Prime Minister Keir Starmer suggested that his successor, widely expected to be Andy Burnham, should borrow billions to fill a £4.7 billion gap in the Defence Investment Plan. Starmer made the comment during Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday after Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch criticized the government's defence spending as insufficient.

Starmer rejected Badenoch's attack, saying he would "take no lectures from Tories" on defence investment. His suggestion that Burnham borrow to cover the shortfall prompted pushback from economists, who warned that such borrowing would severely constrain the next prime minister's flexibility within established fiscal rules.

The exchange reflects a broader Labour Party dispute over defence spending priorities. The Defence Investment Plan currently allocates resources at levels the government framed as a historical commitment, but critics argue Britain needs to spend more to meet NATO obligations and counter growing security threats from Russia and other adversaries.

Starmer's willingness to suggest his successor take on additional debt signals Labour's determination to avoid appearing weak on defence, a persistent vulnerability for the party in electoral politics. By pivoting the fiscal burden to the next administration, Starmer positioned himself as committed to defence while deflecting near-term budget consequences.

Badenoch's challenge underscores Conservative efforts to reclaim defence credibility after years of their own spending constraints during austerity. The Tory leader argued that current plans fall short of what Britain requires to maintain its military edge and alliance commitments.

The fiscal mechanics matter significantly. Borrowing additional billions would consume fiscal headroom that future prime ministers typically preserve for responding to economic crises, funding public services, or addressing unexpected spending demands. Economists noted this trade-off reduces future policy flexibility.

The disagreement highlights how defence spending has become a test of political strength for both major parties, with neither willing to accept criticism as soft on