation higher. At the same time, governments may need to increase spending on defence and national security because of international instability.
The result is pressure from several directions simultaneously.
Burnham’s response at the United Nations
Burnham has attempted to use Britain’s international position to demonstrate that the government is taking the changing threat seriously.
At the United Nations, he condemned Russian interference and reiterated Britain’s support for Ukraine. He also promoted international cooperation over artificial intelligence, arguing that emerging technology could provide major benefits but also create serious risks if governments failed to establish appropriate safeguards.
The speech was significant because it placed Britain firmly within the international discussion about the future of security.
It also allowed Burnham to present a broader definition of British power, combining diplomacy, technology, defence and democratic resilience.
Whether that approach will satisfy critics demanding faster military investment is another question.
Is Britain facing an immediate disaster?
The phrase “disaster” in the headline reflects the intensity of the political debate rather than an established forecast that Britain is heading towards catastrophe.
There are genuine and documented security concerns. Russian cyber and influence operations have become a major focus for British officials, while senior military figures have raised questions about preparedness.
But there is an important distinction between recognising an increased threat and predicting an imminent national disaster.
Britain remains a Nato member, possesses significant armed forces and intelligence capabilities, and continues to cooperate closely with European allies and the United States.
The government’s challenge is therefore one of preparedness rather than simply responding to an inevitable catastrophe.
The difficult choices ahead
Burnham’s government now faces a series of interconnected decisions.
How quickly should defence spending rise? How much should be allocated to conventional military forces compared with cyber security and intelligence? How should Britain protect critical infrastructure? How should the government finance additional defence spending without placing further pressure on households or public finances?
These questions cannot easily be separated.
The debate over welfare is also likely to continue. Badenoch argues that reductions in welfare spending could help finance defence, while Burnham has rejected the idea that social security should simply be sacrificed for national security.
The October Budget will therefore be an important test of the government’s priorities.
It will reveal how ministers intend to balance economic pressures with the growing demand for stronger national defence.
For Burnham, the central challenge is no longer simply whether Britain should spend more on security. It is how to build a credible long-term strategy while maintaining economic stability and protecting domestic living standards.
The latest warnings show that the security environment around Britain is becoming more complicated. Russia, cyber warfare, hostile information campaigns, AI-enabled threats and geopolitical instability all require greater attention.
But the evidence does not establish that Britain is sleepwalking towards inevitable disaster.
What it does demonstrate is that the government faces difficult choices, and those choices are becoming harder to postpone.