Andy Burnham insisted he will not cut 'social security' to boost defence today as he clashed with Kemi Badenoch.
Braving his second PMQs, Mr Burnham dodged giving a timetable for spending 3 per cent of GDP on the military - despite suggesting last week the level will be reached by 2030.
Pressed by the Tory leader on where he would find the extra money, Mr Burnham criticised the Opposition's suggestion of trimming housing benefit.
He said bolstering the country's defences 'cannot come at the expense of social security'.
Mr Burnham argued that the Government would not be 'forced to choose between the two'.
But Mrs Badenoch swiped that the premier had absolutely no idea how he was going to pay for the policy and needed to slash welfare.
Braving his second PMQs, Andy Burnham dodged giving a timetable for spending 3 per cent of GDP on the military - despite suggesting last week the level will be reached by 2030
Last week Mr Burnham blundered by giving a 2030 deadline for spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, something the Treasury had been careful to avoid.
Hours later No10 made clear that the position on the target was 'unchanged' from the previous refusal to say one way or another.
Chancellor John Healey has said a path will not be set out at the Budget next month, instead waiting until next year's spending review.
Mr Healey resigned as Keir Starmer's defence secretary partly in protest at the refusal to lay out a schedule for reaching 3 per cent, and then the Nato target of 3.5 per cent by 2035.
Plans set out in the Defence Investment Plan (Dip) will see spending rise to 2.7 per cent of GDP by 2027-28.
Even senior Labour MPs have warned Mr Burnham that 'vibes' will not be enough to shore up the country's military.
In the House, Mr Burnham said: 'I don't think myself that taking £4billion out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue, because that would create levels of homelessness in this country that we wouldn't have seen before – hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation.
'We do everything to support our national security, but it can't come at the expense of social security.
Pressed by Kemi Badenoch (pictured) on where he would find the extra money, Mr Burnham criticised the Opposition's suggestion of trimming housing benefit
'Having strong national security also depends upon having resilience in our communities.
'This side of the House will not be forced to choose between the two, and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5 per cent (of GDP spent on defence) by 2035 at the spending review.'
Mrs Badenoch shot back: 'It's unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He's clearing unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all of our money on welfare.'
Mr Burnham said he did want to reduce the cost of benefits, but Downing Street stressed that did not mean 'crude cuts'.