Kemi Badenoch, a senior Conservative politician, has yet to fully challenge Andy Burnham, the new Prime Minister, on key issues such as defence and welfare spending. In a recent speech, she outlined her party's plan to increase defence spending, funded by reducing welfare budgets. However, she has not yet successfully positioned herself as a clear alternative to Burnham. While Badenoch is right to point out that Burnham's policies are not yet fully detailed, their initial debates in the House of Commons revealed more agreement than she admitted. Both agree that Britain needs to increase its defence spending and reduce welfare spending, though they differ on the specifics. Burnham acknowledged the need for stronger military investment, but he also criticized the previous Conservative government, of which Badenoch was a member, for weakening the armed forces. On welfare, Burnham emphasized a more positive approach, stating he wants to "invest in young people's success" rather than "pay for failure." He also reaffirmed his commitment to "fiscal rules," which means maintaining sustainable public finances, a phrase he once used to describe the constraints of government spending. At the highest level, both agree on the need to balance spending within fiscal limits. However, key differences remain, particularly regarding the Conservatives' goal to spend 3% of national income on defence by 2030. This was a policy supported by former Defence Secretary John Healey, who resigned in June over disagreements. Now, as Chancellor, Healey has delayed a decision on whether to support the same goal. Burnham caused some confusion during Prime Minister’s Questions when he seemed to commit to the 3% target, only for a spokesperson to later clarify he meant a different commitment under NATO’s 3.5% target by 2035. There is a broad consensus across major parties, including Labour, the Conservatives, and Reform UK, that Britain must increase its defence spending. However, there is less agreement on how to fund it. Badenoch's recent speech proposed an additional £10bn a year from welfare cuts, on top of a previously announced £23bn. However, this figure is considered unreliable, and the total of £33bn a year would likely lead to increased hardship for vulnerable people. Reform UK's plans, which include cutting £100bn a year in public spending, are seen as unrealistic and disconnected from current economic realities. Burnham faces the challenge of addressing public sentiment that some welfare spending is unjustified and that taxes on businesses should not rise further. This means he and Chancellor John Healey must present a credible plan to control welfare spending in the upcoming Budget. If direct cuts are too politically difficult, they could focus on areas like disability benefits and the state pension triple lock, which have seen significant growth. A balanced approach would be to preserve the pension’s value relative to average incomes rather than allowing it to take an ever-growing share of the national budget. Badenoch has begun to criticize Burnham as a "people-pleaser," a label that applies to many politicians. However, the distinction lies in whether a leader tells people what they want to hear or what they need to hear. Burnham has yet to prove he belongs to the latter category. How he manages public finances in the upcoming Budget will be a crucial test of his leadership.