Welfare versus warfare: for decades, it’s a question to which successive prime ministers have responded with one answer.

After the end of the Cold War, leaders across the West banked the so-called “peace dividend” that came with the end of this conflict between Washington and Moscow.

Instead of funding their armies, they invested in the welfare state and public services instead.

But now the tussle over this question is something that the current prime minister is grappling with, and it is shaping up to be one of the biggest challenges for Sir Keir Starmer since he got the job last year.

As Clement Attlee became the Labour prime minister credited with creating the welfare state after the end of the Second World War, so it now falls on the shoulders of the current Labour leader to create the warfare state as Europe rearms.

Be it Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, arguing last year that Europe had moved from the post-war era to the pre-war era; or European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen calling on the EU to urgently rearm Ukraine so it is a “steel porcupine” against Russian invaders; there is a consensus that the UK and Europe are on – to quote Sir Keir – a “war footing” and must spend more on defence.

To that end the prime minister has committed to increase UK defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, raiding the overseas development aid budget to do so, and has also committed, alongside other NATO allies, to spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035.

That is a huge leap in funding and a profound shift from what have been the priorities for government spending – the NHS, welfare and education – in recent decades.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Carl Emmerson said the increase, in today’s terms, would be like adding approximately £30bn to the 2027 target of spending around £75bn on core defence.

Sir Keir has been clear-eyed about the decision, arguing that the first duty of any prime minister is to keep his people safe.

But the pledge has raised the obvious questions about how those choices are funded, and whether other public services will face cuts at a time when the UK’s economic growth is sluggish and public finances are under pressure.

This, then, is one of his biggest challenges: can he make sure Britain looks after itself in a fragile world, while also sticking to his promises to deliver for the country?

It is on this that the prime minister has come unstuck over the summer, as he was forced to back down over proposed welfare cuts to the tune of £5bn at the end of this term, in the face of a huge backbench rebellion. Many of his MPs want warfare and welfare.

“There’s been a real collision in recent weeks between those two policy worlds,” explains Jim Murphy, who served both as a welfare minister under Tony Blair and shadow defence secretary under Ed Miliband.

“In welfare, how do you provide for the people who genuinely need support and who, without the state’s support, couldn’t survive? What’s the interplay between that and the unconditional strategic need to invest more in defence?

“For the government, they either get economic growth or they have a series of eye-watering choices in which there can be no compromise with the defence of the state and everything else faces very serious financial pressures.”

He added: “No Labour politician comes into politics to cut welfare, schools or other budgets. But on the basis that defence is non-negotiable, everything else, unfortunately, may face those cuts.”

While the PM sees this clearly, ask around the cabinet table and ministers will admit that the tough choices society will need to take if they genuinely want to respond to the growing threat from Russia, compounded by the unpredictability of Donald Trump, is yet to fully sink in.

There are generations of British citizens that have only ever lived in peace, that do not, like I do, remember the Cold War or The Troubles.

There are also millions of Britons struggling with the cost of living and and public satisfaction with key public services is at historic lows. That is why Labour campaigned in the election on the promise of change, to raise living standards and cut NHS waiting lists.

Ask the public, and 49% of people recognise defence spending needs to increase. But 53% don’t want it to come from other areas of public spending, while 55% are opposed to paying more tax to fund that defence increase.

There is also significant political resistance from the Labour Party.

Sir Keir’s attempts to make savings in the welfare budget have been roundly rejected by his MPs. Instead, his backbenchers are talking about more tax rises to fund public services, or even a broader rethink of Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules.

Anneliese Dodds, who quit as development minister over cuts to the overseas aid budget, wrote in her resignation letter that she had “expected [cabinet] would collectively discuss our fiscal rules and approach to taxation, as other nations are doing”, as part of a wider discussion about the changing threats.

In an interview for our Electoral Dysfunction podcast, which will be released later this summer, she expanded on this idea.

She said: “I think it’s really important to take a step back and think about what’s going to be necessary, looking 10, 20 years ahead. It looks like the world is not going to become safer, unfortunately, during that period. It’s really important that we increase defence spending.

“I think that does mean we’ve got to really carefully consider those issues about our fiscal rules and about taxation. That isn’t easy… nonetheless, I think we will have to face up to some really big issues.

“Now is the time when we need to look at what other countries are doing. We need to consider whether we have the right system in place.”

For the Labour MP, that means potentially reassessing the fiscal rules and how the fiscal watchdog assesses government spending to perhaps give the government more leeway. She also believes that the government should look again at tax rises.

She added: “We do, I believe, need to think about taxation.

“Now again, there’s no magic wand. There will be implications from any change that would be made. As I said before, we are quite highly taxing working people now, but I think there are ways in which we can look at taxation, not without implications.

“But in a world of difficult trade-offs, we’ve got to take the least worst trade-off for the long term. And that’s what I think is gonna be really important.”

Those trade-offs are going to be discussed more and more into the autumn, ahead of what is looking like an extremely difficult budget for the PM and Ms Reeves.

Not only is the chancellor now dealing with a £5bn shortfall in her accounts from the welfare reform reversal, but she is also dealing with higher-than-expected borrowing costs, fuelled by surging debt costs.

Plus, government borrowing was £3.5bn more than forecast last month, with June’s borrowing coming in at £20.7bn – the second-highest figure since records began in 1993.

Some economists are now predicting that the chancellor will have to raise taxes or cut spending by around £20bn in the budget to fill the growing black hole.

Jeremy Hunt, former Conservative chancellor and now backbencher, tells me he was “massively disappointed” that Labour blinked on welfare reform.

He said: “First of all, it’s terrible for people who are currently trapped on welfare, but secondly, because the risk is that the consequence of that, is that we get trapped in a doom loop of very higher taxes and lower growth.”

‘This group of politicians have everything harder ‘

Mr Murphy says he has sympathy for the predicament of this Labour government and the task they face.

He explained: “We were fortunate [back in the early 2000s] in that the economy was still relatively okay, and we were able to reform welfare and do really difficult reforms. This is another world.

“This group of politicians have everything harder than we had. They’ve got an economy that has been contracting, public services post-COVID in trouble, a restless public, a digital media, an American president who is at best unreliable, a Russian president.

“Back then [in the 2000s] it was inconceivable that we would fight a war with Russia. On every measure, this group of politicians have everything harder than we ever had.”

Over the summer and into the autumn, the drumbeat of tax rises will only get louder, particularly amongst a parliamentary party seemingly unwilling to back spending cuts.

But that just delays a problem unresolved, which is how a government begins to spend billions more on defence whilst also trying to maintain a welfare state and rebuild public services.

This is why the government is pinning so much hope onto economic growth as it’s escape route out of its intractable problem. Because without real economic growth to help pay for public services, the government will have to make a choice – and warfare will win out.

What is still very unclear is how Sir Keir manages to take his party and the people with him.

An inquest into the death of teenager Jay Slater is due to resume today after being adjourned two months ago.

The 19-year-old from Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, disappeared on the Spanish island of Tenerife after attending the NRG music festival on 16 June 2024.

He was reported missing and, after an extensive search and rescue mission and significant media attention, his body was found a month later on 15 July.

An inquest into the teenager’s death began in May at Preston Coroner’s Court, but was adjourned the same day, to the disappointment of Mr Slater’s mother Debbie Duncan.

Dr James Adeley, a senior coroner for Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen, made the decision after a number of witnesses who had been asked to give evidence could not be traced or were unable to attend.

After making a final effort to trace key witnesses, the inquest will now resume on 23 and 24 July. Here is all you need to know.

What happened to Jay Slater?

On 17 June 2024, just days into his first holiday without his family, Mr Slater was reported missing.

The night before, he is believed to have left his friends at the Papagayo nightclub in the resort of Playa de las Americas and made an hour-long drive to a modest Airbnb in the tiny village of Masca, with two people he had met on the holiday.

Phone data reveals Mr Slater’s last known location was the Rural de Teno park – a mountainous area popular with hikers.

The 19-year-old’s disappearance sparked a huge 29-day search effort – with emergency services, local volunteers and Mr Slater’s family combing a large mountainous area of the island searching for any trace of the teenager.

Within days, Facebook groups dedicated to the case had also been set up – with some quickly attracting hundreds of thousands of members.

The Spanish civil guard released a statement on 15 July to say they had “located the lifeless body of a young man in the Masca area after 29 days of constant search”.

What happened during the first inquest hearing?

Mr Slater’s mother Debbie Duncan, stepfather and other family members gathered at the inquest in Preston Coroner’s Court on 21 May.

Home Office pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd said Mr Slater’s injuries were “entirely consistent” with a fall from a great height and gave an official cause of death as a head injury.

“The injuries were so severe I have no doubt he would have been instantly unconscious from the moment of that blow to the head. Death could well have been instant, the injury was so severe,” Dr Shepherd said.

He said there was no suggestion that the teenager had been assaulted or restrained.

Toxicology expert Dr Stephanie Martin said traces of MDMA and MDA, commonly known as ecstasy, along with cocaine and alcohol, were also found in Mr Slater’s body.

Detective Chief Inspector Rachel Higson, from Lancashire Constabulary, told the court that messages from Mr Slater’s friends advising him to go home were found on his phone

DCI Higson said at 8.35am on 17 June, his friend Ms Law sent him a message saying: “Before it gets boiling get back to wherever you have come from.”

At 8.50am there was the last known outgoing communication from Mr Slater’s phone, a 22-second call from him to Ms Law in which he is believed to have said he had cut his leg on a cactus, he was lost in the mountains and his phone battery was on 1%.

Who are the missing witnesses?

The witnesses that the court tried to trace the first time included Bradley Geoghegan, Brandon Hodgson and Lucy Law, who were all with Mr Slater in Tenerife.

At the time of the first inquest it is believed they were not in the UK and were unable to attend.

Read more from Sky News:
How search for missing teenager captured nation’s attention
Inside the valley where Jay Slater’s body was found

The two men who were staying at the Airbnb property Mr Slater travelled to before his disappearance – Ayub Qassim and Steven Roccas – were unable to be traced, despite summonses being issued.

Mr Slater’s mother Ms Duncan told the court in May that she wanted “these people to be sat in front of us, because our son went on holiday and didn’t come back, so there’s questions we need to ask”.

Coroner Dr Adeley said he would adjourn the inquest in an effort to find the witnesses and give Ms Duncan the “answers you want”, but it remains unknown if the key witnesses will appear at the inquest on Thursday and Friday.

Off-the-shelf medical tests that promise to diagnose conditions ranging from vitamin deficiencies to cancer are lacking evidence to back up their accuracy, a study has found.

Thirty self-testing kits were purchased from a range of mainstream supermarkets, pharmacies and health and wellbeing shops by researchers from the University of Birmingham in 2023.

The kits tested for vitamin deficiency, blood cholesterol, menopause and bowel cancer. These tests are often marketed as tools for empowerment and early detection at a time when the NHS is already over-stretched.

Accuracy claims were made for 24 of these tests however, and nearly six out of 10 (14) promised 98% accuracy. However, evidence supporting these claims was largely unavailable, according to a series of papers published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

In addition, 18 of the tests (60%) were found to have errors that could lead to a wrong result. This included 11 that had problems with equipment, 10 showing issues with the sampling process and 15 that had problems with the instructions of interpretation of results.

Where information about what types of accuracy methods were available, about a third of those compared their test with another similar test – not a proper, trusted medical test.

Most of the tests also did not explain who they tested them on to provide the accuracy data.

These types of testing kits are not subject to the same stringent checks that a new medication would have to go through.

The University of Birmingham’s Professor Jon Deeks, a corresponding author of the study, said: “Our findings highlight concerns about the value of these self-tests because the instructions for use for many of them recommended seeing a doctor regardless of the test result (positive or negative).”

Can these tests cause harm?

Dr Clare Davenport, co-author of the study, said the benefit of many of these tests “is lacking”.

“This is in contrast to well-established self-tests, such as pregnancy tests,” she said.

“We are worried that consumers concerned about their health and tempted by the convenience of buying a test over the counter may be harmed if they use these tests in the wrong way.”

A false positive on such a test may lead to anxiety, unnecessary investigations and even overtreatment, while a false negative could lead to delays in treatment.

Read more:
Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency
Should kids under 7 drink slushies?

Researchers are now calling for better regulation and guidance from manufacturers, retailers and healthcare professionals to protect consumers of off-the-shelf health self-tests.

There were some limitations to the test – namely that they were bought two years ago and were not intended to be a sample of what is available across the country.

“But given what they do say about where they got the tests, I’d be surprised if they aren’t pretty much the same anywhere nowadays,” said Professor Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University.

He said the results were “scary and concerning”.

“I don’t doubt the findings of the researchers, that many of the available tests don’t make it clear who could make good use of them, how accurate the results might be, or what someone should do in the light of their results.”

‘History offers cautionary tales’

“Self-tests should not be dismissed outright though,” wrote Jessica Watson from the Centre for Academic Primary Care, and Margaret McCartney, from the University of St Andrews, in an editorial for the BMJ.

“History offers cautionary tales: when home pregnancy tests were first introduced, some doctors argued that women could not be trusted to use them.

“Clearly that is not the case.

“The use of HIV self-tests has been extensively and carefully evaluated, with decades of research, including large randomised controlled trials.”

However, they say that these examples are of tests that are “binary” with yes or no answers, and are integrated within healthcare systems, “with clear actions to be taken based on the results”.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre.