The UK's '2.5% of GDP by 2027' announcement is welcome. But let's be clear. That trajectory essentially allows the MoD to maintain programmes & plug growing holes in existing force structure, rather than any dramatic change, such as backfilling for American assets in Europe. - ThreadSky

shashj.bsky.social • 2 days ago

The UK's '2.5% of GDP by 2027' announcement is welcome. But let's be clear. That trajectory essentially allows the MoD to maintain programmes & plug growing holes in existing force structure, rather than any dramatic change, such as backfilling for American assets in Europe.

Comments

southlondonboy.bsky.social•2 days ago

Disgusting - yes we need over 2.5% of GDP on defence but not at the expense of the poorest in our world. Labour should hang its head in shame.

hisbpf.bsky.social•1 day ago

So where do you find the money?

catriona62.bsky.social•2 days ago

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/how-uk-can-compete-consolidating-european-defence-industry

obsidianwalker.bsky.social•2 days ago

So basically standing still?

ockham64.bsky.social•2 days ago

Keep calm and carry on. Good luck, Europe.

nicalee.bsky.social•2 days ago

Perhaps they are banking on the growth agenda…..(and hoping inflation doesn’t work in the opposite direction…..). Well, it’s a start.

mulvihill.bsky.social•2 days ago

Would the biggest move be to accelerate armaments manufacturing?

nodataman.bsky.social•2 days ago

Not a very credible defence budget tbh. Still in la la land, unfortunately.

jamesjenner.bsky.social•2 days ago

The US budget is 3.5% and includes service personnel healthcare, which is free here of course so isn't factored in. So 2.5% by 2027 and 3% by c.2029 is actually a pretty strong commitment. The Tories were committing to 2.5% by 2030 by contrast.

nodataman.bsky.social•2 days ago

I do realize that procurement and recruitment take time, and it is not as if you can just go out there and spend.

nodataman.bsky.social•2 days ago

Good point!

mountainjack.bsky.social•2 days ago

No dramatic change. And no big rush, then.

quietlittlevoices.bsky.social•2 days ago

📌

westmanajay.bsky.social•2 days ago

We need much more more than this and quicker - we need the defence review to be credible in the new world context and that it be fully funded - difficult to see how that isn’t 3% immediately and sustained for many years

paxlusitanica.bsky.social•2 days ago

Correct. But a crucial thing is also how they use those extra funds. If they concentrate more on military cooperation with EU countries, we might be getting somewhere.

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mkrukxwnt6ps53gizohcxxu2/post/3liwawmssoc2w

shashj.bsky.social•2 days ago

More dodgy maths, too. "An extra 0.2% of GDP is around £6bn [i.e.] the cut to the aid budget. Yet [Starmer] trumpeted a £13 billion increase in defence spending...seems to make sense if one thinks the defence budget would otherwise have been frozen" https://ifs.org.uk/articles/ifs-response-defence-spending-announcement

shashj.bsky.social•2 days ago

The UK last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence nearly 20 years ago. https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/health-and-defence-shares-total-spending

adeoxymus.bsky.social•2 days ago

How much was that 2.5% of GDP from 20 years ago worth in todays terms? Is it supposed to be equivalent because we’re normalizing by gdp?

paulframe85.bsky.social•2 days ago

Nearly 30 years ago.

waywardlad.bsky.social•2 days ago

It's a bit misleading to compare defence spending with health spending. 1) the goalposts have moved. People live longer now than in 1950, and keeping them alive costs more than letting them die. 2) Apart from the Falklands, we've not had a full-scale war for 80 years, so why spend on defence?

hisbpf.bsky.social•2 days ago

Do you live in a hermit cave?

liaminldn.bsky.social•2 days ago

Defence was always the easy department to cut. We’re paying for it now in the bucket loads.

loganbryce.bsky.social•2 days ago

I'm 100% with you no this, we need to do more and creep the budget to 3% by 2027.
BUT...what are you cutting to pay for it? It's all very well complaining that it's not enough (which it isn't) but as an 'armchair serial complainer' what would you axe? What's your solution?

