National Security v’s Social Security - the politics that Defence does not need

At PMQs yesterday the Prime Minister stated - "We do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security."
 
It is easy to react emotively (and perhaps justifiably so…) but this is not a government saying defence won't be funded.  The commitment to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 was restated and Badenoch's suggestion of paying for it by taking £4 billion out of housing benefit was rejected.  Defence should still be funded, but not at the expense of the welfare budget.  However, this has now become very political very quickly.
 
Put the pound notes to one side though and the position is still revealing as it states the order of priorities explicitly.  Welfare is the immovable object and defence spending is expected to find its path around it.
 
There were multiple (deliberate) references to Private Capital throughout the Defence Investment Plan. The language was not of procurement but of industrial policy.  Private capital was asked to close the gap between what the Strategic Defence Review set out to achieve and what HM Treasury was willing to put on the balance sheet.  The SDR cannot and will not be fully delivered from the public purse alone.  Step forward, private capital.
 
Well… that was until social welfare was prioritised ahead of defence.  Private capital doesn't need much of an excuse to sit on its hands, and "there are other priorities" is a very good reason to stay cautious.
 
We'll put this down to a political blunder.  The statement may be the government's true belief but the manner in which it was delivered was, to be polite, a hiccup.  We don't want to debate politics so openly, but this was a poor response.  The Defence sector desperately needs more support and this was untimely.