Precisely. Today's defence announcement is a classic case. We face a major threat, and we can no longer rely on our most important ally. But spending can only creep incrementally upwards for fear of upsetting the Treasury gods. And we have to sacrifice the aid budget to placate them.
Reposted from
Helene von Bismarck
I don‘t mean to be harsh, but I really think that a fundamental problem of UK Governance is that the entire debate surrounding it is focused on what is *politically feasible* in the short term and not on which issues/ threats need to be addressed, and fast.
Your logic relies on a vanishing world.
Your logic relies on a vanishing world.
Comments
It's a political decision whether to spend, tax or borrow. Or, if the framework isn't to politicians' liking, to reform it and deal with the consequences.
If politicians decide they want to do something, Treasury will implement, c.f. Truss.
(I'm not disputing the *difficulty* of moving on btw, but I think the *necessity* to do so is clear).
The framing was all 'the threat of Putin'. 1/2
I just hope that context informs the decisions about what to prioritise. 2/2
the same UK that promised they "would win hearts & minds"?
just to be clear Phil.
"US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear to Nato to 5 Eyes, Aukus, & beyond.
So this week when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength."
With four years to run with a massive majority, this week was a week to reset, but sadly not !
I mean, the oligarchs need to be dealt with for sure
But don’t tie facing Musk down to the wealthy
Show the world that the wealthy rely on governments. Not the other way around
Anyway, that’s how I think
Less opportunity for 'state hopping'
I think the USA is going to get very messy, and a lot of the wealthy will not wish to go to a state where state graft is policy
Euro Bonds would attract a lot of safe asset seekers
1) there has not been a 50% revenue incr in 2yrs;
2) aid target is %GNI not %GDP;
3) what is "aid"?
4) real or nominal?
5) napkin math says c. £5-6bn cut.
Could have been spent on the Armed Forces..
Thanks #Brexiteers
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/uk-economy-disaster-degrowth-brexit/671847/
This one will cost over £500 billion by 2035
#UK citizens were stripped of their liberties
#Brexit is a fools paradise
#RejoinEU #FBPE
Available on Amazon, for politicians who are missing theirs.
Without that it would fall apart within a few years.
Which means the US can credibly say ‘nice nuclear capability you got there. Shame if it fell apart’
Trump of all people would surely understand that we don't need to pay for something we cannot use?
Not that my diagnosis changes the facts.
TAX THEM!!!
If there was ever a time to tell the Treasury to go do one … it’s now.
If Opposition said "this is an exceptional case and we will back extra tax-raising", it could be done.
If you are spending 100% of the money you have, how do you spend more on defence without reducing what you spend elsewhere?