michael-fox.bsky.social•2 days ago

It really shows that they are not prepared to meet the moment.

rohanps.bsky.social•2 days ago

Defence spending should be cut by at least 50% as it is inherently wasteful.

yellsonpolitics.bsky.social•2 days ago

All very well, but which half?

fascinatorfun.bsky.social•2 days ago

Until the bombs drop on you

rohanps.bsky.social•1 day ago

And what bombs would those be, Fionna? Be specific.

michael-fox.bsky.social•2 days ago

Tell that to Ukraine I guess

t0nyyates.bsky.social•2 days ago

See the end of this thread: https://bsky.app/profile/benchu.bsky.social/post/3liz3msaudk2r

skyking11176.bsky.social•2 days ago

More depressing spin.

jakernory.bsky.social•2 days ago

As i was watching it i thought, the maths only makes sense if you don’t understand percentages and even then it was wrong

hisbpf.bsky.social•2 days ago

It’s only a start but a necessary start.

gnickod.bsky.social•2 days ago

Should they not do it then? Or is it the right thing to do?

witheringriposte.bsky.social•2 days ago

They need to put twice as much in.

gnickod.bsky.social•2 days ago

When, now? From where? I agree there should be more spent but it’s difficult to see where it’s coming from. Unless, of course, the tax system is hugely tweaked to be far more progressive.

witheringriposte.bsky.social•2 days ago

Some spending cuts (e.g. triple lock’s unsustainable, rip band aid off). But borrow to invest. Get European Rearmament Bank up and running. It’s not throwing cash into a black hole. Defence industry is a great employer, especially outside London. All done in lockstep w/ Fra, Ger, Pol, etc.

gnickod.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don’t fall out with any of that. I’m sure it’s being discussed. I’m pretty sure something chunky is coming down the line.

rohanps.bsky.social•2 days ago

Defence spending is inherently wasteful and should be cut by at least 50% immediately.

bartlettt5054.bsky.social•2 days ago

Cutting defence spending is great until the global situation that allowed you to be prosperous gets run over by some guy in a tank.

rohanps.bsky.social•2 days ago

Except for the fact that even with 50% lower defence spending, the military would be vast.

bartlettt5054.bsky.social•2 days ago

If you’re referring to the British one, no.

rohanps.bsky.social•1 day ago

I am, and yes.

meepmeep13.bsky.social•2 days ago

well, yes, it'd be great to live in a world without any military expenditure but we're some way from that singularity

rohanps.bsky.social•2 days ago

My statement applies today.

hermajestythequeef.bsky.social•2 days ago

Invest it all in drones for home and Ukraine.

Every country serious about defence and Ukraine should be looking to have a couple million drones ready to go.

trefeca.bsky.social•2 days ago

Stopping the rot, assuming that the MoD can achieve that, even with more ££, is at least a necessary first step.

jackserle.bsky.social•2 days ago

What impact some kind of pooled European defence fund? Presumably that would provide a nice dollop of capital but not the revenue to run the new kit?

mrusc.bsky.social•2 days ago

Is he not just preparing the ground for more, following inevitable failure of his upcoming trip to Washington? Public more likely to accept this if he's done this first and other options ruled out

hisbpf.bsky.social•1 day ago

I certainly hope there will be more. There needs to be a lot more.

jmez.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think you’re right

catriona62.bsky.social•2 days ago

Oui

virescitvv.bsky.social•1 day ago

A drop in the ocean, in other words. Hopefully this will turn out to be a holding position. Once Starmer realises that Trump can't be relied upon, reality may hit home. War bonds and/or a wealth tax take courage, but he has the majority to do it and public support too.

constantin87.bsky.social•2 days ago

In dollar terms, this would be less than $10 billion, assuming a constant GDP. I’d say that’s nothing.

annettedittert.bsky.social•2 days ago

📌

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply